The New York Times - USA (2020-10-26)

THE NEW YORK TIMES OP-EDMONDAY, OCTOBER 26, 2020 N A23

A

FTER a summer of protests over

the killing of George Floyd

broadened into a wider reckon-

ing on racial injustice, corpo-

rate America and the political establish-

ment unleashed a flurry of promises to

combat systemic racism. Diversity ini-

tiatives have been launched; high-pro-

file companies in several sectors have

settled on the advancement of a few peo-

ple of color in their hierarchies.

It’s clear that these actions, while pos-

itive steps, so far mostly concern an elite

stratum. They are no substitute for dis-

mantling structural racism in the econ-

omy. Recent American history, however,

provides an apt lesson about which pub-

lic policies are effective at reducing

deep-rooted inequalities.

Our new research shows that Con-

gress’s decision in 1966 to both raise the

minimum wage and expand it to workers

in previously unprotected industries led

to a significant drop in earnings inequal-

ity between Black and white Americans

— a reduction of more than 20 percent.

The findings suggest that raising and

expanding the minimum wage could

once again reduce the persistent earn-

ings divide between white workers and

Black, Hispanic and Native American

workers. Though legislation to raise the

wage floor would be a universal program

in name and application, in practice it

would be a remarkably effective tool for

racial justice.

As with other major pieces of 20th-

century progressive legislation, the cost

of gaining Southern Democratic votes in

1938 for the federal minimum wage was a

racist compromise: in this case, the ex-

clusion of certain industries because of

their high concentrations of Black work-

ers, especially in the South.

Though it’s a fact that is often skipped

over in popular histories, civil rights

leaders who organized the famous

March on Washington for Jobs and Free-

dom in 1963 demanded an increase in the

minimum wage and one that applied to

all employment. Modest but meaningful

increases were eventually passed, and

the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1966 also

extended coverage to some of the ex-

cluded industries: nursing homes, laun-

dries, hotels, restaurants, schools, hospi-

tals and agriculture.

In 1967, the newly covered sectors em-

ployed about eight million workers ages

25 to 55, or about 21 percent of the U.S.

prime-age work force. And, crucially,

nearly one-third of Black workers were

employed in these sectors.

White workers greatly benefited from

the 1966 law; Black workers gained even

more. In addition to being overrepre-

sented in the newly covered industries,

Black workers earned less on average in

these industries than their white coun-

terparts. So the earnings increase

caused by the reform was 10 percent on

average for Black workers in the newly

covered industries, twice as much as that

for white workers.

Based on our analysis, we estimate

that the minimum wage increase was re-

sponsible for approximately 20 percent

of the reduction in the earnings gap be-

tween Black and white workers between

1967 and 1980.

Economists who study gains in racial

equality during that era have mostly

credited improved educational outcomes

for Black students (in terms of both num-

ber of years of school and quality of edu-

cation) and the Civil Rights Act of 1964,

which banned explicit job discrimina-

tion. But it’s clear now that the 1966 min-

imum wage reform also made a signifi-

cant contribution.

When the March on Washington took

place in 1963, Black workers in the

United States earned on average 59

cents for every dollar earned by the aver-

age white worker. Today, Black workers

in the United States earn on average 78

cents for every dollar earned by average

white workers — a notable improve-

ment. But this ratio has remained essen-

tially unchanged since about 1980.

In one respect, this stagnation is a

gloomy affirmation of Black families’

continued frustration with an economy

stacked against them, four decades on.

Yet it also indicates that raising and ex-

panding the minimum wage today could

be central to making progress again.

The coronavirus pandemic has ex-

posed the economic perils still faced by

Black, Hispanic and Native American

workers as a result of their dispropor-

tionate employment in low-wage sectors

of the labor market — jobs that while

deemed invaluable “essential work” dur-

ing this crisis often don’t pay a living

wage. Making the minimum wage a liv-

ing wage would match politicians’ rheto-

ric with actual public policy and would go

a long way in making the lives of people

of color materially better.

Opponents of minimum wage in-

creases assert that they, for one thing, re-

duce the number of jobs available to low-

income workers. However, numerous

studies of minimum wage increases

across historical contexts and countries

indicate that even when the minimum

wage is large with respect to prior medi-

an earnings, negative effects on employ-

ment tend to be limited.

Our research suggests the next Con-

gress could raise the federal minimum

wage substantially, reducing racial in-

equality without doing harm to the

broader market.

Congress, as well as governors and

state legislatures, could also expand the

minimum wage to cover the millions of

workers whose sectors continue to be ex-

cluded from it. Establishing federal, state

or local minimum wage thresholds for in-

dependent contractors, for example,

would lift the often paltry take-home pay

workers receive in the gig economy,

where Black workers and other workers

of color are overrepresented. California

is in the midst of such a fight — and fac-

ing opposition from many powerful tech

giants.

Ending what’s known as the sub-min-

imum wage for tipped workers is an-

other opportunity to level the playing

field. Despite some improved state laws,

employers of tipped workers are re-

quired by federal law to pay a mere $2.13

an hour. Not only is this exemption a di-

rect legacy of efforts to economically

hobble freed people after slavery; it also

continues to have an outsize effect on fe-

male Black and Hispanic workers.

Tipped workers overall are twice as

likely to live in poverty as the general

work force. And tipped workers of color

in the restaurant industry are twice as

likely to live in poverty as their white

counterparts.

It is no coincidence that civil rights

leaders in 1963 singled out the minimum

wage as a critical tool for racial justice,

and their demands are just as salient to-

day. The federal minimum wage has not

been raised since it went to $7.25 an hour

in 2009. And inflation has reduced its val-

ue by nearly one-third from its highest

real value, in 1968.

If America’s contemporary leaders are

serious about reducing racial inequality,

they must push for simple, bold meas-

ures, such as doubling the federal min-

imum wage. Otherwise, the country may

miss an opportunity, after the largest

protests for racial equality in U.S. his-

tory, to improve the lives of millions of

people of color. 0

Raise the Minimum Wage

RICHARD VOGEL/ASSOCIATED PRESS

ELLORA DERENONCOURTand CLAIRE

MONTIALOUXare economists at the Uni-

versity of California, Berkeley.

Ellora Derenoncourt

Claire Montialoux

A large wage increase

that would most benefit

the Black working class.

T

HESwedes gave the world the

concept of “smorgasbord,” a cele-

bratory buffet meal featuring a

variety of hot and cold dishes. But

it was the Brazilians who elevated this

gastronomic mishmash to a new level. By

adding a singular touch of inventiveness,

recurrence and chaos, they gave the world

something special: the “quilo” restaurant.

Such restaurants may look familiar —

in form and method, they’re perhaps not

too far from a cafeteria, Korean deli or sal-

ad bar. But they are deeply expressive of a

specifically Brazilian approach to food:

communal, yet with full rein for individual

creativity; workaday, yet luxuriously var-

ied. And very, very delicious.

They amount to a vital tradition at the

heart — and in the stomach — of the coun-

try’s culinary culture. Now the pandemic,

which has wreaked terrible havoc on

Brazil, threatens to disrupt and perhaps

destroy them.

As soon as customers walk into a quilo

restaurant, the magic starts. They aren’t

ushered to a fancy table by a waiter —

they pick up their plates from a pile and

enter a line. Then they serve themselves

from an extensive array of dishes, includ-

ing (but not limited to) soup, rice, beans,

eggs, steak, pork, seafood stew, shrimp

bobó, lasagna, pizza, yakisoba, kebabs,

grilled cheese, crab-stuffed shells, sfihas,

tabbouleh, quiches, ceviches, barbecue

and sushi. They top their plates with a

slice of mango or a proud piece of water-

melon and go to the scales. That’s when

they find out how much they’re going to

pay.

While the original Swedish smorgas-

bord is a celebratory meal with formal

rules of etiquette, quilo restaurants are

part of everyday life. Inexpensive and

found on street corners all over the coun-

try, they serve home-style meals for work-

ers on a short lunch break. They typically

charge around $10 per kilogram (that’s

why they’re called “quilo” — “kilo” in Eng-

lish), or 35 ounces, and they are often open

only for a quick lunch.

But that doesn’t mean that there are no

rules. You can’t jump the line or use the

spoon for the shrimp to scoop up the

mashed potatoes. (Not nice, really.) And it

is not considered polite to disrupt the

progress of the line in order to go back and

pick up more quail eggs.

Apart from that, there’s no gastronomic

judgment. Everything is permitted.

At least it was — before the pandemic.

There was a time when co-workers went

to a quilo restaurant and chatted over the

chafing dishes, picking at the food with a

spoon and airing lots of talk about the nu-

tritional value of broccoli. Everybody

gave their opinion about it, saliva droplets

and all. On their plates, you could marvel

at the combination of papaya with sushi,

coated in a full-bodied sauce of measles

morbillivirus and Streptococcus pneumo-

niae bacteria. Or a good strain of the H1N1

virus perfectly paired with beef Bourgui-

gnon. It was all part of the game.

“There is a Brazilian tradition of eating

directly from the pots on the stove,” Mary

Del Priore, a historian, recently told Veja

magazine. “Quilo restaurants refer ex-

actly to that.” People gladly used the uten-

sils that dozens of others had used before.

They laid a spoonful of stew on their plate,

then changed their mind and put it back.

The feijoada would remain out on the

counter, exposed and disordered, open to

all.

Not anymore. Now in many quilo

restaurants, an employee must serve the

clients — killing all the joy of jumbling

food together in an open buffet. In other

restaurants, customers can serve them-

selves, but only if they wear plastic gloves,

lending the activity a tasteless, antiseptic

feel. They must also socially distance in

the line and under no circumstances share

a table with strangers. A rich, hectic at-

mosphere has been replaced with some-

thing transactional and detached.

Many quilo restaurants have started to

limit their offerings. Diners cannot choose

anymore from 20 kinds of salad, 25 hot

dishes, three types of raw fish and 10 des-

serts — as if the food counter were a gas-

tronomic reflection of Brazil’s social and

ethnic diversity. (Sashimi with spaghetti,

falafel with paella, empanadas with sar-

dines... you get the idea.) Now we’re as

homogeneous as can be.

And it gets worse: Many quilo restau-

rants are slowly transitioning to offering

only regular, à la carte meals. That’s terri-

ble news for vegans and vegetarians, who

will be unable to set up a nutritious, col-

orful plate with only rice, grains and vege-

tables.

Some things need to change if our be-

loved quilo restaurants are not to become

superspreader locations. People’s lives, in

a country where over 150,000 have al-

ready been lost to the virus, are more im-

portant than immersive buffet experi-

ences.

I know, I know. But I’m going to miss my

meal of rice and beans with spiced egg-

plant Parmesan, creamed corn, cabbage,

cucumber, deep-fried cassava and a slice

of pineapple to top it off. For a people who

have never been stopped, not even by

their indigestion, it is a sad fate. 0

Sashimi With Spaghetti? Yes, Please.

VANESSA BARBARAis the editor of the

literary website A Hortaliça, and a con-

tributing opinion writer.

The pandemic threatens

to destroy Brazil’s “quilo”

restaurants.

Vanessa Barbara

SÃO PAULO, BRAZIL

KYLE PLATTS

THIS ELECTION WILL TESTthe country’s
core.
Who are we? How did we come to this?
How did this country elect Donald
Trump and does it have the collective
constitution to admit the error and re-
verse it?
At the moment, Joe Biden is leading in
the polls, but the fact that Trump is even
close — and still has a chance, however
slim, to be re-elected — is for a person
like me, a Black man, astounding. I as-
sume that there are many women, Mus-
lims, immigrants, Mexicans and people
from Haiti and African nations he dispar-
aged who feel the same way.
Trump is the president of the United
States because a majority of white peo-
ple in this country wanted him to be. Per-
haps some supported him despite his ob-
vious flaws, but others undoubtedly saw
those flaws as laudable attributes. For
the latter, Trump’s racism was welcome
in the coven.
Still, according to the latest Quinnipiac
poll, more white people support Trump
than Biden. This is primarily a function
of white men who prefer Trump over Bi-
den 57 percent to 36 percent. Most white
women support Biden, which is a rever-
sal from the last election, when a plural-
ity voted for Trump.
The white racist, sexist, xenophobic
patriarchy and all those who benefit
from or aspire to it are in a battle with the
rest of us, for not only the present in this
country but also the future of it.
The Republican Party, which is now
without question the Party of Trump,
has become a structural reflection of
him. They see their majorities slipping
and the country turning brown with a
quickness, and they are becoming more
tribal, more rash, more devious, just like
him.
Like Trump, the Republican Party
sees a future in which the only way they
can win is to cheat. That is why they are
stacking the courts. That is why they
openly embrace tactics that are well
known to result in voter suppression.
That is why they gerrymander. That is
why they staunchly oppose immigra-
tion.
Trump’s base of mostly white men,
mostly without a college degree, see

him as the ambassador of their anger,
one who ministers to their fear, consoles
their losses and champions their victim-
hood.
Trump is the angry white man lead-
ing the battle charge for angry white
men.
The most optimistic among us see the
Trump era as some sort of momentary
insanity, half of the nation under the
spell of a conjurer. They believe that the
country can be reunited and this period
forgotten.
I am not one of those people. I believe
what political scientist Thomas Schaller
told Bloomberg columnist Francis
Wilkinson in 2018: “I think we’re at the
beginning of a soft civil war.” If 2018 was
the beginning of it, it is now well under-
way.
Trump is building an army of the ag-
grieved in plain sight.
It is an army with its own mercenar-
ies, people Trump doesn’t have to per-
sonally direct, but ones he has abso-
lutely refused to condemn.
When it comes to the former Ku Klux
Klan leader David Duke, the young neo-
Nazis who marched in Charlottesville
and the far-right fight club the Proud
Boys, Trump finds a way to avoid a full-
throated condemnation, often feigning
ignorance.
“I don’t know anything about David
Duke,” Trump said when he ran in 2016.
That of course was a lie. In fact, Trump
is heir to Duke’s legacy.
In 1991, when Duke ran unsuccess-
fully to be governor of Louisiana but re-
ceived a majority of the white vote in
the state, Trump told CNN’s Larry King,
“I hate seeing what it represents, but I
guess it just shows there’s a lot of hostil-
ity in this country. There’s a tremendous
amount of hostility in the United States.”
King responded, “Anger?”
Then Trump explained: “It’s anger. I
mean, that’s an anger vote. People are
angry about what’s happened. People
are angry about the jobs.”
It is that very anger that Trump har-
nessed to win the presidency: anger
over racial displacement disguised as
economic anxiety.
Trump has bottled defiance and sold
the serum to his acolytes and hench-
men. He is fighting for white power and
white heritage — he mourns the loss of
“beautiful” monuments to racists while
attacking racial sensitivity training.
He is fighting to keep out foreigners,
unless they are from countries like Nor-
way, an overwhelmingly white country.
He is fighting for people to be foolish,
like not wearing a mask in the middle of
a global pandemic caused by an air-
borne virus.
Trump is fighting for these people and
they will continue to fight for him.
Trump knows that. And he keeps them
angry because he needs them angry.
There is a strong chance that Trump
won’t win the coming election, but there
is also a strong chance that he will win a
majority of white men.
The question then is how an angry
Trump and those angry men will react
to defeat and humiliation. 0

CHARLES M. BLOW

Trump’s Army

Of Angry

White Men

This group will continue

to fight for Trump and

he knows that.

.