A Poll That Should Stop America in Its Tracks

A recent headline reported by Reuters, citing data from Ipsos, claimed that one-third of Americans support U.S. strikes on Venezuela. Read that again. One-third of Americans. At first glance, it sounds authoritative. It sounds definitive. It sounds like “the people have spoken.” But here’s the uncomfortable truth: most Americans never spoke at all.

Let’s Do the Math They Don’t Want You to Do

The estimated population of the United States today is approximately 335 million people. If one-third of Americans support military strikes, that would mean roughly: 111–112 million Americans

In theory, that sounds reasonable.

We see this most clearly in presidential approval polls. One widely cited example: a national poll surveying 1,248 U.S. adults reported Donald Trump with a 42% approval rating.

• The sample is “weighted”
• Demographics are “balanced”
• Margins of error are “acceptable”

But here’s the truth no pollster advertises: A sample can be statistically valid and still socially disconnected from reality. Because the real issue isn’t math. It’s access.

• Polling today relies heavily on:
• Landlines (yes, still)
• Online panels
• Opt-in survey participants
• People who want to answer polls

That alone eliminates:

• Millions of working-class Americans
• People working multiple jobs
• People without stable internet
• People who distrust media or institutions
• People who simply don’t have time to “participate”

In other words, everyday Americans.

So when we hear that 1,248 people answered a poll, it doesn’t sound like America.

If one-third of Americans truly support bombing Venezuela, why aren’t Americans voting on it?

• Polls claim to represent you
• But you are never asked
• Polls influence policy
• But policy affects your life
• Polls justify action
• But you never voted for it

A Question Every American Should Be Asking

So we ask plainly:

If Americans are supposedly voting in these polls, where is our ballot?

Opinion: $15–$17 Isn’t Enough — America Needs a Living Wage Built for 2026

As Americans prepare to welcome another year of incremental wage increases in 2025, a glossy political narrative has taken hold: we’re making progress for working families. Across the nation, a record number of states, cities and counties are scheduled to lift their minimum wage floors many to $15 per hour and a significant number to $17 or more.

According to new analysis from the National Employment Law Project, a historic 88 jurisdictions, including 23 states and 65 cities and counties, will raise their minimum wage floors by the end of 2025. Of those, 70 jurisdictions will reach or exceed $15 hourly and 53 will reach or exceed $17.

But the celebratory tone of this progress report obscures a harsher truth: for most American workers, even $17 an hour remains a wage of survival rather than dignity in a modern economy defined by rapidly escalating costs of living. If policymakers truly intend to stabilize families, fuel consumer demand, and shore up economic resilience, the minimum wage must be reimagined beyond symbolic benchmarks.

The current trajectory $15, $16, or even $17 is still well below what Americans need to thrive in most metropolitan labor markets and is dangerously detached from both the reality of inflation and the logic of capitalism that prizes productivity and consumer spending alike. In 2025, numerous jurisdictions are rightly responding to decades of federal inaction the federal minimum wage, frozen at $7.25 since 2009, has long failed to reflect the cost of basic needs.

But simply reaching $15 or $17 in dozens of cities and states does not solve the deep structural problem of low pay. The realities of modern life spiraling housing costs, utility bills, health care expenses, transportation, and everyday goods have made these levels of compensation painfully inadequate.

Advertisement

Take housing, arguably the most unforgiving line item in a worker’s budget. Between 2019 and 2025, median rents in many urban centers have increased faster than average wages, pushing millions into precarious housing situations. In cities like San Francisco, New York or Miami, earning $17 hourly roughly $34,000 annually for a full-time worker places a household below the threshold for housing affordability by any mainstream definition.

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development considers 30% of income spent on rent as a benchmark for affordability; under an annual income of $34,000, even modest rents can consume more than half of take-home pay before food, utilities, transportation or child care are factored in. The result is the very insecurity that wage policy makers claim to be fighting against.

The deeply flawed assumption underlying current wage policy is that a one-size-fits-all figure, even if set at $17, can universally meet the diverse realities of American households. It cannot. This is not a matter of political ideology alone; it is economic arithmetic. Consider a married couple where both adults work full time at a $17 minimum wage. Together, their gross monthly income would be about $5,888 before taxes. After deductions, they are likely to net closer to $4,600.

In most urban markets, this leaves little buffer for rent, child care, healthcare coverage, transportation, and emergency expenses. In contrast, a combined monthly income of $7,040 corresponding to an hourly wage around $22 each begins to cover these essentials with breathing room. Such a wage better aligns with what families actually need to avoid debt, build savings, and participate in the broader economy as consumers rather than perpetual survivalists.

The policy framework I propose is simple and capitalistically rational: raise the minimum wage to $22 per hour nationwide, but structure the implementation so that businesses shoulder a baseline $16 per hour, while the federal government subsidizes the additional $6 per hour for working adults. This hybrid model accomplishes three critical objectives. First, it gives workers living wages that reflect contemporary economic realities.

Second, it protects small and medium enterprises from unsustainable labor cost burdens that could otherwise lead to layoffs or business closures. Third, it embeds wage support within a broader federal economic strategy to stimulate aggregate demand a proven growth engine in capitalist systems.

Critics of raising the minimum wage often paint it as a threat to businesses, particularly small ones. But left unaddressed, the reality is that stagnant wages are just as damaging to the economy because they suppress consumer spending, weaken worker morale, and deepen reliance on social safety nets. A worker who earns more has more to spend at local businesses, thereby stimulating demand that creates new jobs and expands markets.

This dynamic has been observed in cities that adopted higher wage floors, where increased earnings often correlate with increased spending in local retail and service sectors, supporting the broader economy rather than damaging it. Yet if wage increases remain too modest compared to costs, the consumer economy remains perpetually constrained.

An astute reader might note that several federal bills have been introduced to raise the minimum wage to $17 by 2030, such as the proposed Raise the Wage Act which would boost federal compensation to $17 over the next few years. Economists at the Economic

Policy Institute estimate that such a raise could deliver an additional $70 billion annually in wages nationwide, boosting incomes for millions of workers. But while such legislation is morally and economically defensible, it falls short of what the American economy realistically demands today and it advances at a pace misaligned with urgent economic pressures faced by families.

History shows that Congress can act with alacrity when convinced of urgency. The swift passage of pandemic relief bills in 2020 and 2021 legislation that delivered stimulus checks, unemployment boosts, and extensive business support within months demonstrated that legislative bodies can accelerate when political will aligns with public need. A minimum wage increase recalibrated in this era of inflation and cost escalation deserves similar urgency and scale.

Yet even as some states and cities incrementally raise their wage floors, stark disparities persist. Dozens of states still cling to the federal minimum or only slightly above it, leaving millions behind. In 2026 alone, 20 states will keep their minimum wages at the federal floor of $7.25 per hour, according to recent reporting, while others have no mechanisms to adjust wages for inflation.

This patchwork of wage policies not only deepens regional inequities but also undercuts national economic coordination. Workers in metropolitan centers like New York or Seattle face a vastly different economic landscape than peers in rural Mississippi or Oklahoma. Yet the expense of basic needs such as housing, food, transportation, and healthcare has risen everywhere. Abstract averages obscure the hardship of those caught in the gaps between wage policy and lived cost realities.

A $22 national minimum wage with federal supplementation paired with business contribution acknowledges regional diversity while ensuring baseline economic dignity. It also reframes wage policy away from partisan rhetoric and toward measurable, sustainable human capital investment. When workers are paid enough to live without constant financial juggling, they are healthier, more productive, and more likely to invest in education, housing stability, and long-term financial goals. The economy benefits as a result not in spite of higher wages, but because workers drive consumption and innovation.

No serious economic system can thrive when labor is undervalued. Capitalism, at its core, depends on a balance: businesses must profit, but workers must have purchasing power. This balance has been disrupted in recent decades, as wage growth stagnated even while productivity and corporate profits soared. Restoring that balance is not about charity; it’s about economic sustainability.

A vocational worker today earning under $20 per hour is effectively priced out of many housing markets, locked into low savings, and vulnerable to economic shock. This is not the future Americans deserve nor the foundation for a robust economy. If policymakers truly aim to give workers “a fair shot,” they must go beyond symbolic benchmarks. They must legislate real living wages that reflect contemporary costs, that support families, that invigorate consumer markets, and that recognize work as the engine of human and economic dignity.

Our nation’s economic narrative should not be one of temporary raises that look good on paper. It should be one of structural reform forward-looking, demand-driven, and aligned with the lived realities of working Americans. Incremental progress is better than stagnation, but in this moment of economic transformation, half-measures will only perpetuate inequality.

A minimum wage that matches economic reality is not extreme. It’s essential. Let’s put real numbers behind that principle. Let’s ensure a wage floor that dignifies work, stimulates the economy, and honors the fundamental capitalist truth that people workers are the backbone of the system. A $22 minimum wage, shared between employers and federal support, is the next logical step in building an economy that truly works for all.

Editor’s Note

At Capitalistic Approach, we believe economic policy should be evaluated through lived reality, not political slogans. Minimum wage debates are often framed as moral victories or ideological battles, but rarely are they measured against the actual cost of surviving let alone building a life in today’s economy. As wages rise incrementally across the country, we felt it was necessary to step back and ask a harder question: Is this enough?

This opinion reflects our assessment that current minimum wage targets, while well-intentioned, no longer align with the modern cost of housing, transportation, utilities, healthcare, and everyday goods in most American cities. Our position is not anti-business nor dismissive of regional differences. Instead, it calls for a pragmatic, shared-responsibility approach that supports workers without placing unsustainable pressure on employers.

We publish this perspective now because economic strain is no longer a future concern it is a present reality for millions of working Americans, including seniors, families, and full-time workers doing everything “right” and still falling behind. Thoughtful capitalism requires honest math, timely policy, and the courage to adjust outdated frameworks. This piece is offered in that spirit