Opinion

JENNIFER CALFAS

EDITOR IN CHIEF

AARICA MARSH 

and DEREK WOLFE 

EDITORIAL PAGE EDITORS

LEV FACHER

MANAGING EDITOR

420 Maynard St. 

Ann Arbor, MI 48109

 tothedaily@michigandaily.com

Edited and managed by students at 

the University of Michigan since 1890.

Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of the Daily’s editorial board. 

All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors.

The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A —Thursday, January 15, 2015

M

y friends tell me that 
I’m too political when 
I write, and that those 

who don’t know me 
as a person would 
never understand me 
to be the awkwardly 
funny 
and 
dynami-

cally strange person they see every 
day. They challenged me to write this 
week’s column on something apoliti-
cal, something “fun” and “light” that 
many students could relate to. The 
Golden Globes were a convenient 
excuse for me to tap into my “main-
stream” interests, and share my 
thoughts on popularized cinema and 
television in America.

My new favorite show is “Jane 

the Virgin.” I think it’s brilliant, 
and apparently so does the Hol-
lywood Foreign Press Association. 
It’s a mix of “Ugly Betty” quirk and 
“Gilmore Girls” sentiment, but bet-
ter. Last night, Gina Rodriguez (a.k.a. 
Jane) won the Golden Globe for Best 
Actress in a TV Series, Musical or 
Comedy, beating television veterans 
and icons like Julia Louis-Dreyfus 
and Taylor Schilling.

On this new CW series, Rodri-

guez plays the show’s protagonist, a 
23-year-old virgin who is artificially 
inseminated by accident and decides 
to keep the baby, partly because her 
pregnancy is the father’s only chance 
at biological parenthood. The show 
is a balance of deep respect for reli-

gion with a realistic and admirable 
depiction of the varying factors that 
accompany all reproductive health 
options when it comes to carrying 
a pregnancy to term or terminating 
that pregnancy.

But without intention or effort, I 

watch Jane through a critical frame-
work that deconstructs the meaning 
behind every interaction, theme and 
decision made by this fictional fam-
ily onscreen. And while I think this 
show is brilliantly executed and has 
done a fantastic job portraying vary-
ing 
and 
diverse 

Latino/Latina 
narratives as well 
as tons of queer 
and 
empowered 

women, the show 
still has just one 
element that irks 
me, and that’s the 
name.

Jane is not a 

“virgin.” She is just a 23-year-old 
who has not had a penis in her vagi-
na. Virginity is a social construct. In 
America, virginity is rooted in the 
historic commodification of women 
and a religious precedent of male 
ownership. The concept of virginity 
is meant to make people, especially 
women and non-heterosexual indi-
viduals, feel badly about their sexual-
ity and sexual experience. This social 
concept is a way of policing other peo-
ple’s bodies and classifying a sexual 

social ideal. The virginity of a female 
body is impossible to prove unless an 
individual declares and labels oneself 
as having engaged sexually before. 
But there, too, is an issue, seeing as 
no formal sexual act defines virginal 
status from non-virginal status. It’s 
socially understood that unless a 
penis penetrates a vagina, sex has not 
been had. This definition delegalizes 
anal sex, oral sex and other forms of 
sex as “real sex,” and upholds hetero-
sexual norms. So while I love Jane, I 
do not love the title so aptly given to 

her simply because 
there 
has 
never 

been a penis inside 
her vagina.

I truly adore 

this 
show 
and 

Rodriguez, 
and 

I think that the 
show itself begins 
to 
challenge 

the 
dangerous 

social construct that is “virgin-
ity.” As Jane gradually continues 
to acknowledge that her worth as 
a human being is not tied to her 
sexual activity (or lack thereof), 
every Monday night at 9 p.m. we get 
to watch the deconstruction of this 
historically oppressive concept. I 
think that’s pretty cool.

 — Carly Manes can be reached 

at manes@umich.edu.

Jane is not a virgin

Edvinas Berzanskis, Claire Bryan, Regan Detwiler, Devin Eggert, 

David Harris, Rachel John, Jordyn Kay, Aarica Marsh, Victoria Noble, 

Michael Paul, Allison Raeck, Melissa Scholke, Michael Schramm, 

Matthew Seligman, Linh Vu, Mary Kate Winn, Jenny Wang, Derek Wolfe

EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS

W

hile raising the mini-
mum wage has always 
been a relevant topic, 

it’s garnered more 
attention 
since 

fast food work-
ers 
began 
pro-

testing 
for 
$15 
 

hourly wage.

I’ve 
heard 

numerous 
opin-

ions 
on 
the 

minimum 
wage, 

ranging 
from 

people 
wanting 

$15 wages to those 
that think we shouldn’t raise the 
minimum wage at all. The minimum 
wage should definitely be raised 
yearly to keep up with inflation, but 
raising it to $15 isn’t a feasible option.

A $15 minimum wage is like com-

munism: a good idea in theory but 
bad in application. I think everyone 
likes the idea of the lowest-income 
citizens doubling their wages, but 
this actually only hurts these citi-
zens. The basic model of labor supply 
and demand shows this.

Since higher wages are incentive 

to work more, the supply of workers 
increases as the wage increases (i.e. 
the supply curve slopes upward).

Contrarily, as the wage increases, 

producers cannot afford to pay for as 
much labor, decreasing the demand 
for workers in the market (i.e. the 
demand curve slopes downward).

This means that the markets will 

adjust until they reach the one wage 
where laborers demanded equals 
laborers supplied. At this point, sup-
pliers are producing as much output 
as they want, and laborers are work-
ing as much as they want.

This doesn’t happen if we have a 

minimum wage higher than the equi-
librium wage.

Setting the minimum wage solidi-

fies a specific wage, meaning that 
the market can’t move to an equi-
librium position. We’re stuck with 
an excess amount of job seekers, 
and as you can see from the chart 
below, this means that a high mini-
mum wage will drive some people 
working at the equilibrium wage 
 

to unemployment.

At least to me, the loss of jobs alone 

is justification not to significantly 
raise the minimum wage. A mini-
mum wage should be helping those 
on the lower socioeconomic end, 
and while some would benefit from 
the increased wages, others would 
be forced into a lower class and be 
unable to find jobs.

This idea isn’t just abstract; it’s 

proven in application.

SeaTac, a suburb of Seattle, recent-

ly raised its minimum wage to $15 
dollars per hour and has seen clear 
consequences. The local hotel closed 
its restaurant, laying off 15 workers in 
addition to a night clerk and mainte-
nance worker.

Additionally, as seen in the labor 

supply model, the increase in wage 
causes an increase of laborers seek-
ing employment. The Clarion Hotel 
has received an influx of applicants 
from outside the city seeking the 
new wage, and as some of these 
people have more skills than current 
employees, the hotel must consider 
laying off less-qualified workers to 
hire better workers, only further 
stratifying minimum wage workers.

Those still employed at the air-

port also incur costs of the increased 
wage. A woman working at the air-
port exclaimed her disdain for the 
changes, revealing how her shiny 
$15 wage came with the loss of 
her 401(k), health insurance, paid 
holidays, vacation, overtime oppor-
tunities and available food while 
working. She also must pay for park-
ing and receives less in tips. These 
losses minimize the benefits of her 
increased wage, indicating that the 
extra money she’s receiving is less 
than the difference between her new 
and previous wage.

Now, all of this may lead you 

to believe I’m against raising the 
minimum wage, but this isn’t com-
pletely true. There’s a difference 
between raising real wages and 
nominal wages, and I support rais-
ing nominal wages so real wages 
stay the same.

Let’s just super quickly define real 

and nominal wages. A nominal wage 
is the numerical amount of money 
that you receive. $12 is always greater 
than $11, and $11 is greater than $10.

Real wages are how many goods 

that your nominal wages can buy 
you. For simplicity, assume the aver-
age price of goods in an economy is 
$2, and you receive $11 per hour. Your 
real wage is $5.50 per hour, because 
it’s relative to what goods cost.

Real wages are more important 

than nominal wages. If you could 
choose between receiving $15 per 
hour when average goods cost $2 and 
$100 per hour when average goods 
cost $50, it’s more economically 
sound to choose the $15 option. Even 
though $100 is more nominal money, 
you can buy more goods with $15 per 
hour, which is the purpose of work.

It’s also important to note that 

the increase in the average price of 
goods — called inflation — occurs 
almost every year in an economy. The 

Bureau of Labor Statistics compiles 
data to discover how much inflation 
occurs each year (I won’t bore you 
with how they do this).

Given 
this 
information, 
it’s 

important that a worker’s nominal 
wage is tied to increase yearly by the 
same percentage as inflation. If this 
didn’t happen, workers would lose 
money each year. Even though their 
actual paycheck wouldn’t decrease, 
they would be less wealthy given 
that everything around them costs 
more money.

Tying the minimum wage to infla-

tion won’t hurt companies, either. 
Since the average prices of the 
products they sell increases, they’re 
bringing in more nominal revenue. 
Providing the excess of this revenue 
to workers only redistributes the 
wealth so companies aren’t benefit-
ing from laborers’ losses.

Now, this is certainly a lot more 

complex in application than in theo-
ry. Not all companies increase their 
prices by the average amount. It is, 
after all, an average. So work would 
need to be done to more accurately 
figure out the price increases across 
different markets to minimize error.

But this system could work very 

effectively. Scaling the minimum 
wage to inflation helps workers hold 
onto their already-low incomes.

This information also explains a 

lot of the misconceptions that exist 
around raising the minimum wage. 
Many websites, even the Bureau of 
Labor Statistics itself, state that rais-
ing the minimum wage won’t cause 
people to lose their jobs. But their 
evidence relies on studies examining 
prior increases in minimum wage.

When you examine the real values 

of these past wages, they are close to 
the real value of the current wage, 
only being a dollar or two greater 
than or less than our current real 
minimum wage of $7.25. These small 
differences aren’t comparable to the 
larger differences that occur with a 
minimum wage of $15.

I’m a huge proponent of helping 

adults who are struggling to live on 
the current minimum wage. I really 
am. An adult working a minimum 
wage job is a constant struggle, but 
we need to focus on policies and ideas 
that will actually help these people. 
Raising the minimum wage will only 
create new problems for people liv-
ing on minimum wage. Instead, we 
need to advocate programs and trade 
schools to help these people move 
into higher-paying positions.

— Michael Schramm can be 

reached at mschramm@umich.edu.

MICHAEL
SCHRAMM

Maximizing the minimum wage

P

resident Barack Obama announced on Jan. 9 a federal proposal 
that aims to extend two years of free tuition to all students 
wishing to attend community college. The president unveiled 

his ambitious plans for higher education in Knoxville, Tennessee, 
where a similar state-level policy has already come to fruition. If all 50 
states participate in the program, an estimated nine million students 
will benefit. Eligible candidates will include solely high-school seniors. 
Socioeconomic status is not a factor for consideration; however, students 
must earn a minimum GPA of 2.5 to maintain their free enrollment. 
While this new proposal is a leap forward for the U.S. education system, 
concerns and amendments still remain for the proposition.

The call for universal access to higher 

education will ensure all students are afforded 
at least two years of community college 
without financial burden, assuming the 
requirements are met. Full-time community 
college students will save approximately 
$3,800 in annual tuition. Due to the climbing 
costs 
of 
higher 
education, 
community 

colleges have become increasingly focused on 
vocational training, as opposed to the liberal 
arts and sciences. With free tuition, students 
will have more liberty to choose majors 
based on passions and interests rather than 
practicality. A high-school degree no longer 
suffices for a wide range of occupations in 
our nation’s society. By 2020, 35 percent of 
job openings will require at least a bachelor’s 
degree, and 30 percent will require some form 
of college education or an associate’s degree. 
The anticipated influx of students will not 
just prepare the youngest generation for the 
workforce, but also stimulate improvement 
in the quality of education community 
 

colleges provide.

The plan is estimated to cost $60 billion 

over a 10-year period. The source of subsidies 
is general at best, which is a cause for concern 
for those who fear that large expenses 
will further push the nation into debt. 
Highlighted in the proposal thus far is the 
following: states that choose to participate in 
the program will be expected to cover one-
quarter of the cost, while federal funding 
will cover the rest. These states will have the 
flexibility to allocate particular resources to 
students in need.

With states slated to have plenty of 

autonomy in the process, they should be 
held responsible for a number of different 

factors. States will have the opportunity to 
create more early intervention and outreach 
programs, 
expand 
community 
college 

offerings and improve the affordability of 
four-year universities. States should also 
ensure that students in need of financial aid 
are guaranteed room and board, books and 
transportation. FAFSA, the financial aid 
application filled out by students across the 
nation, should be streamlined to conveniently 
process school applications and financial 
aid 
packages 
side-by-side. 
With 
these 

considerations, Obama’s proposal will surely 
give American students the competitive edge 
they need to thrive in today’s rapidly-evolving 
economic climate.

The new plan will model after community 

college initiatives in Tennessee, which 
have shown great success. In Tennessee, 90 
percent of high-school students applied to 
the state’s community college program in 
the past year, the first cycle of the program. 
Only 40 percent of Tennessee students 
were expected to apply. Furthermore, the 
Tennessee College of Applied Technology, a 
participant in the program, has a graduation 
rate of 80 percent with 85 percent of students 
placed into jobs, showing the potential and 
demand of a national program to improve the 
work force.

Obama’s proposal foresees many changes 

not just in the education system, but also 
in the long-term economy. The possibility 
for students to receive two years of free 
higher education will enhance the quality of 
community colleges, bridge the segregation 
between students of various socioeconomic 
statuses and provide more job opportunities 
for generations to come.

A college for every community

FROM THE DAILY

Gabrielle DeCaro/Daily

 
 

— Kinesiology junior and Black Student Union secretary Cap Kendall told 

 
 
The Michigan Daily during a protest on police brutality Wednesday 

evening, regarding her negative experiences with campus police. 
“

NOTABLE QUOTABLE

It’s to the point where I don’t 

even want to reproduce 

and bear children.”

minimum wage

new laborers 
competing for jobs
Laborers lost 
from equilibrium

Real wage

Labor

Real wage

Labor

economic 
maximizing wage

Quantity of labor without a minimum wage vs. with a minimum wage

Virginity is rooted 

in the historic 

commodification 

of women. 

 

CARLY
MANES

