Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
What prompted President Obama to up the ante on the minimum wage? In January 2013, in his State of the Union address, he proposed raising the minimum wage from the current $7.25 to $9 an hour. Then last week he announced that he supports hiking it to $10.10 an hour.
It is unlikely that his change of heart was the result of key economic advisers persuading him that a bigger wage boost was needed to reduce poverty and stimulate the economy. Both of those things are true, and surely entered into his thinking, but the major impetus was political. He was responding to the growing protest movement, public opinion polls and election outcomes that reflect widespread sentiment that people who work full time shouldn't be mired in poverty. It is a heartening reminder that democracy - the messy mix of forces that typically pits organized people versus organized money - still can work.
Buoyed by Protests, Obama Embraces $10 Minimum Wage
What prompted President Obama to up the ante on the minimum wage? In January 2013, in his State of the Union address, he proposed raising the minimum wage from the current $7.25 to $9 an hour. Then last week he announced that he supports hiking it to $10.10 an hour.
It is unlikely that his change of heart was the result of key economic advisers persuading him that a bigger wage boost was needed to reduce poverty and stimulate the economy. Both of those things are true, and surely entered into his thinking, but the major impetus was political. He was responding to the growing protest movement, public opinion polls and election outcomes that reflect widespread sentiment that people who work full time shouldn't be mired in poverty. It is a heartening reminder that democracy - the messy mix of forces that typically pits organized people versus organized money - still can work.
Buoyed by Protests, Obama Embraces $10 Minimum Wage
What prompted President Obama to up the ante on the minimum wage? In January 2013, in his State of the Union address, he proposed raising the minimum wage from the current $7.25 to $9 an hour. Then last week he announced that he supports hiking it to $10.10 an hour.
It is unlikely that his change of heart was the result of key economic advisers persuading him that a bigger wage boost was needed to reduce poverty and stimulate the economy. Both of those things are true, and surely entered into his thinking, but the major impetus was political. He was responding to the growing protest movement, public opinion polls and election outcomes that reflect widespread sentiment that people who work full time shouldn't be mired in poverty. It is a heartening reminder that democracy - the messy mix of forces that typically pits organized people versus organized money - still can work.
Buoyed by Protests, Obama Embraces $10 Minimum Wage
10.10 for burger flippers that need to survive!!!!
10.10 for store stockers
10.10 for baggers!
Help people that are trying survive!
10.10 for burger flippers that need to survive!!!!
10.10 for store stockers
10.10 for baggers!
Help people that are trying survive!
10.10 for burger flippers that need to survive!!!!
10.10 for store stockers
10.10 for baggers!
Help people that are trying survive!
How much do people without a job need?
The opinion of the economics profession on the impact of the minimum wage has shifted significantly over the past fifteen years. Today, the most rigorous research snows little evidence of job reductions from a higher minimum wage. Indicative is a 2013 survey by the University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business in which leading economists agreed by a nearly 4 to 1 margin that the benefits of raising and indexing the minimum wage outweigh the costs.
This page reviews the most widely-cited and influential studies on the impact of minimum wage increases on employment, and examines the primary reasons why low-wage employers can afford higher wages today.
Summary: Reviews the past two decades of research on the impact of minimum wage increases on employment: this study concludes that the weight of the evidence points to little or no effect of minimum wage increases on job growth. The study also finds that a review of the minimum wage literature commonly cited by minimum wage opponents is flawed because it is subjective, relies in large part on studies of wage increases in foreign countries, and fails to consider the most sophisticated and recent minimum wage studies.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/18/opinion/krugman-raise-that-wage.html?_r=1&
Paul Krugman, Princeton University, February 2013: “Now, you might argue that even if the current minimum wage seems low, raising it would cost jobs. But there’s evidence on that question — lots and lots of evidence, because the minimum wage is one of the most studied issues in all of economics. U.S. experience, it turns out, offers many ‘natural experiments’ here, in which one state raises its minimum wage while others do not. And while there are dissenters, as there always are, the great preponderance of the evidence from these natural experiments points to little if any negative effect of minimum wage increases on employment.” (Source)
Bloomberg News, April 2012: "[A] wave of new economic research is disproving those arguments about job losses and youth employment. Previous studies tended not to control for regional economic trends that were already affecting employment levels, such as a manufacturing-dependent state that was shedding jobs. The new research looks at micro-level employment patterns for a more accurate employment picture. The studies find minimum-wage increases even provide an economic boost, albeit a small one, as strapped workers immediately spend their raises.” (Source)
In Focus: Two Leading Studies on Minimum Wage and Job Growth
Study: Do Minimum Wages Really Reduce Teen Employment? (2011)
Summary: Examines every minimum wage increase in the United States over the past two decades—including increases that took place during protracted periods of high unemployment—and finds that raising the wage floor boosted incomes without reducing employment or slowing job creation. The research demonstrates how a body of previous research—one frequently relied on by business lobbyists who oppose minimum wage increases—inaccurately attributes declines in employment to increases in the minimum wage by failing to sufficiently account for critical economic factors. [NELP Summary]
Study: Minimum Wage Effects Across State Borders (2010)
Summary: Provides the most sophisticated study to date of the effects of increases in the minimum wage on job growth in the United States. Taking advantage of the fact that a record number of states raised their minimum wages during the 1990s and 2000s – creating scores of differing minimum wage rates across the country – the study compares employment levels among every pair of neighboring U.S. counties that had differing minimum wage levels at any time between 1990 and 2006 and finds that higher minimum wages did not reduce employment. [NELP summary]
Lawrence Katz, Harvard University, April 2011: “This is one of the best and most convincing minimum wage papers in recent years.” (Source)
David Autor, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, April 2011: “The paper presents a fairly irrefutable case that state minimum wage laws do raise earnings in low wage jobs but do not reduce employment to any meaningful degree. Beyond this substantive contribution, the paper presents careful and compelling reanalysis of earlier work in this literature, showing that it appears biased by spatial correlation in employment trends.” (Source)
Buoyed by Protests, Obama Embraces $10 Minimum Wage
What prompted President Obama to up the ante on the minimum wage? In January 2013, in his State of the Union address, he proposed raising the minimum wage from the current $7.25 to $9 an hour. Then last week he announced that he supports hiking it to $10.10 an hour.
It is unlikely that his change of heart was the result of key economic advisers persuading him that a bigger wage boost was needed to reduce poverty and stimulate the economy. Both of those things are true, and surely entered into his thinking, but the major impetus was political. He was responding to the growing protest movement, public opinion polls and election outcomes that reflect widespread sentiment that people who work full time shouldn't be mired in poverty. It is a heartening reminder that democracy - the messy mix of forces that typically pits organized people versus organized money - still can work.
This will be horrendous, it can only result in the termination of menial jobs. Many people, especially those in youth, hold jobs that are simply not worth that kind of money. The end result will likely be that hours and positions will respectively be cut as much as possible.
This isn't to mention that a spike in input costs will result only in a consequential spike in prices, rendering the raise of the minimum wage and furthermore effecting the positions which already pay above the suggested wage. With a raise in prices and no raise in pay, those who currently receive a comfortable wage will find themselves spending more on essentials and less in savings.
Buoyed by Protests, Obama Embraces $10 Minimum Wage
This will be horrendous, it can only result in the termination of menial jobs. Many people, especially those in youth, hold jobs that are simply not worth that kind of money. The end result will likely be that hours and positions will respectively be cut as much as possible.
This isn't to mention that a spike in input costs will result only in a consequential spike in prices, rendering the raise of the minimum wage and furthermore effecting the positions which already pay above the suggested wage. With a raise in prices and no raise in pay, those who currently receive a comfortable wage will find themselves spending more on essentials and less in savings.
How will the menial jobs get done then?
Buoyed by Protests, Obama Embraces $10 Minimum Wage
What prompted President Obama to up the ante on the minimum wage? In January 2013, in his State of the Union address, he proposed raising the minimum wage from the current $7.25 to $9 an hour. Then last week he announced that he supports hiking it to $10.10 an hour.
It is unlikely that his change of heart was the result of key economic advisers persuading him that a bigger wage boost was needed to reduce poverty and stimulate the economy. Both of those things are true, and surely entered into his thinking, but the major impetus was political. He was responding to the growing protest movement, public opinion polls and election outcomes that reflect widespread sentiment that people who work full time shouldn't be mired in poverty. It is a heartening reminder that democracy - the messy mix of forces that typically pits organized people versus organized money - still can work.
This will be horrendous, it can only result in the termination of menial jobs. Many people, especially those in youth, hold jobs that are simply not worth that kind of money. The end result will likely be that hours and positions will respectively be cut as much as possible.
This isn't to mention that a spike in input costs will result only in a consequential spike in prices, rendering the raise of the minimum wage and furthermore effecting the positions which already pay above the suggested wage. With a raise in prices and no raise in pay, those who currently receive a comfortable wage will find themselves spending more on essentials and less in savings.
This will be horrendous, it can only result in the termination of menial jobs. Many people, especially those in youth, hold jobs that are simply not worth that kind of money. The end result will likely be that hours and positions will respectively be cut as much as possible.
This isn't to mention that a spike in input costs will result only in a consequential spike in prices, rendering the raise of the minimum wage and furthermore effecting the positions which already pay above the suggested wage. With a raise in prices and no raise in pay, those who currently receive a comfortable wage will find themselves spending more on essentials and less in savings.
How will the menial jobs get done then?
They will get done by fewer employees, of course.
In the past, raising the minimum wage had no adverse effects on job opportunities for unskilled workers for two main reasons. The first was the economic conditions of the period when wages were raised, and the second is the raise in cost was comparatively minimal to the operational costs they incurred. I think it self-evident to say our current economic conditions are a bit unsavory, however the ability to pay a spiked wage increase depends totally on the income of the company. I can guarantee you that small business, who are already struggling in these turbulent times and employ low-wage workers will need to compensate in some form, either by terminating positions or lowering hours. It is common sense that when operational costs increase, businesses will be forced to either raise prices or trim fat.
This brings us to the other point, which is that with a raise in cost of operation will come a raise in price of the goods or services. Just as in taxes or cost of raw materials, the buck is passed to the consumer.
Furthermore, in the past minimum wages have been raised modestly and not spiked by almost three dollars an hour as suggested by the President. Think about it and do the math, three dollars more an hour for every employee you have for every hour they work. By the end of the fiscal quarter, the raise in costs will be quite staggering. Whether the profit is there to pay, and whether the jobs are needed to keep is a different story. When it comes to that, however, it is best decided by those in the environment and not those in Washington. Perhaps it should be the workers of McDonalds negotiating a fair wage with their corporate leaders based on their job description and the corporation's profits?
How will the menial jobs get done then?
They will get done by fewer employees, of course.
That's a load of crap.
And by the way..many grocery stores are ALREADY automating check outs.
In the past, raising the minimum wage had no adverse effects on job opportunities for unskilled workers for two main reasons. The first was the economic conditions of the period when wages were raised, and the second is the raise in cost was comparatively minimal to the operational costs they incurred. I think it self-evident to say our current economic conditions are a bit unsavory, however the ability to pay a spiked wage increase depends totally on the income of the company. I can guarantee you that small business, who are already struggling in these turbulent times and employ low-wage workers will need to compensate in some form, either by terminating positions or lowering hours. It is common sense that when operational costs increase, businesses will be forced to either raise prices or trim fat.
This brings us to the other point, which is that with a raise in cost of operation will come a raise in price of the goods or services. Just as in taxes or cost of raw materials, the buck is passed to the consumer.
Furthermore, in the past minimum wages have been raised modestly and not spiked by almost three dollars an hour as suggested by the President. Think about it and do the math, three dollars more an hour for every employee you have for every hour they work. By the end of the fiscal quarter, the raise in costs will be quite staggering. Whether the profit is there to pay, and whether the jobs are needed to keep is a different story. When it comes to that, however, it is best decided by those in the environment and not those in Washington. Perhaps it should be the workers of McDonalds negotiating a fair wage with their corporate leaders based on their job description and the corporation's profits?
McDonalds is an unfortunate example.
After all they rely on their wage bill being subsidised by the federal government.
McDonalds don't seem to be struggling too much.
In the past, raising the minimum wage had no adverse effects on job opportunities for unskilled workers for two main reasons. The first was the economic conditions of the period when wages were raised, and the second is the raise in cost was comparatively minimal to the operational costs they incurred. I think it self-evident to say our current economic conditions are a bit unsavory, however the ability to pay a spiked wage increase depends totally on the income of the company. I can guarantee you that small business, who are already struggling in these turbulent times and employ low-wage workers will need to compensate in some form, either by terminating positions or lowering hours. It is common sense that when operational costs increase, businesses will be forced to either raise prices or trim fat.
This brings us to the other point, which is that with a raise in cost of operation will come a raise in price of the goods or services. Just as in taxes or cost of raw materials, the buck is passed to the consumer.
Furthermore, in the past minimum wages have been raised modestly and not spiked by almost three dollars an hour as suggested by the President. Think about it and do the math, three dollars more an hour for every employee you have for every hour they work. By the end of the fiscal quarter, the raise in costs will be quite staggering. Whether the profit is there to pay, and whether the jobs are needed to keep is a different story. When it comes to that, however, it is best decided by those in the environment and not those in Washington. Perhaps it should be the workers of McDonalds negotiating a fair wage with their corporate leaders based on their job description and the corporation's profits?
McDonalds is an unfortunate example.
After all they rely on their wage bill being subsidised by the federal government.
McDonalds don't seem to be struggling too much.
They're not, and that's the point. It should be the responsibility of the employees to demand fair wages and not of politicians.
