Minimum wage not enough to beat poverty, research says
- Thread starter thoughtone
- Start date
he learned it from you 
Re: Chicago Approves $13 Minimum-Wage Plan Amid National Debate
I feel its great that you and Que can always find a way to jerk each other off, but tell me again how following the law is the same as enforcing it.
Re: Chicago Approves $13 Minimum-Wage Plan Amid National Debate
Also note that you two call me out knowing I won't agree with your world vision.
Because you don't have a firm grasp on anything you don't believe, you should consider that it's just your perception of how I argue.I presume you dislike it when someone adopts your method of argument.
Also note that you two call me out knowing I won't agree with your world vision.
Re: Chicago Approves $13 Minimum-Wage Plan Amid National Debate
Ok, as long as its obvious that, between the two of us, I'm not unique.
Re: Chicago Approves $13 Minimum-Wage Plan Amid National Debate
Dude, by this point you should have much more of a sense of humor, since you have yet to prove how raising the minimum wage will lead to the apocalyptic down fall of the American economy you predicted.
Dude, by this point you should have much more of a sense of humor, since you have yet to prove how raising the minimum wage will lead to the apocalyptic down fall of the American economy you predicted.
Re: Chicago Approves $13 Minimum-Wage Plan Amid National Debate
2nd, I never said it would lead to an apocalypse. But you should ask the question, how does this affect black unemployment? If the national average unemployment for young black males is around 50%, then how does Chicago raising the minimum wage 60% affect the people who don't currently have jobs.
What are your priorities thoughtone?
1st of all, I'm the funniest person you know.Dude, by this point you should have much more of a sense of humor, since you have yet to prove how raising the minimum wage will lead to the apocalyptic down fall of the American economy you predicted.
2nd, I never said it would lead to an apocalypse. But you should ask the question, how does this affect black unemployment? If the national average unemployment for young black males is around 50%, then how does Chicago raising the minimum wage 60% affect the people who don't currently have jobs.
What are your priorities thoughtone?
"black" population rate HAS
to be under five percent..
and white population rate,
must be over fifty percent...
amerikkkan way yo!!
It hasn't effected small business, Black or otherwise and it will not.
First off, what do you define as "small business"?
There is a specific definition of what a "small business" is, as related to the minimum wage law. This term is just not a talking point to raise arbitrary arguments based on ideological opposition to minimum wage requirements.
source: United States Department of Labor
I say $500,000 in annual dollar volume is not too small.
Also, there are a whole lot of workers not covered by the minimum wage law. personally, I think they should be covered.
Many restaurant workers that work for tips (thanks to Herman Cain and the restaurant lobby), certain home care workers, so called domestic workers (thanks to the racist in the south during the 1930s who knew that most domestic workers , baby sitters, maids, cooks, etc were Black folk and didn't want them to have any kind of economic independence, self control and respect.
source: United States Department of Labor
So the weak argument that the minimum wage is going to hurt small businesses and or "Black" businesses is repeated again and again by people who seem to have a problem with poor people getting paid more and could give a damn about the rich getting more and more.
I say if you can't pay your employees a decent wage, you are a lousy business person anyway and looking for an excuse other than your ineptitude as to why you can't make a business work.
I'm talking about a little mom's and pops business such as a soil food restaurant. Just envision that your the owner of one of these smaller business, especially one that lacks the purchase power of a big busines fast food chain, Plud, in order to keep prices on yourvmenue competitive your forced to scale back your labor population, now how can you envision keeping prices the same while absorbing the blow of increased salary for most of your employees. Especially with increased taxes, higher new health coverage laws and all of this coming after you was barely getting by with the skin of your teeth.
Today most complain how black business are often way too expensive and you get lower services, how exactly will higher min wages alone supposed to help?
Alone at best a raise in min wages is nothing more than a stop gap measure, I say if you really want to help the poor we must do more things to help small businesses and more to help them compete in the mid level jobs while getting out the dying min wage market..To me it's almost like shoe makers demanding higher wages, within the midst of the invention on the car. Wouldnt it be wiser to train them to become car mechanics instead?
Thats a good thing for starters but instead of giving higher currency only to the poor where they would most likely go off and spend the shit back to the white man, I'd rather some of the money be spent on the youth, schools and programs to make them competitive in tomorrows shrinking job market.
Just asking here . . .
- aren't we talking about poor people "EARNING" a higher wage ???
- why is poor people & the minimum wage a racial matter ???
- is rectifying a wage inequity & helping the youth or schools mutually exclusive ???
Don't understand this.
First your beef is that the rise in minimum wage is going to force a business in to spending money where it doesn't want, then you say that the rise in minimum wage will allow the so called poor to spend money where you don't want.
Don't you see dichotomy of your statement?
This Ayn Rand/libertarian idea that the so called poor and workers have little or no value has been drummed in to many young people's heads since the Reagan era and has continued on steroids since the GW era.
Evidently America has become a society made only to serve the interests of the rich and business owners.
source: Think Progress
Why Is This City’s Democratic Mayor Threatening To Veto A $10.10 Minimum Wage?
The Democratic majority on Louisville, KY’s city council plans to vote for a $10.10 minimum wage on Thursday, but the city’s Democratic mayor has promised to veto the measure because he feels it is aggressive. Mayor Greg Fischer has said he would sign an increase from the current federal minimum of $7.25 an hour to $8.50 or $8.75, but the future of the measure is cloudy.
Fischer, who has described himself as “a business guy that just happens to be mayor,” had previously indicated that he might accept a $10 minimum wage if it were phased in very gradually. But Fischer said on Monday that he worries that the council’s bill would cost the city jobs, a claim that is not supported by the most precise studies of how businesses and economies respond to minimum wage laws. Reports vary on whether or not council Democrats are willing to compromise with Fischer and lower their sights from $10.10.
A council committee advanced the $10.10 ordinance Monday on a party-line vote, and Democrats control 17 out of 26 seats on the full council. While it takes just 14 votes to pass a bill, reversing Fischer’s veto would require 18. The body’s top Republican told the Courier-Journal on Wednesday that none of his members will support any minimum wage hike, let alone the $10.10 proposal that has triggered intra-Democratic strife.
“We have a fundamental issue with local government doing something we do not believe we have the right to do,” Republican caucus director Steve Haag told the newspaper. Haag’s comments echo remarks various national Republicans have made opposing the very concept of a minimum wage law. Influential members of that party don’t believe that the government should set a wage floor at all.
In a certain sense, that perspective is already winning through sheer attrition. For evidence of that slow and quiet victory, look no further than the very specific $10.10 figure itself. After adjusting for inflation, the minimum wage today is worth far less than it was in the late 1960s. Even though the minimum wage was less than $2 an hour at that time, it went 20 percent further than today’s $7.25 minimum does. A $10.10 minimum wage seems like a big hike, but in terms of buying power for workers it would only serve to get people back to where they were in 1968.
Democratic politicians have latched onto $10.10 in recent years as a symbolic illustration of how working people have been left behind in recent decades. About a year after the Congressional Progressive Caucus proposed a $10.10 minimum wage, President Obama raised his own target from $9 to $10.10. Activists and workers on the front lines of the movement for a wage hike have been far more aggressive, demanding $15 an hour — an audacious-sounding policy that has already been passed in Seattle, WA and (in more limited form) in Los Angeles, CA.
In those two cities, long organizing efforts on the ground eventually created concerted pressure for politicians and business leaders to strike a compromise. It remains to be seen whether or not Louisville’s leaders will seek common ground, but the tactics employed by wage hike supporters stand in contrast with the higher ambitions of Seattle’s rabble-rousers. “You shouldn’t be asking for fifty cents, you should be asking for five bucks. That gets people’s attention,” Nick Hanauer, a venture capitalist who was part of the Seattle negotiations, told ThinkProgress in June.
“We’re generally a little bit ahead of the curve. But I will tell you that while other places may not be as progressive as we are, when we enact this law and our state does not slide into the ocean, that will make it easier for people to be like ‘well, fuck, why shouldn’t we do that?‘”
According to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Living Wage Calculator, even that higher amount the council prefers would be too little to support a family in Louisville. To support a family of two adults and a child on one income in the Kentucky city, a person would need to earn $16.27 an hour while working full-time.
Why Is This City’s Democratic Mayor Threatening To Veto A $10.10 Minimum Wage?
The Democratic majority on Louisville, KY’s city council plans to vote for a $10.10 minimum wage on Thursday, but the city’s Democratic mayor has promised to veto the measure because he feels it is aggressive. Mayor Greg Fischer has said he would sign an increase from the current federal minimum of $7.25 an hour to $8.50 or $8.75, but the future of the measure is cloudy.
Fischer, who has described himself as “a business guy that just happens to be mayor,” had previously indicated that he might accept a $10 minimum wage if it were phased in very gradually. But Fischer said on Monday that he worries that the council’s bill would cost the city jobs, a claim that is not supported by the most precise studies of how businesses and economies respond to minimum wage laws. Reports vary on whether or not council Democrats are willing to compromise with Fischer and lower their sights from $10.10.
A council committee advanced the $10.10 ordinance Monday on a party-line vote, and Democrats control 17 out of 26 seats on the full council. While it takes just 14 votes to pass a bill, reversing Fischer’s veto would require 18. The body’s top Republican told the Courier-Journal on Wednesday that none of his members will support any minimum wage hike, let alone the $10.10 proposal that has triggered intra-Democratic strife.
“We have a fundamental issue with local government doing something we do not believe we have the right to do,” Republican caucus director Steve Haag told the newspaper. Haag’s comments echo remarks various national Republicans have made opposing the very concept of a minimum wage law. Influential members of that party don’t believe that the government should set a wage floor at all.
In a certain sense, that perspective is already winning through sheer attrition. For evidence of that slow and quiet victory, look no further than the very specific $10.10 figure itself. After adjusting for inflation, the minimum wage today is worth far less than it was in the late 1960s. Even though the minimum wage was less than $2 an hour at that time, it went 20 percent further than today’s $7.25 minimum does. A $10.10 minimum wage seems like a big hike, but in terms of buying power for workers it would only serve to get people back to where they were in 1968.
Democratic politicians have latched onto $10.10 in recent years as a symbolic illustration of how working people have been left behind in recent decades. About a year after the Congressional Progressive Caucus proposed a $10.10 minimum wage, President Obama raised his own target from $9 to $10.10. Activists and workers on the front lines of the movement for a wage hike have been far more aggressive, demanding $15 an hour — an audacious-sounding policy that has already been passed in Seattle, WA and (in more limited form) in Los Angeles, CA.
In those two cities, long organizing efforts on the ground eventually created concerted pressure for politicians and business leaders to strike a compromise. It remains to be seen whether or not Louisville’s leaders will seek common ground, but the tactics employed by wage hike supporters stand in contrast with the higher ambitions of Seattle’s rabble-rousers. “You shouldn’t be asking for fifty cents, you should be asking for five bucks. That gets people’s attention,” Nick Hanauer, a venture capitalist who was part of the Seattle negotiations, told ThinkProgress in June.
“We’re generally a little bit ahead of the curve. But I will tell you that while other places may not be as progressive as we are, when we enact this law and our state does not slide into the ocean, that will make it easier for people to be like ‘well, fuck, why shouldn’t we do that?‘”
According to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Living Wage Calculator, even that higher amount the council prefers would be too little to support a family in Louisville. To support a family of two adults and a child on one income in the Kentucky city, a person would need to earn $16.27 an hour while working full-time.
source: Huffington Post
Minimum Wage Raise Passes In Four GOP States
Voters in four red states approved ballot initiatives to raise their state minimum wages on Tuesday, sending another message to Washington that Americans support a higher wage floor.
Binding minimum wage referendums were on the ballot in Arkansas, Nebraska, Alaska and South Dakota on Tuesday, with polls suggesting ahead of election day that all would pass.
Arkansas voters approved their initiative by a 65-to-35 margin, according to early returns. The measure will increase the minimum wage incrementally to $8.50 per hour by 2017. Nebraska voters, meanwhile, approved their initiative, which will raise the minimum wage to $9 by 2016, by a 62-to-38 margin.
Alaskans voted by a 69-to-31 margin to raise their minimum wage from $7.75 to $9.75 an hour by 2016, and then peg it to an inflation index so that it rises with the cost of living. South Dakota voted 55-45 to raise their minimum wage from $7.25 to $8.50 next year. It will also be indexed thereafter.
The federal minimum wage is just $7.25 per hour and hasn't been raised since 2009, though states have the option of setting their own minimum wages instead. Arkansas and Nebraska will now join 24 other states that are slated to have a higher wage floor than the federal level next year.
Raising the minimum wage is extremely popular among Americans, with 70 percent of respondents to a recent poll saying they back the idea. That support tends to cross party lines, even if Democrats are more enthusiastic about the idea than Republicans.
Supporting minimum wage increases became so fashionable during this midterm election season that even some Republican candidates got behind the ballot initiatives. After discouraging such a raise earlier this year, Dan Sullivan, the Republican challenger to Sen. Mark Begich (D-Alaska), eventually said that he would vote in favor of the Alaska measure. Rep. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), who unseated Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.) on Tuesday, slowly came around to say he would do the same for the initiative in Arkansas.
Given the broad public support, progressive and labor groups in recent years have made a point of putting minimum wage referendums on the ballot at the state and city level. By going to the ballot box, minimum wage backers are able to bypass reluctant state legislatures, particularly those led by Republicans, and put the vote to what is often a more sympathetic audience.
Recent polls in Arkansas, Alaska and South Dakota all showed support for the minimum wage ballot measures, even though the legislatures in those states are GOP-controlled. Nebraska, though solidly red, does not formally recognize state lawmakers' party affiliation.
Minimum wage increases have been a bright spot for organized labor recently, as unions -- and the Service Employees International Union in particular -- have spearheaded the campaign to raise wages in fast food and retail. Low-wage worker strikes have gained national attention.
President Barack Obama has cited the fast-food strikes in calling on Congress to hike the federal minimum wage. Democrats in both chambers have proposed raising the wage to $10.10 per hour and tying it to an inflation index. House Republicans, however, haven't brought the measure up for a vote, and Senate Democrats haven't rounded up enough votes to overcome a GOP filibuster.
This story was updated after wage increases passed in Alaska and South Dakota.
Minimum Wage Raise Passes In Four GOP States
Voters in four red states approved ballot initiatives to raise their state minimum wages on Tuesday, sending another message to Washington that Americans support a higher wage floor.
Binding minimum wage referendums were on the ballot in Arkansas, Nebraska, Alaska and South Dakota on Tuesday, with polls suggesting ahead of election day that all would pass.
Arkansas voters approved their initiative by a 65-to-35 margin, according to early returns. The measure will increase the minimum wage incrementally to $8.50 per hour by 2017. Nebraska voters, meanwhile, approved their initiative, which will raise the minimum wage to $9 by 2016, by a 62-to-38 margin.
Alaskans voted by a 69-to-31 margin to raise their minimum wage from $7.75 to $9.75 an hour by 2016, and then peg it to an inflation index so that it rises with the cost of living. South Dakota voted 55-45 to raise their minimum wage from $7.25 to $8.50 next year. It will also be indexed thereafter.
The federal minimum wage is just $7.25 per hour and hasn't been raised since 2009, though states have the option of setting their own minimum wages instead. Arkansas and Nebraska will now join 24 other states that are slated to have a higher wage floor than the federal level next year.
Raising the minimum wage is extremely popular among Americans, with 70 percent of respondents to a recent poll saying they back the idea. That support tends to cross party lines, even if Democrats are more enthusiastic about the idea than Republicans.
Supporting minimum wage increases became so fashionable during this midterm election season that even some Republican candidates got behind the ballot initiatives. After discouraging such a raise earlier this year, Dan Sullivan, the Republican challenger to Sen. Mark Begich (D-Alaska), eventually said that he would vote in favor of the Alaska measure. Rep. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), who unseated Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.) on Tuesday, slowly came around to say he would do the same for the initiative in Arkansas.
Given the broad public support, progressive and labor groups in recent years have made a point of putting minimum wage referendums on the ballot at the state and city level. By going to the ballot box, minimum wage backers are able to bypass reluctant state legislatures, particularly those led by Republicans, and put the vote to what is often a more sympathetic audience.
Recent polls in Arkansas, Alaska and South Dakota all showed support for the minimum wage ballot measures, even though the legislatures in those states are GOP-controlled. Nebraska, though solidly red, does not formally recognize state lawmakers' party affiliation.
Minimum wage increases have been a bright spot for organized labor recently, as unions -- and the Service Employees International Union in particular -- have spearheaded the campaign to raise wages in fast food and retail. Low-wage worker strikes have gained national attention.
President Barack Obama has cited the fast-food strikes in calling on Congress to hike the federal minimum wage. Democrats in both chambers have proposed raising the wage to $10.10 per hour and tying it to an inflation index. House Republicans, however, haven't brought the measure up for a vote, and Senate Democrats haven't rounded up enough votes to overcome a GOP filibuster.
This story was updated after wage increases passed in Alaska and South Dakota.
Wrong I don't have beefs, I raise arguments, and my argument was that minimum wage alone is not enough to beat poverty... You have not presented one bit of evidence to prove the contrary... What you have listed I said is a good start, but still just a drop in the bucket vs the real war on poverty..
source: Think Progress
Judge Takes Away Minimum Wage Protections From Home Care Workers
On Monday, U.S. District Judge Richard Leon struck down a rule change issued by the Department of Labor that would have extended minimum wage and overtime pay protections to home care workers come January.
In 1974, the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) — the law requires American employers to pay their workers at least the minimum wage and extra pay for overtime hours — was expanded to cover domestic workers. Yet a carve-out was included for those who provide “care and fellowship” to the elderly and disabled in their homes. That exemption became so broadly interpreted as to deny basic labor rights from those who feed, clothe, and bathe clients, as well as give them medical care. In 2007, under that law, the Supreme Court ruled that a woman named Evelyn Coke’s employer, who had her work long hours giving care, did nothing illegal by failing to give her overtime pay.
Judge Leon’s decision said that the rule change issued last year conflicted with this 40-year exemption. He wrote that this loophole “is not an open question” that the Labor Department can “effectively rewrite…out of the law,” calling the change a “thinly-veiled effort to do through regulation what could not be done through legislation.”
Under his ruling, home care workers who are employed by agencies and other third-party employers can still be denied the minimum wage and overtime pay if they provide primarily “fellowship and protection” rather than more in-depth care. Workers who are employed by agencies and live in their clients’ homes can also be denied overtime.
The decision sides with Home Care Associates, the International Franchise Association, and the National Association for Home Care & Hospice, which sued the Department of Labor, saying the rule change would have a “destabilizing impact” on the industry.
Home care workers occupy one of the fastest-growing industries yet are also among the lowest paid. Their median wage was $9.67 last year, or just over $20,000 a year, a figure that represents a 5 percent decline since 2003 when adjusted for inflation. Because they aren’t guaranteed the federal minimum wage of $7.25, many make poverty wages: nearly a third of New York City aides make less than $15,000 a year. Nearly 40 percent of the workforce makes so little that they turn to public benefits to get by.
Even minimum wage may not be enough for these workers to support themselves. They have recently joined the movement for a $15 an hour wage that was begun by fast food workers.
Their work can also be grueling and constant. Laura Lynn Clark, who has cared for a mentally disabled client for ten years, makes $8.87 an hour and though she works 199 hours every two weeks giving around-the-clock care, doesn’t get any overtime pay. “The work I do is not companionship or babysitting,” she says.
Nearly 2.5 million people do this work, making it one of the largest occupations. The number of these jobs is expected to grow by 70 percent by 2020. But even with that growth, demand for home health care is expected to outpace supply over the next decade. Better pay and protections could make it a more attractive job.
Labor officials aren’t sure how many home care workers will still be eligible for minimum wage and overtime once the new rules go into effect, as other challenges to the rule change are still pending. The Department of Labor is considering an appeal of Leon’s ruling.
Judge Takes Away Minimum Wage Protections From Home Care Workers
On Monday, U.S. District Judge Richard Leon struck down a rule change issued by the Department of Labor that would have extended minimum wage and overtime pay protections to home care workers come January.
In 1974, the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) — the law requires American employers to pay their workers at least the minimum wage and extra pay for overtime hours — was expanded to cover domestic workers. Yet a carve-out was included for those who provide “care and fellowship” to the elderly and disabled in their homes. That exemption became so broadly interpreted as to deny basic labor rights from those who feed, clothe, and bathe clients, as well as give them medical care. In 2007, under that law, the Supreme Court ruled that a woman named Evelyn Coke’s employer, who had her work long hours giving care, did nothing illegal by failing to give her overtime pay.
Judge Leon’s decision said that the rule change issued last year conflicted with this 40-year exemption. He wrote that this loophole “is not an open question” that the Labor Department can “effectively rewrite…out of the law,” calling the change a “thinly-veiled effort to do through regulation what could not be done through legislation.”
Under his ruling, home care workers who are employed by agencies and other third-party employers can still be denied the minimum wage and overtime pay if they provide primarily “fellowship and protection” rather than more in-depth care. Workers who are employed by agencies and live in their clients’ homes can also be denied overtime.
The decision sides with Home Care Associates, the International Franchise Association, and the National Association for Home Care & Hospice, which sued the Department of Labor, saying the rule change would have a “destabilizing impact” on the industry.
Home care workers occupy one of the fastest-growing industries yet are also among the lowest paid. Their median wage was $9.67 last year, or just over $20,000 a year, a figure that represents a 5 percent decline since 2003 when adjusted for inflation. Because they aren’t guaranteed the federal minimum wage of $7.25, many make poverty wages: nearly a third of New York City aides make less than $15,000 a year. Nearly 40 percent of the workforce makes so little that they turn to public benefits to get by.
Even minimum wage may not be enough for these workers to support themselves. They have recently joined the movement for a $15 an hour wage that was begun by fast food workers.
Their work can also be grueling and constant. Laura Lynn Clark, who has cared for a mentally disabled client for ten years, makes $8.87 an hour and though she works 199 hours every two weeks giving around-the-clock care, doesn’t get any overtime pay. “The work I do is not companionship or babysitting,” she says.
Nearly 2.5 million people do this work, making it one of the largest occupations. The number of these jobs is expected to grow by 70 percent by 2020. But even with that growth, demand for home health care is expected to outpace supply over the next decade. Better pay and protections could make it a more attractive job.
Labor officials aren’t sure how many home care workers will still be eligible for minimum wage and overtime once the new rules go into effect, as other challenges to the rule change are still pending. The Department of Labor is considering an appeal of Leon’s ruling.
source: Liberal America
Minimum Wage Increasing In 23 States And D.C. For 2015
About 7 million low-income workers in 23 states will enjoy pay raises this year, thanks to minimum wage increases that range from 12 cents to $1 per hour. And six of those 23 – Arkansas, Hawaii, Maryland, Nebraska, South Dakota, and West Virginia – will be above the federal rate of $7.25 per hour for the very first time.
(Image from U.S. Dept. of Labor)
Six others increasing this year already had minimum wage above the federal rate (Alaska, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont). Annual minimum wage increases occur automatically in nine other states (Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, Ohio, Oregon, and Washington) based on rates of inflation.
Two other states and Washington, D.C. will have increases later this year, as well. Delaware’s new minimum wage goes into effect in June, Washington D.C. starts in July, and Minnesota’s new rate goes into effect in August.
The positive effects of these wage increases go beyond just the workers. According to research by the Economic Policy Institute:
“(R)aising the minimum wage would provide immediate benefits not only to affected workers (whose incomes would rise), but to the broader economy, as well. Research over the past two decades has shown that, despite skeptics’ claims, modest increases in the minimumwage have little to no negative impact on jobs. In fact, under current labor market conditions, where tepid consumer demand is a major factor holding businesses back from expanding their payrolls, raising the minimum wage can provide a catalyst for new hiring.”
In its Dec. 2013 “Briefing Paper,” EPI projected that raising minimum wage to $10.10 would boost the annual GDP, increase economic activity by $22.1 billion, and generate 85,000 new jobs.
President Obama requested that Congress increase minimum wage to that same $10.10 rate in his 2014 State of Union address, as well. While Congress has not complied, the president himself raised minimum wage to that rate for all federal contractors in an executive order.
These increases bring the number of states with minimum wage levels above the federal rate to 29. Five southern states – Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Tennessee – still have no minimum wage, however.
Federal minimum wage was first established in 1938 by President Roosevelt.
Minimum Wage Increasing In 23 States And D.C. For 2015
About 7 million low-income workers in 23 states will enjoy pay raises this year, thanks to minimum wage increases that range from 12 cents to $1 per hour. And six of those 23 – Arkansas, Hawaii, Maryland, Nebraska, South Dakota, and West Virginia – will be above the federal rate of $7.25 per hour for the very first time.
Six others increasing this year already had minimum wage above the federal rate (Alaska, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont). Annual minimum wage increases occur automatically in nine other states (Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, Ohio, Oregon, and Washington) based on rates of inflation.
Two other states and Washington, D.C. will have increases later this year, as well. Delaware’s new minimum wage goes into effect in June, Washington D.C. starts in July, and Minnesota’s new rate goes into effect in August.
The positive effects of these wage increases go beyond just the workers. According to research by the Economic Policy Institute:
“(R)aising the minimum wage would provide immediate benefits not only to affected workers (whose incomes would rise), but to the broader economy, as well. Research over the past two decades has shown that, despite skeptics’ claims, modest increases in the minimumwage have little to no negative impact on jobs. In fact, under current labor market conditions, where tepid consumer demand is a major factor holding businesses back from expanding their payrolls, raising the minimum wage can provide a catalyst for new hiring.”
In its Dec. 2013 “Briefing Paper,” EPI projected that raising minimum wage to $10.10 would boost the annual GDP, increase economic activity by $22.1 billion, and generate 85,000 new jobs.
President Obama requested that Congress increase minimum wage to that same $10.10 rate in his 2014 State of Union address, as well. While Congress has not complied, the president himself raised minimum wage to that rate for all federal contractors in an executive order.
These increases bring the number of states with minimum wage levels above the federal rate to 29. Five southern states – Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Tennessee – still have no minimum wage, however.
Federal minimum wage was first established in 1938 by President Roosevelt.
It is home to Intel, it is a message they are making to anybody that challenges them.
As robots start to take over retail, will there be any jobs left?
As robots start to take over retail, will there be any jobs left?
By Diane Francis
January 25, 2015 | 6:00am
The world’s first robotized sales assistants were rolled out last month in California. They are nifty, cute — and terrifying.
Nicknamed OSHbots, the two machines cost $50,000 apiece, are 5 feet of plastic on wheels and carry built-in natural language processors, computers, product scanners and navigation tools.
Named after the Orchard Supply Hardware store where they work in San Jose, they greet customers, ask if they need help, identify items, then offer to guide them to the appropriate aisle without bumping into anyone or anything.
At night, they do inventory by cruising the store to identify missing products and update their store map.
The OSHbots will never ask for a raise or call in sick. They also have the recall of a National Merit Scholar, but, on the other hand, they can’t open a box or climb a ladder to reach a hammer. And if you went up to one and shouted “Fire,” it would respond that “Fire extinguishers are on aisle 4 and I can take you there” . . . in English or Spanish.
So far, OSHbots are primitive, as are other automated services, such as Google’s driverless cars. But they won’t always be. Google, Facebook, Amazon, Apple and others are investing billions to make machines smarter than people. And then what happens to America’s 13 million-member retail work force when OSHbot 2.0 or 3.0 arrives on the scene? Are Google and the others going to support the displaced workers?
Amazon has already attacked retail’s work force with its online platform. This summer, it took the next step, rolling out its first battalion of robots, 3,000 so far called Kiva, to replace warehouse workers who drive forklifts, or fetch and file incoming and outgoing products.
This is the face of “technological unemployment” and will accelerate, though how quickly is debatable. One dire prediction is that by 2030, 2 billion jobs will be lost globally to robots and software. But this is based on a hyper-leap in the cognitive ability of machines that may or may not happen. One of Silicon Valley’s foremost entrepreneurs and director of Facebook and eBay, Marc Andreessen, says robots won’t eat all the jobs because they won’t be sophisticated enough for decades.
“There is still an enormous gap between what many people do in jobs today and what robots and AI can replace and there will be for decades,” he wrote in his blog recently.
What happens when that day arrives? Andreessen, like many Silicon Valley optimists, thinks it will be a utopia. Goods and services will be abundant and virtually free. Governments will be fat enough to afford a social safety net needed to retrain or protect people. Workweeks may be reduced to 20 hours and many jobs will go begging. “Creativity, innovation, exploration, art, science, entertainment and caring for others: We have no idea how to make machines do these,” he wrote.
Back on planet Earth, former US Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers is less sanguine. “The economic challenge of the future will not be producing enough. It will be providing enough good jobs,” he wrote in the Wall Street Journal this summer.
In 1965, only one in 20 males between 25 and 54 years of age was out of work. Today, it’s one in six. The Internet already wiped out millions of middle-class jobs. What happens when robots destroy retail and warehouse jobs as well?
Summers suggests that just as the Industrial Revolution led to welfare states for displaced farm workers, the Software Revolution must lead to a super-welfare state to pick up the job and training slack.
The time line varies as to when dislocations will be dramatic, but it’s clear that a deadline looms.
It’s unfashionable to question progress, to wonder whether innovation is always a good thing. It’s happening, the great minds say, so you’d better just get used to it.
But I wonder whether the companies behind OSHbot have really thought it all through. Sure, they may make money, but how much of that will be taxed to pay for the rest of us to do nothing?
http://nypost.com/2015/01/25/as-robots-start-to-take-over-retail-will-there-be-any-jobs-left/
As robots start to take over retail, will there be any jobs left?
By Diane Francis
January 25, 2015 | 6:00am
The world’s first robotized sales assistants were rolled out last month in California. They are nifty, cute — and terrifying.
Nicknamed OSHbots, the two machines cost $50,000 apiece, are 5 feet of plastic on wheels and carry built-in natural language processors, computers, product scanners and navigation tools.
Named after the Orchard Supply Hardware store where they work in San Jose, they greet customers, ask if they need help, identify items, then offer to guide them to the appropriate aisle without bumping into anyone or anything.
At night, they do inventory by cruising the store to identify missing products and update their store map.
The OSHbots will never ask for a raise or call in sick. They also have the recall of a National Merit Scholar, but, on the other hand, they can’t open a box or climb a ladder to reach a hammer. And if you went up to one and shouted “Fire,” it would respond that “Fire extinguishers are on aisle 4 and I can take you there” . . . in English or Spanish.
So far, OSHbots are primitive, as are other automated services, such as Google’s driverless cars. But they won’t always be. Google, Facebook, Amazon, Apple and others are investing billions to make machines smarter than people. And then what happens to America’s 13 million-member retail work force when OSHbot 2.0 or 3.0 arrives on the scene? Are Google and the others going to support the displaced workers?
Amazon has already attacked retail’s work force with its online platform. This summer, it took the next step, rolling out its first battalion of robots, 3,000 so far called Kiva, to replace warehouse workers who drive forklifts, or fetch and file incoming and outgoing products.
This is the face of “technological unemployment” and will accelerate, though how quickly is debatable. One dire prediction is that by 2030, 2 billion jobs will be lost globally to robots and software. But this is based on a hyper-leap in the cognitive ability of machines that may or may not happen. One of Silicon Valley’s foremost entrepreneurs and director of Facebook and eBay, Marc Andreessen, says robots won’t eat all the jobs because they won’t be sophisticated enough for decades.
“There is still an enormous gap between what many people do in jobs today and what robots and AI can replace and there will be for decades,” he wrote in his blog recently.
What happens when that day arrives? Andreessen, like many Silicon Valley optimists, thinks it will be a utopia. Goods and services will be abundant and virtually free. Governments will be fat enough to afford a social safety net needed to retrain or protect people. Workweeks may be reduced to 20 hours and many jobs will go begging. “Creativity, innovation, exploration, art, science, entertainment and caring for others: We have no idea how to make machines do these,” he wrote.
Back on planet Earth, former US Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers is less sanguine. “The economic challenge of the future will not be producing enough. It will be providing enough good jobs,” he wrote in the Wall Street Journal this summer.
In 1965, only one in 20 males between 25 and 54 years of age was out of work. Today, it’s one in six. The Internet already wiped out millions of middle-class jobs. What happens when robots destroy retail and warehouse jobs as well?
Summers suggests that just as the Industrial Revolution led to welfare states for displaced farm workers, the Software Revolution must lead to a super-welfare state to pick up the job and training slack.
The time line varies as to when dislocations will be dramatic, but it’s clear that a deadline looms.
It’s unfashionable to question progress, to wonder whether innovation is always a good thing. It’s happening, the great minds say, so you’d better just get used to it.
But I wonder whether the companies behind OSHbot have really thought it all through. Sure, they may make money, but how much of that will be taxed to pay for the rest of us to do nothing?
http://nypost.com/2015/01/25/as-robots-start-to-take-over-retail-will-there-be-any-jobs-left/