Newspapers battle over raising minimum wage
Is increasing the federal standard a good idea? The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal duke it out.
The New York Times says Obama didn't go far enough, and that the minimum wage should be at least $10 an hour. But The Wall Street Journal rails against the idea, saying that it will push the least educated and skilled workers out of the job market altogether.
Let's go through the arguments each side makes:
It helps reduce poverty. The Times says that Obama's call will bring minimum-wage workers above the poverty line, which is about $18,500 for a family of three. It will also stimulate the economy by giving consumers more money.
It doesn't reduce poverty. The Journal reports that most families in poverty don't have someone who works. So a higher minimum wage just makes it harder to get a job, which exacerbates poverty.
It will not harm small business. The Times argues that the extra cost brought by a higher minimum wage will be offset by lower employee turnover and small increases in prices.
It will kill jobs. The Journal cites a University off California economist who has reviewed more than 100 academic studies on the minimum wage. About 85% of those studies found "a negative employment effect on low-skilled workers," the editorial states. Those workers are priced out of the job market.
It will not kill jobs. The Times cites a study by the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago showing that a $1 minimum-wage increase triggered $2,800 in new spending by affected households the following year. That's mostly because affected workers bought cars. "Owning a car, in turn, helps workers to keep their jobs," the editorial states.
It hurts minority youth. When the jobless rate is high, raising the minimum wage "punishes minority youth in particular," the Journal writes. It cited an unemployment rate for black teens of nearly 38% in January. One study out of Trinity University says that black young adults without a diploma suffered in the 21 states where the last minimum-wage increase, to $7.25 from $5.15, took effect.
Final words. From the Times: "A higher minimum wage would be good for workers and for the economy. The challenge is to get it through Congress."
Final words, part two. From the Journal: "Republicans may fold again to take the issue off the table in 2014, but it's a tragedy that those who will suffer the most are Mr. Obama's most ardent supporters."
More on moneyNOW
Raise the national minimum wage to $15 an hour or America's birth rates will NEVER return.
Republican low wages have PROVEN to be NATIONAL SUICIDE.
Birth rate killing national suicide. Republicans are the enemy of the people.
Living wage = $15 per hour.
In today's dollars, low wages below a living wage($15 per hour) are population reducing, birth rate killing measures foisted on us by conservative REPUBLICANS. Pushed by Illuminati Corporate FASCISM.
Low wages have KILLED America's birth rates so effectively that our DEMOGRAPHICS are changing.
Who can afford children?
Low wages(Walmart, Mcdonald's, Home Depot) combined with unaffordable for-profit healthcare, unaffordable for-profit energy, gas, oil, heat, electricity all are KILLING America's birth rates and bringing in a new majority.
Republican low wages WILL hasten the shift in demographics as birth rates remain at RECORD ALL-TIME LOWS.
Low wages = Low birth rates.
FASCIST Capitalism's low wages are national SUICIDE.
The Journal is wrong! A lot of people on poverty level are working. Prices go up up but wages do not just the top bosses and Senators State and congress, Congress and senators (Federal) levels wages go up. When they raise their wages why not raise all american employees wages to off set the rise in groceries, gas, and just everyday living items you have to live on.
It is time to let the people say when they should have a raise? They make a choice when we get a raise.
Start limiting how many children a family can have living on welfare and especially the drug additions or alcoholics they get free help. Their choice to become a drug addict or to drink. No body made them!!!!!!!!!
Better to pay a living wage than to subsidize labor with federal funds for places like Walmart.
Less pizza delivery; more oven repairmen; actually, more new ovens; more new kitchens; Just complaints in a change of a constant. Better or Worse?
My very first reaction to the proposal was "No". Bad idea, for this time and for the proposed sector, to try and apply meaningful remedy because not enough has yet been done to "remedy" the monopoly at the top while simultaneously not enough has yet been established (as safeguards) at the bottom to meaningfully be recipient to any of those proposed benefits of extra spending staying and recycling around the bottom. It would just be adding more "supposed spending" to the bottom of the pot, expecting that that it won't just be syphoned up, just like it is now, to the "all consuming, in control" 1% Monopolies at the top. It's like foolishly thinking you're creating a needed autonomous "sub-economy" to function on the surface of the rug that everything and anything meaningful's been swept under while the big middleman vaccuum cleaner continuously, round the clock, sucks up whatever is on the surface of the rug (that everything and anything "meaningful" has been swept under). And it's only going to hurt the smaller than Small Business Employers with all the added payroll expense, again, just because of being "not at the right time" and not having enough safeguards against the 1% and their vaccuuming middlemen in place.
Do these "not for profits" and now "for-profit-not-for-profits?" pay a matching share of payroll taxes or are they exempt so that only the actual employee is paying payroll taxes?
Instead of matching it, beat amazon's price and that will get their market share back. We all know that consumers are all about savings, and Best Buy needs to understand consumer's way of thinking. I go to Amazon to save on price, delivery, and sometimes taxes on electronics and even on sneakers. How come a big public company like Best Buy is behind the eight ball on this? It doesn't take a genius to figure this out.
Copyright © 2013 Microsoft. All rights reserved.
Fundamental company data and historical chart data provided by Morningstar Inc. Real-time index quotes and delayed quotes supplied by Morningstar Inc. Quotes delayed by up to 15 minutes, except where indicated otherwise. Fund summary, fund performance and dividend data provided by Morningstar Inc. Analyst recommendations provided by Zacks Investment Research. StockScouter data provided by Verus Analytics. IPO data provided by Hoover's Inc. Index membership data provided by Morningstar Inc.
A basic income policy can actually ensure a decent standard of living for everyone.
- People left $500,000 in coins at airports last year
- How your driving can affect your credit
- Obamacare projected to cost hundreds of billions less
- November jobs report: Winners and losers
- Student loan debt climbs for 5th year in a row
- Wall Street finally notices Bitcoin
- Part-time workers hurt by on-call system
- 5 myths about late payments and your FICO scores
- Auto loan interest rates hit record low
[BRIEFING.COM] A solid November employment report translated into a solid day of gains for the major averages. While there was some talk that the encouraging job growth raised the odds of the Fed announcing a tapering at its December meeting, the message of the markets today was either that it didn't believe there would be a tapering this month or that it doesn't fear a tapering this month.
It was just one day, yet there was ample meaning wrapped up in the connection that the 10-yr ... More
More Market News
The Fed may start tapering in just a few months. Here are a few of the likely winners and losers.