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.
Is President Obama right to call for increasing the federal minimum wage? The editorial boards of the country's most influential newspapers are weighing in on opposite sides of the debate.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
| Tags: | EconomyGovernmentMedia |
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!!!!!!!!!
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.
DATA PROVIDERS
Copyright © 2013 Microsoft. All rights reserved.
Quotes are real-time for NASDAQ, NYSE and AMEX. See delay times for other exchanges.
Fundamental company data and historical chart data provided by Thomson Reuters (click for restrictions). Real-time quotes provided by BATS Exchange. Real-time index quotes and delayed quotes supplied by Interactive Data Real-Time Services. 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 SIX Financial Information.
Japanese stock price data provided by Nomura Research Institute Ltd.; quotes delayed 20 minutes. Canadian fund data provided by CANNEX Financial Exchanges Ltd.
RECENT POSTS
While incompetent bosses like Michael Scott and Andy Bernard typically can’t survive in the workplace, office romances are a very real part of corporate culture.
- Southwest Airlines turns less legroom into $773M
- 'American Idol' gets sorry ratings for season finale
- Powerball's wacky sense of humor
- Millions of Facebook's users are actually pets
- Can crowd funding rescue the LA Times?
- Domino's debuts a DVD that smells like pizza
- Average US retirement age climbs to 61
- McDonald's aims to slim down its 145-item menu
- Bathroom reading goes digital with iPad TP stand
MARKET UPDATE
[BRIEFING.COM] The S&P 500 ended this week with a bang, roaring to a new all-time high on the back of stronger-than-expected economic data, influential leadership, and an ongoing appreciation for the Fed's monetary policy support.
The bullish bias was evident in premarket action as the S&P futures pointed to a higher start without the benefit of any definitive news catalyst. Stocks indeed benefited from a blast of buying interest at the opening bell on this ... More
More Market News
TOP STOCKS
All hail the bull market, which ended the week with a big rally. But it also is starting to look a little like 1987, which suffered an epic blow-out.
MSN MONEY'S
- Shared
- Commented
- Viewed
