Connect with us

Opinions

Ignoring minimum wage warning hurts working poor

CBO report confirms raising national rate too high will eliminate jobs

Published

on

money, minimum wage, gay news, Washington Blade
money, minimum wage, gay news, Washington Blade

(Photo by Bigstock)

Last week the nonpartisan number crunchers at the Congressional Budget Office reported that significant job losses would result from raising the minimum wage too high too fast.

Implementing the White House call to hike the national minimum wage to $10.10 per hour will eliminate an estimated 500,000 jobs, the CBO announced, and perhaps as many as the one million projected by other analysts. Elevating the federal minimum for hourly paid workers from the current $7.25 to $9 an hour, however, would have a nearly negligible impact on employment.

Demonization of the business community by the president and leftists within his party, however, has persisted unabated. Voguish jabbering about economic disparities is more cynical political ploy than constructive policy prescription. Sloganeering wonā€™t help workers who lose their jobs or create them for those looking for work.

The constant claiming that the ā€œconsensus view of economistsā€ incontrovertibly supports the notion that raising the minimum wage is without negative implication at the proposed rate is simply not true. Rather, the purported preponderance consists primarily of studies both dated and evaluating a more modest increase. More than common sense suggests there are demonstrable downsides ā€“ otherwise, why not triple the rate, as some at the political extreme have argued.

The affected businesses ā€“ predominantly in the fast food, retail and health care industries ā€“ employing low-skill workers paid the minimum wage on an hourly basis have long lamented, ā€œinstead of 15 employees, Iā€™ll have to make due with only 13.ā€ Others anticipate retaining the same number of employees for maximum staffing flexibility while reducing the number of hours for at least some workers. Few project increasing staffing under the resulting financial pressure.

Suddenly accelerated labor costs also encourage operational transition to workplace automation, including self-service technologies, as emphasized by Bill Gates in warning against too steep an increase. When low-margin businesses are confronted with higher mandated labor costs, survival requires reducing payrolls. McDonaldā€™s, for example, has replaced employees with 7,000 touch-screen ordering and payment kiosks at European locations.

Overlooked is that nearly a third of minimum wage workers are teenagers and, as the CBO notes, ā€œjust 19 percent of the increased earnings for low-wage workers would accrue to families with earnings below the poverty threshold, whereas 29 percent would accrue to families earning more than three times the poverty threshold.ā€ Studies examining past minimum wage increases indicate that workers living in poor households received less benefit than myth mistakes, due to their already earning hourly wages greater than the adjusted minimum. Instead, the increase mostly benefited second or third earners living in households well above the poverty line.

While some workers retaining their jobs and current hours will earn more pay, the CBO points out that the increase would be partially offset by heightened household expenses resulting from higher consumer prices. In the aggregate, raising the minimum wage by the proposed 39 percent produces a net income benefit for families earning below the poverty level less than their actual percentage change in income, averaging only three percent of current earnings.

Minimum wage adjustments are a highly inefficient method of improving economic conditions for the working poor. Reducing low-income tax rates, increasing the Earned Income Tax Credit and expanding EITC eligibility, eliminating the tax penalty for similarly compensated dual-low-income married couples, implementing a maximum marginal tax rate for low-income families, and other strategic policies would better serve to benefit low-wage earners. All without the negative consequences of less effectively targeted minimum wage increases.

Itā€™s easier to stir up indignation over income inequality, pillory the business community, and play politics with the jobs, incomes, opportunities and lives of low-skill workers.

Mark Lee is a long-time entrepreneur and community business advocate. Follow on Twitter: @MarkLeeDC. Reach him at [email protected].

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

Opinions

Vote Democratic or July 4, 2025 will look very different

Bidenā€™s debate performance was bad but the sky is not falling

Published

on

(Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key)

As we celebrate the founding of our country, we must recognize the election on Nov. 5 could dramatically change how our country looks in the future. We can debate whether Joe Biden is the best candidate for Democrats on the ticket, but reality is, whoever the Democratic candidate is, they must defeat Donald Trump. Trump is a racist, sexist, misogynistic, homophobic pig who was found liable for sexual assault and convicted of 34 felonies. A man who spouts lies every time he opens his mouth. A man who uses Hitlerā€™s words, and said he will be a dictator on his first day in office. A man who said he will seek retribution on any opponent, using the Department of Justice and IRS to do his dirty work. 

Yes, President Joe Biden had a disastrous debate, and many pundits are calling for him to step down as the candidate. They are having a field day doing so, because none of them are involved in the process that would follow. None of them mention the two times in recent history, Democratic presidents chose to not run for a second term, Lyndon Johnson and Harry Truman, a Republican won. This time the Republican alternative is the disgusting, evil, Donald Trump. Even the New York Times editorial board, when calling for Biden to step aside as a candidate, wrote, ā€œIf the race comes down to a choice between Mr. Trump and Mr. Biden, the sitting president would be this boardā€™s unequivocal pick. That is how much of a danger Mr. Trump poses.ā€

The simple truth is Biden feels he can win, and wonā€™t step aside. The only person who could convince him to do so, is his wife, Jill Biden, and she has shown she will not do that. She reminds me a little of Nancy Reagan, who protected her husband when he had issues with cognition. 

What all Americans need to understand, is no American president makes decisions on their own, without massive consultation with advisers. They donā€™t meet foreign dignitaries alone, but with advisers. And President Biden has shown he has the most incredible group of advisers around him, maybe with the exception of those who prepared him for this debate. 

I have loads of questions for them. If President Biden had a cold as claimed, why didnā€™t they tell him to begin his first statement of the debate with an apology to the audience. Something like, ā€œI want to take a moment to apologize to the TV audience on how my voice is today, and how it will sound to you. I have a severe cold and will sound raspier, and slower, but of course feeling a little ill would not keep me from being here today.ā€ It could have changed the tenor of the debate. It would not have excused his poor performance, but may have given people a few thoughts in his favor. Then there was the closing two minutes. How is it possible the president wasnā€™t coached on ending the debate with the issues he has said he believes will win for Democrats: abortion, climate change, and saving democracy? The debate prep team kept him cloistered for a week; seems they could be sued for malpractice. 

Again, it was a disastrous debate for President Biden. But then rather than what the pundits are saying, grassroots Democrats are responding with money. The Biden campaign reported Saturday that it raised $27 million on Thursday and Friday. The hour after the debate ended was its best grassroots fundraising hour since Biden kicked off his reelection campaign, per the Hill

So contrary to the all the pundits, the sky is not falling. Yes, there is a lot more work to do than before the debate. But the focus for all Democrats, and all decent people, must be to ensure we donā€™t reelect Trump, because of what he would do to our country. How his election would change us. How if he did what he says, and tries to return all decisions on just about everything, to the states, it is not only women who must be scared. It is Blacks, the LGBTQ+ community, every minority; and young people who will live longest with the results of doing nothing to ameliorate climate change. They should all be very scared.

So happy 4th and hereā€™s to hoping Americans are smart enough to vote correctly, and ensure July 4, 2025 will be just as happy. 

Peter Rosenstein is a longtime LGBTQ rights and Democratic Party activist. He writes regularly for the Blade.

Continue Reading

Opinions

A confused Biden and a deranged Trump

Sad state of affairs after first presidential debate

Published

on

Former President Donald Trump and President Joe Biden debate on CNN on Jun 27, 2024. (Screen captures via CNN)

Joe Biden was clearly ready with some facts for this debate, the sad part is he couldnā€™t articulate them. He sounded raspy, and lost track of what he was saying in the first few minutes of the debate. He did get better as the debate progressed but came off sounding and looking like an old man. For those of us hoping he would sound like he did at the State of the Union, or the speech he gave on anti-Semitism, it was a huge disappointment. 

So, where his campaign goes from here is anyoneā€™s guess. Behind the scenes some Democrats are calling for him to step down as the candidate. But that is much more difficult than it seems at this time. And then, will there be a fight for who the candidate will be. Will it automatically be Kamala Harris, or will it be someone else?  So many unanswered questions over the next couple of weeks.

The only positive take-away for Democrats from the debate was how deranged Donald Trump sounded. He refused to deal with any issue, refused to say he would accept the results of this election, refused to acknowledge climate change, or Jan. 6, and kept saying how the states should control the issue of abortion, and womenā€™s health. Every one of these things should be frightening to so many people. It is clear if Trump is elected, we will have a dictator in the White House, who believes Hitler did good things. His election is scary for women, young people, Black Americans, and the LGBTQ community. If states control issues related to any of these groups, they are screwed. 

One of the very few good lines Biden got across was when he said 40 high-level Trump appointees, members of the Cabinet, and his vice president, have refused to endorse him as they know him best. People need to take their word for how bad he will be should he be reelected. Trump kept talking nonsense and it was hard to keep up with the lies. The moderators didnā€™t call him on any of it, but CNN has said before the debate they wouldnā€™t. But then Biden missed so many chances to call him on the garbage he was spouting. I kept hoping he would turn to him and say clearly, ā€œYou canā€™t believe all the BS you are spouting. You sound like a deranged six-year-old and someone who would take our country down the tubes.ā€

Now I accept the fact Biden speaks more slowly and softly. Though after the debate they said he had a cold. He could have said that at the beginning of the debate, if it was true, and explained his voice to the audience. And while we know he has a stutter, it seemed so much worse during the debate than it normally does. Was it nerves, maybe, but difficult nonetheless for him, and for those listening. We must have compassion for anyone with any kind of a disability. Then one had to ask, was he over-prepared for this debate? Was he so scripted he didnā€™t dare say anything off script. When he did, they got into this thing about golf handicaps and both sounded so childish. 

Biden did manage to talk about the things he has done, and the successes of his first administration. There have been many. First bringing the country successfully out of the pandemic. He spoke about unemployment being the lowest it has been in decades, and the more than 15 million jobs created since he took office. He was honest about inflation and the fact that not all the economic successes the country is having are trickling down to every American. He understands that rents are high, and grocery bills are still too high. He made clear he wants to raise taxes on the rich and Trump wants to lower them. He had a plan to ensure Social Security would stay solvent, Trump had nothing as usual. 

Finally, I was surprised that in his two-minute closing, Biden didnā€™t go back to the issues of abortion, climate change, and saving democracy. Did his debate prep team tell him not to? If so, they were wrong. Whether it remains Joe Biden on the ticket, or is someone else, I am 1,000% committed to do everything I can to see Democrats are elected across the board. It is clear to me, and should be to all decent people, electing Donald Trump and his MAGA Republicans, will be the end of our country as we know it today.Ā 

Peter Rosenstein is a longtime LGBTQ rights and Democratic Party activist. He writes regularly for the Blade.

Continue Reading

Opinions

As fewer anti-LGBTQ bills pass, the fight gets harder

A growing indifference to suffering that is baked into the legal system

Published

on

(Photo by Proxima Studio/Bigstock)

In recent years, advocates have faced an unprecedented avalanche of anti-LGBTQ legislation each spring. In 2024, however, the onslaught seems to have faltered somewhat. While hundreds of anti-LGBTQ bills were once again introduced, as many state legislative sessions draw to a close, fewer bills have been enacted into law.

While that may seem like cause for celebration, itā€™s also cause for concern.

To be sure, the slowdown in anti-LGBTQ legislation is welcome. Beginning in 2020, legislation targeting transgender rights in particular had sailed through state legislatures, with the number and scope of hostile bills increasing each year. Unlike earlier years when one or two prominent anti-LGBTQ bills triggered a national pushback that often chastened lawmakers, hundreds of bills have been introduced during legislative sessions in the last four years, often with little debate or scrutiny, and dozens of them zealously passed into law.

Those bills do real damage when they are enacted, cutting LGBTQ people off from material benefits like health care and domestic violence sheltersrecognition by the state, and equal participation in public life. Even when they fail to become law, they have devastating effects on the mental health of LGBTQ people, throwing their lives into disarray and sapping valuable time and energy from LGBTQ communities. This especially affects children, with more than 90 percent of LGBTQ young people in a recent Trevor Project survey reporting that politics had negatively affected their personal well-being.

But the recent slowdown, far from being a positive signal, may well reflect a growing indifference to the suffering of LGBTQ people that is now baked into the political and legal system. Opponents of LGBTQ rights have normalized hostile rhetoric and enacted draconian laws that seemed unthinkable just a couple of years ago, and even ardent supporters of equality find themselves unsure how they might reverse state laws that unapologetically strip away LGBTQ rights.

If anything, it has become apparent that the damage that has been done since 2020 will most likely reverberate for a generation, and the past year shows that restoring and advancing LGBTQ rights will be a painstaking endeavor.

And one sobering reason for the slowing pace of anti-LGBTQ legislation is that, at this point, many conservative states have already stripped away important rights, particularly for transgender children. As of 2024, half of the states in the U.S. prohibit transgender girls from playing school sports, and half have banned or criminalized at least some forms of medically indicated healthcare.

Put differently, lawmakers arenā€™t targeting some rights this year because theyā€™ve already eviscerated them.

Yet even as the pace of legislation slows, critical rights continue to be stripped away. According to the ACLU, more than 30 anti-LGBTQ bills have been enacted in 2024 ā€” fewer than the 84 enacted in 2023, but still far too many. Among them, Utah and Mississippi restricted transgender people from accessing bathrooms and locker rooms in public schools and other government buildings.

Lawmakers in Ohio overrode the governorā€™s veto to ban transgender children from receiving gender-affirming care or playing sports consistent with their gender identity. South Carolina and Wyoming similarly enacted blanket bans preventing transgender children from accessing gender-affirming care.

Many of the bills that have been introduced this year sought to expand existing anti-LGBTQ legislation in new ways. Alabama, for example, successfully expanded its bathroom ban from K-12 schools to colleges and universities. Even those that didnā€™t pass are in many cases likely to be reintroduced after the 2024 election, particularly if anti-LGBTQ lawmakers increase their showing in state legislatures or if governors who are supportive of LGBTQ rights are no longer positioned to veto hostile legislation.

In many states with anti-LGBTQ legislation, administrative and regulatory agencies are being used to curtail LGBTQ rights even further. Florida offers an instructive example. Even after years of anti-LGBTQ legislation, the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles took things a step further within its mandate, and decided in 2024 that transgender people could no longer update the gender marker on their driverā€™s licenses. This echoes recent regulatory crackdowns elsewhere in the United States, from the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services investigating parental support for transgender children as child abuse to school boards across the country stripping away lifesaving resources in schools.

And while many believed that courts would provide a bulwark against discriminatory legislation and regulations, in part because of strong Supreme Court precedent to suggest that anti-transgender discrimination is a form of sex discrimination, that has not consistently been the case. Trial courts have largely found in favor of transgender litigants, criticizing the insufficient justification and discriminatory purpose of anti-transgender laws, but some appellate courts have nevertheless allowed the laws to take effect.

Perhaps most alarming, there are advocates and lawmakers who, if in a position to do so, are eager to carry out an even harsher attack on LGBTQ rights. Project 2025, which a group of conservative organizations has drafted as a roadmap for a second Trump administration, promises an even more draconian attack on LGBTQ rights. This would include rolling back existing nondiscrimination protections for LGBTQ people, reinstating the transgender military ban, and codifying state restrictions on transgender rights at the federal level, in addition to limiting recognition of same-sex relationships.

The anti-LGBTQ backlash may be waning in certain respects ā€” but in other ways, it has only just begun. As we celebrate Pride, LGBTQ people and their allies should be mindful of the need to support those communities whose rights are being eroded, invest in transgender rights organizing, demand that lawmakers prioritize LGBTQ rights, and fight for the independent institutions and protections for basic freedoms that are essential to hold power to account.

Ryan Thoreson is a specialist on LGBTQ rights at Human Rights Watch and teaches at the University of Cincinnati College of Law.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement

Sign Up for Weekly E-Blast

Follow Us @washblade

Advertisement

Popular