$10.10 raise kind of a joke

Teresa Tritch, of the New York Times Editorial Board, argues that the Democrat proposal of raising the federal minimum wage is a meager request.  She states plainly, “‘$10.10 tomorrow’ is still inadequate," in her post in the New York Times, “The Minimum Minimum Wage."   

Having spent 12 years covering politics and taxes at Money magazine, Tritch is experienced in writing about economic issues.  This particular article is likely geared to the bulk of the news site’s reader demographics: left-leaning, middle-class 18-49 year olds with a college education.

Image Source: washtenawvoice.com

Tritch efficiently structures her to-the-point argument by first laying out some numbers, pointing to a report by the EPI which shows how the proposed raise compares to the historical averages of minimum wage raises dating back to 1939.  The data is fact based and clear, but it’s important to note that the EPI is a liberal organization.  I have to question why she would cite only one source.  

She also links to an article that explains how $10.10 is low compared to economic benchmarks like “purchasing power, wage growth, and productivity growth.”  While this article provides useful background information to further explain her position, the article was compiled by people from the very same New York Times Editorial Board which Tritch serves on.  Isn't this a bit like quoting yourself?  We're basically seeing just one side of the story.  I wouldn't suggest this article alone to educate people on how the minimum wage affects the economy; consult additional sources.  

Image Source: nydailynews.com

Tritch then mentions how President Obama, in his 2008 campaign, had promised to raise the minimum wage to $9.50 by 2011.  She asserts that President Obama is “not suggesting a higher amount to make up for the delay” despite being late by three years in coming through with his promise.  Should this late promise matter to the degree that it change the amount of the raise?  I think not.  In any case, I don’t see how this proves the amount is too low.

Image Source: fox11online.com

There's one more paragraph about workers striking for more than $10.10 - for instance, the fast food workers who were asking for a raise from $9.00 to $15.00, an  almost a 70% increase.  Quite frankly, that's a bit wild compared to historical averages.  Besides, merely asking for a raise does not make it valid or justified.  

Lastly, she calls to Democrats to take more action and (with controlled enthusiasm) concludes by reminding readers of their Democratic values: shared prosperity and protection from the unfair practices of corporate executives.  Well, I'll admit it, emotional appeals work on me.

Despite my cautious nature, I agree with Tritch.  Her argument presents numbers and figures that clearly indicate that the proposed federal minimum wage raise from $7.25 to $10.10 is inadequate.  With a bare-bones background knowledge of economics, initially I supported the idea that the free market should set wages.  Also, I felt that $10.10 was a decent raise from $7.25, considering that ten years ago when I worked for minimum wage, I was making $5.25.  After some thought on what Tritch has said, I am now convinced that the rate is low.

That being said, I'm all for the raise to $10.10, however, I don't think that we should raise it beyond $10.10 at this point, given the estimations from the CBO.  The CBO’s report shows mixed results on the concerns of both Democrats and Republicans, estimating gains of 900,000 people lifted out of poverty that could come at a price of 500,000 jobs.  Before raising it, I'd want to know the effects that higher amounts would have on workers, businesses, and consumers.  I’m much more comfortable with gradual increases.

Will Obamacare empower 2 million workers to quit?

David Lauter’s Los Angeles Times article, “Affordable Care Act will prompt some to work less, report says” presents opposing views from Republicans and Democrats on Obamacare’s future impact on the number of hours people work.  According to a report by the Congressional Budget Office, the reduction of work hours will begin in 2017.  The CBO explains that the requirements and availability of government subsidies will decrease the incentive to work more hours.  This projection caused controversy between supporters and non-supporters of the Affordable Care Act.  Republicans argue that reduced work hours will hurt the economy - especially the middle class.  Democrats took a more optimistic view on the matter, claiming that the impact will be fairly small and people will find it empowering to make personal choices about how they spend their time.  

This article presents information from an unbiased view and gives us a clear starting point from which to continue investigating the Affordable Care Act’s possible impact on our lives and the economy.  Many of us (especially millennials - myself included) have yet to form a firm opinion on Obamacare.  An objective look at both sides of a debate allows us the detached perspective necessary to consider the positive and negative aspects of this new bill and decide for ourselves what we think.  Imagine what life would be like if people worked less hours.  If most of us are living balanced, health-insured lives, would the complacency get to us eventually?  Would working less be such a bad thing?  Quantity doesn't always equate to quality...and the saying applies to both sides of the argument.