Posted tagged ‘minimum wage’

New expectations on minimum wage

May 4, 2015

What, you won’t give us $10.10? OK, we’ll take $12.

Now, we’re talkin’!

At a time when progressive positions are compromised before they are given a chance to help the economy, boost family prosperity and lessen growing inequities, minimum-wage proponents have drawn the line at an unusual place in the sand: ahead of the one before.

It’s a bold stroke when the House and Senate leaders are against any increase in the current minimum of $7.25 an hour. The national minimum wage has been stuck there since July 2009 — and in Iowa even longer, since the state minimum rose and stopped there in January 2008.

Seven-plus years later, inflation has put minimum-wage workers in Iowa behind where they were in 2007 and 2008.

In 2013, Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa and Congressman George Miller of California teamed up to promote $10.10, calling $7.25 “unconscionably low.” But it has not happened.

Last week, Senator Patty Murray of Washington and Congressman Bobby Scott of Virginia introduced legislation to raise the minimum to $12 by 2020, in five steps. It also would eliminate the $2.13 tipped wage and index the new minimum to inflation.

Here’s an Iowa fact sheet, and here are reports from the Economic Policy Institute and National Employment Law Project.

150428-MWgraphic12

For some a $12 minimum wage will still sound too low. For some it will sound too high — which is why the debate retreated to $8.75 in Iowa this year, and that cannot even get a vote in the Iowa House.

Pushing the debate ahead to a place where it will affect more workers — 436,000 in Iowa, or 42 percent more than the 306,000 affected with a minimum at $10.10 — is where this needs to go. It may increase pressure to the point where we see more candidates taking a stand and votes taken in Washington and more state capitols.

Owen-2013-57Posted by Mike Owen, executive director of the Iowa Policy Project
Basic RGBThe Iowa Policy Project is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization. IPP is a 501(c)3 organization and contributions to IPP are tax-deductible as permitted by law.

Maximum focus on minimum wage

April 1, 2015

There are lots ways to look at the minimum wage issue. Some make sense, and some do not. There are good numbers and bad numbers, the latter usually tainted by ideology or politics.

Any discussion about the minimum wage in Iowa — whether on the floor of the Iowa House or Senate, or outside the Capitol in any coffee shop or street corner — should focus on the clear, central realities of this issue, with reliable and credible numbers.

How much?

Iowa’s first minimum wage passed in 1989, almost half a century after the first federal minimum wage of 25 cents an hour took effect in 1938. That first Iowa minimum wage was phased in over three years.

So the minimum wage has long been established in public policy as a floor for wages. But it’s a sinking floor.

  • The wage has not been increased in Iowa since January 1, 2008, when it went to $7.25.
  • Had it kept up with inflation since 1992, the Iowa minimum wage would now be $7.91 (February 2015).

The latter shows just how conservative is the legislation pending in the Iowa Senate. A minimum wage bill would raise the wage to $8 in July — about where it would be had the original state minimum been indexed to inflation in 1992 — and bump it to $8.75 a year later. Given that this issue is only rarely reviewed in the Legislature and that the wage is not indexed, it would not take long for inflation to catch $8.75 and certainly we’d be seeing another debate in a few years.

The $8.75 proposal from the Senate is a considerable compromise from the $10.10 federal minimum proposed a couple of years ago by Senator Tom Harkin and President Obama, and from the $15 sought by people trying to bring the minimum closer to a “living wage.”

For whom?

An increase to $8.75 would benefit:
•   12 percent of Iowa workers
•   112,000 Iowa workers directly*
•   69,000 Iowa workers indirectly*
•   181,000 Iowa workers in total — about 3 1/2 times the number of people working at the current minimum.

150205-MWgraphic

The minimum wage matters

No matter the politics, what no one can deny is that the minimum wage is not enough — not nearly enough — to get by. Many Iowa families in Iowa depend greatly on that wage.

When minimum-wage workers account on average for 44 percent of their family income, it is certain that any increase will benefit a large number of Iowa working families.

Owen-2013-57Posted by Mike Owen, Executive Director of the Iowa Policy Project

 

* Estimates from Economic Policy Institute. Indirectly affected workers have an hourly wage just above the proposed minimum wage. They would receive a raise as employers adjusted pay scales upward to reflect the new minimum wage.
See our two-page fact sheets on:

Iowa impact of $8.75 minimum wage

Iowa impact of $10.10 minimum wage

Basic RGB

What happens at $8.75 in Iowa?

February 24, 2015

There are serious competing ideas in Iowa about the minimum wage — whether to raise it, and by how much. Iowa lawmakers are currently discussing the issue; the Governor is staying out of it.

What cannot be denied is that the minimum wage is not enough — not nearly enough — to get by, and that regardless of political spin to the contrary, there are many families in Iowa whose household budgets depend greatly on that wage. Any increase will benefit a large number of Iowa working families.

We have illustrated with data from the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) how an increase to $10.10 from the current $7.25 would affect Iowans. That two-page piece is here. That proposal would raise the hourly wage for an estimated 306,000 Iowans (216,000 directly, and 90,000 indirectly*).

A proposal in the Iowa Senate would raise the wage by a smaller amount, to $8.75. Again with analysis from EPI, below is what could be expected if the wage were raised to $8.75 in July 2016. Compared to the current $7.25, the new wage would affect:

•   12 percent of Iowa workers
•   112,000 Iowa workers directly
•   69,000 Iowa workers indirectly*
•   181,000 Iowa workers in total — about 3 1/2 times the number of people working at the current minimum.

150205-MWgraphic

More impacts are shown in the adjacent graphic. EPI projects increased wages of $147 million and increased economic activity (GDP) of $93 million.

There are those who dismiss the minimum wage as a minor issue. They are wrong, and the numbers show this.

* Workers affected indirectly have wages slightly above the proposed minimum and will be affected as pay scales adjust.
Owen-2013-57Posted by Mike Owen, Executive Director of the Iowa Policy Project

The case for Governor Branstad’s minimum wage increase

November 14, 2014

Election Night 2014 — the hours that established why Governor Terry Branstad should push for an increase in the state minimum wage.

At first blush, this might not seem obvious. It was a big Republican night, and support of the minimum wage is not a marquee issue for Republicans.

On Election Night, a minimum-wage critic won the U.S. Senate seat of one of the nation’s most high-profile and ardent supporters of a minimum-wage increase, Iowa’s Tom Harkin, and Republicans took control of that chamber. Over in the House, Republicans flipped one seat and now hold three of Iowa’s four, along with a historically overwhelming majority that makes the minimum-wage increase sought by President Obama highly unlikely.

This turns the focus to the Iowa Statehouse, where the power structure remains effectively the same: Republican governor, narrowly Democratic Senate, slightly stronger Republican majority in the House.

With little change in Des Moines, why would passage be more likely now?

For one thing, we have gone one more year without an increase. It has been almost seven years now at $7.25; it is only a matter of time — and we may be there — when Iowa reaches a tipping point where inertia succumbs to an increase in the minimum wage.

For another, the near-certainty that it will not pass in Washington erodes pleas to wait for the feds. Recall that Iowa stopped waiting in 2007, passing the $7.25 wage that took effect in January 2008, almost 19 months ahead of the federal $7.25.

Finally, the tipping point noted above may be signaled in state referendum victories on Election Night for minimum-wage forces in two neighboring “red” states — Nebraska and South Dakota — indicating the time is right politically. Of the states bordering Iowa, only Wisconsin is stuck with us at $7.25.

State minimum wages higher than U.S. minimum on Jan. 1, 2015

State minimum wages higher than U.S. minimum on Jan. 1, 2015 (National Conference of State Legislatures)

An increase would be popular in Iowa. A recent poll showed 53 percent support for an increase to $10.10 an hour.[i] No politician in either party will be disadvantaged in 2016 having supported a minimum wage increase.

On the merits, it is well established that a minimum-wage increase is overdue. It comes nowhere close to a family-supporting income, and it has not kept pace with rising costs for almost seven years. Families depending on minimum-wage income have not seen lower costs of food, fuel, housing, clothing and health care in those years. Passing it now would mean:

  • Fewer Iowans in poverty.
  • A boost to local and state economies as families have more to spend.
  • A fiscal benefit to the state as less is needed to support extremely low-income working families.
  • More resources to support stronger work-support programs to point low-wage workers on a path to the middle class.

In the past, Governor Branstad has made it clear the issue was not his priority but he has not ruled it out.[ii]

For all of these reasons, the time is right for Governor Branstad to move ahead. It’s the right thing to do, and the ball is in his court.

[i] http://globegazette.com/news/iowa/poll-majority-of-iowans-favor-raising-minimum-wage/article_1b688a49-214b-5688-bfff-9e74ead757bd.html

[ii] http://whotv.com/2014/01/31/minimum-wage-branstad-hasnt-ruled-out-increase/

Owen-2013-57Posted by Mike Owen, Executive Director, The Iowa Policy Project

Real issues, bogus commentary

November 11, 2014

An Eastern Iowa radio host recently ran a recording of Senator Tom Harkin noting — correctly — that people at the minimum wage work “essential and often difficult jobs.”

Alone on the air and safe from any retort by the senator or a minimum-wage worker, the host countered: “There is not a minimum wage job in the world that is a, quote, difficult job.”

Said the host: “There’s a reason they are minimum wage jobs. They are easy.” Strong emphasis on the “easy.”

The facts say otherwise. The Department of Labor provides information about people working at or below the minimum wage, now frozen at $7.25 in Iowa for almost seven years.

Look specifically at the “leisure and hospitality” sector — which includes low-wage restaurant and hotel/motel jobs.

  • Over half (55 percent) of all workers in hourly jobs at or below the minimum wage are in the leisure and hospitality sector.
  • About 1 in 5 hourly workers in that sector (19 percent) are at or below the minimum wage.

These are not jobs of “leisure and hospitality,” as a cavalier dismissal of their being “easy” might imply. They are jobs that provide “leisure and hospitality” to others, and they’re hard work: in kitchens, and laundries, and cleaning restrooms, and hustling meals and drinks for customers who might or might not leave a decent tip. In fact, these jobs are arguably harder than gabbing for a couple of hours on a radio show.

According to those official numbers, some 3.3 million workers in the United States toil at jobs paying at or below the minimum wage. Note: This figure does not include those who would be affected by an increase because they make more than $7.25 an hour but less than the proposed $10.10.

Probably a better observation about the issue is that our wage structure in this country does not necessarily value work, and when we have an artificially low minimum wage, neither does public policy.

So, whatever you say about raising the minimum wage, start with the facts. Click here for an IPP fact sheet on the issue.

Owen-2013-57 Posted by Mike Owen, Executive Director, The Iowa Policy Project

 

Job 1 for Day 1 — putting Iowa families first

November 6, 2014

As election dust settles, priorities remain clear for Iowa families

Now that the votes are counted, the real work begins. Job 1? It could be any of a number of areas where solid research and analysis have shown better public policy could make a difference for a more prosperous, healthier Iowa. Take a step back from the TV ads and “gotcha” politics and these issues come clearly in focus.

In Iowa, research shows solid approaches to economic prosperity for working families include:

In Iowa, research shows a fiscally responsible approach to both find revenues and do better with what we have includes:

  • Stopping tax giveaways to companies that pay no income tax — which occurs at a cost of between $32 million and $45 million a year through one research subsidy program alone, even though there is nothing to show this spending boosts the Iowa economy or produces activity that would not occur anyway. http://www.iowafiscal.org/big-money-big-companies-whose-benefit/
  • Reining in unnecessary “tax expenditures” — tax breaks, tax credits and other spending done through the tax code — could bring in tens or hundreds of millions of dollars for public services. A five-year sunset on all tax credits would force lawmakers to review and formally pass renewals of this kind of spending, now on autopilot. The last attempt at real reform fell woefully short. http://www.iowafiscal.org/tax-credit-reform-glass-half-full-maybe-some-moisture/
  • Plugging tax loopholes — a $60 to $100 million problem — would pay for a 2 or 3 percent annual increase in state per-pupil funding of K-12 schools. Twenty-three states, including 4 of 6 Iowa neighbors, don’t permit multistate corporations to shift profits out of state to avoid Iowa income tax and contribute their fair share to local education and other state services. http://iowapolicypoints.org/2013/05/22/will-outrage-translate-into-policy/
  • Reforming TIF — tax-increment financing, which is overused and often abused by cities around the state, has caught lawmakers’ attention in the past and should again. Like many tools that provide subsidies to private companies and developers, it should be redesigned to assure subsidies only go to projects with a public benefit and only where the project could not otherwise occur. Further, it should be designed to assure that only the taxpayers who benefit are the ones footing the bill, which is a problem with current TIF practice. http://www.iowafiscal.org/category/research/taxes/tax-increment-financing-tif/

In Iowa, research shows a healthy environment and smart energy choices for Iowa’s future includes:

  • Putting teeth into pollution law — which means reforms in Iowa’s Nutrient Reduction Strategy to eliminate pollution in waterways. http://www.iowapolicyproject.org/2014Research/140717-nutrient.html
  • Allowing local government to regulate frac sand mining — When it comes to cigarettes, guns and large hog facilities the Iowa Legislature took away the right of local government to listen to citizen desires. The General Assembly and the Governor should let democracy thrive and not take away local control of sand mining.
  • Encouraging more use of solar electricity in Iowa — Jobs are created while we confront climate change if we build better solar policy in Iowa. http://www.iowapolicyproject.org/110325-solar-release.html
  • Promoting local food and good food choices with school gardens — and a pilot project to offer stipends to Iowa school districts could encourage both learning and better nutrition. http://www.iowapolicyproject.org/2014Research/140514-school_gardens.html

None of these issues are new and it’s not an exhaustive list. But these were big issues for our state before the election and remain so, no matter who is in charge.

Together, we can build on the solid research cited above and lay the foundation for better public policy to support those priorities.

Owen-2013-57   Posted by Mike Owen, Executive Director of the Iowa Policy Project

Comforting the comfortable

July 25, 2014

Comfort the comfortable and penalize the poor. Like the idea? If so, you’ll really like legislation scheduled for consideration today in the U.S. House of Representatives.

The House is scheduled to take up legislation that would gut improvements for low-income Americans in the Child Tax Credit (CTC), improvements passed originally in 2009, renewed in 2010 and 2012, the latter as part of the “fiscal cliff” package, where it was used as a bargaining chip to pass very expensive exemptions in the estate tax — a benefit only to America’s super-rich.

To put this in context, the House leadership bringing this new legislation to a vote will not even consider an increase in the minimum wage, now stagnant over five years nationally (6 1/2 in Iowa). The CTC, it must be noted, is one of the nation’s most effective anti-poverty tools, offsetting part of the cost of raising a child. So, as families earning at or below the minimum wage continue to lose ground, the CTC proposal will set them back even further. As noted by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP):

But a single mother with two children who works full time throughout the year at the minimum wage of $7.25 an hour (which House leaders oppose raising) and earns just $14,500 would lose $1,725. Her CTC would disappear altogether.

A loss at lower incomes — yet a boost at higher incomes. According to Citizens for Tax Justice, the Iowa impact of the new legislation would be:

  • a $285 loss on average to families with incomes below $40,000, and
  • a $696 benefit (tax cut) to families with income above $100,000.

Here’s how it works, according to a summary by CTJ:

The House Republican bill, H.R. 4935, would expand the CTC in three ways that do not help the working poor. First, it would index the $1,000 per-child credit amount for inflation, which would not help those who earn too little to receive the full credit. Second, it would increase the income level at which the CTC starts to phase out from $110,000 to $150,000 for married couples. Third, that $150,000 level for married couples and the existing $75,000 income level for single parents would both be indexed for inflation thereafter.

Adding insult to injury for low-income folks is that the improvements targeted for repeal came in the aforementioned “fiscal cliff” package, which made permanent big estate tax breaks for the rich, while extending improvements in the Child Tax Credit and Earned Income Tax Credit for only five years. CBPP’s Robert Greenstein at the time called that a “bitter pill.”

That was before these new proposals not only to cut back the CTC for lower-income families — but to expand access at higher incomes — and to adjust the high end for inflation, something lawmakers have refused to do for the minimum wage.

A bitter pill? At least. For some, all of this might seem to be an overdose.

Owen-2013-57Posted by Mike Owen, Executive Director, Iowa Policy Project


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,402 other followers

%d bloggers like this: