Are wage hikes, in fact, "job killers"? Since 1994, more than 200 cities have set living-wage laws that specify wage and, in some cases, benefits beyond the federal minimum of $7.25 per hour, and ten states have passed mandatory cost-of-living increases to the minimum wage. Among the states with higher minimum wages than the federal standard are Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, Ohio, Oregon, Vermont, and Wisconsin. Particulars vary by state, but these states have recognized the income disparities and that the federal standard has not been raised since 2009. An employee who works full time (40 hours per week) earning minimum wage has an annual salary of just over $15,000. Most minimum-wage workers, however, are not full time and thus earn less than the federal poverty level.
In 2003, Santa Fe, New Mexico, adopted a living-wage standard of $8.50 an hour with regular cost–of-living increases. Since then, that hourly rate has grown to $10.20 an hour, or about $3 over the federal minimum. Santa Fe boasts an unemployment rate of 5.8 percent (July 2013), almost two points below the statewide New Mexico rate. Santa Fe has a reportedly thriving restaurant, hospitality, and retail sector. In 2003, San Francisco adopted a citywide minimum-wage law higher than the national standard. In 2007, a University of California study showed that restaurant growth was higher in the city than in the neighboring Bay Area communities, even after San Francisco adopted its new minimum-wage measure. So, at least based on these examples, it is unclear whether raising the minimum wage will reduce the number of available jobs.
Both San Francisco and Santa Fe are popular tourist destinations and have strong retail markets. But the data are unclear regarding what happens in cities with weaker retail markets. Those cities have been reluctant to push minimum-wage measures, arguing that any job is better than no job. However, solid academic research has consistently shown that the higher wage rate does not force layoffs. The Economic Policy Institute asserts that raising the minimum wage to $9 would actually increase jobs as it would pump $21 billion into the economy.
After looking at impartial academic studies, one can conclude that raising the minimum wage is not the crucial factor in the success of a business; local market forces and demand are more important. In high-demand areas, increasing the minimum wage did not affect business success, and the local jurisdiction often continued to outdo its neighbors with lower wage scales. From a retail perspective, the old mantra of "location, location, location" still applies.
There is no question that retailers these days face a host of challenges ranging from the internet to lower household incomes. But raising the minimum wage—if done in a fair and rational manner—may actually boost the revenues of retail and hospitality vendors by providing their customers with higher incomes and higher spending potential.
SEATTLE - New election numbers released Friday night show SeaTac's measure for a $15 minimum wage passing by a mere 55 votes.
King County election results show SeaTac Proposition 1 yes votes leading with 50.56% at 2,500 to no votes at 49.44% and 2,445 votes.
In the costly initiative campaign, which has drawn attention from across the nation, the two sides spent a combined $1.8 million -- enough money to hire every registered voter in the city for a day at $15 per hour.
The proposal would require a $15 minimum wage for many workers in and around Seattle-Tacoma International Airport.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)