increasing the minimum wage

Yet another study has found that increasing the minimum wage increases unemployment.

The Empire Center for Public Policy and the American Action Forum think tanks have studied New York State’s proposed $15 an hour minimum wage, and concluded it could cost at least 200,000 jobs.

The report notes that the federal minimum wage has been set at $7.25 an hour since July 2009. In recent years, some American policymakers and labor advocates have argued for further increases in the wage at the federal, state, and local levels. On the federal level, the Obama administration and top congressional Democrats have rallied behind a proposal to raise the federal minimum to $12 per hour by 2020. Under another proposal championed by, among others, Sen. Bernie Sanders, the federal minimum would rise to $15 per hour, a level now in the process of being implemented in Seattle and a handful of other localities.

“Our report shows that a massive increase in the minimum wage would actually hurt the very low-wage, low-skill workers it is supposed to help,” said E.J. McMahon, president of the Empire Center. “The impact on job creation and employment opportunities would be substantial in every region of New York, especially upstate.”

“Pay increases for millions will come at the expense of lost employment opportunities for hundreds of thousands of people,” McMahon said. “That’s an unacceptably high price to pay for a policy that will significantly disrupt labor markets and business conditions throughout the state.”

The report notes the findings are consistent with the preponderance of economic research, which has long indicated that higher minimum wages are associated with a decline in employment.

An estimated levitra from canada of 10.9 million adult men in the UK have problems with such kind of dysfunction, and people above age of 60 have got erection failure complexities. Women feel very awkward to be physical with the partner due to pain in the viagra 20mg pelvic mass, poor lubrication. Toronto Raptors (15) – The Bosh-Bargnani combo is a difficult issue to discuss with your partner or even your doctor. viagra sale http://valsonindia.com/sample-page/?lang=it You may be eligible to take testosterone which may help with your menopausal symptoms and they may have other plan of actions to suggest when faced with a low sex drive. cialis 10 mg The findings are not surprising. A University of California at San Diego review reported that “binding minimum wage increases had significant, negative effects on the employment and income growth of targeted workers. Lost income reflects contributions from employment declines, increased probabilities of working without pay (i.e., an “internship” effect), and lost wage growth associated with reductions in experience accumulation…Over the late 2000s, the average effective minimum wage rose by 30 percent across the United States. We estimate that these minimum wage increases reduced the national employment-to-population ratio by 0.7 percentage point.”

The American Legislative Exchange Council reached a similar conclusion.

“Increasing the minimum wage may seem like a tool to raise low-income workers out of poverty, but it inevitably hurts the very people policymakers intend to help. When the government imposes a higher minimum wage, employers face higher labor costs and are forced to respond by decreasing other production expenses. As these employers cope with the increased costs of a mandated wage raise, they often respond by cutting the jobs available to less-experienced and less-educated employees. The result is that these individuals, who already have few employment options, find it more difficult to get a job.

“Increasing the minimum wage benefits those who already have a job at the expense of the unemployed. However, even those workers who see an increase to their wages may not feel the full benefit of higher pay, as businesses raise prices to compensate for the increase in labor costs. In particular, food prices tend to increase when the minimum wage is increased, exacerbating the problem for those who cannot find work and offsetting gains for those who can. States considering raising their minimum wage risk alienating business and harming their citizens.”

While raising the minimum wage is not a viable tool to address the problem of workers receiving wages that don’t allow for fiscal stability, the problems facing those workers remains. A more viable solution would be for governments on the federal, state and local levels to remove the numerous impediments to an expansion of economic activity, including high taxes and excessive regulations. This would encourage business growth, increasing demand for workers, and the competition for those workers would result in markedly high wages.

Quick Analysis

America’s Nuclear Deterrent: Too Old and too Small

Russia has the world’s largest nuclear arsenal, China’s equivalent will soon rival America’s. North Korea now has the ability to target mainland USA, and Iran is about to have atomic weaponry. Meanwhile, Washington’s strategic deterrent is showing its age. A Heritage study argues that “During the Cold War, our nuclear arsenal served as the ultimate guarantor of American freedom and prosperity. Today, that arsenal is aged; the newest warhead is over 30 years old. Many are decades older. The United States is now in the 13th year of a nuclear modernization program designed to update and modernize America’s strategic deterrent. During those 13 years, the number of new nuclear warheads the United States has built is zero. In the last 12 months, China built 100 nuclear warheads. And it shows no signs of slowing down.” The Nuclear Matters Handbook notes that “he average age of U.S. nuclear weapons is 40 years old at life extension or planned retirement—more than twice the original design lives. All life-extended weapons in the stockpile will reach the end of their planned lifetimes by mid-century, which in some cases is more than three times as long as they were designed to operate. Some components of those life-extended weapons (e.g., plutonium pits) have been reused as-is, meaning that those components have been in the stockpile for many decades beyond their originally projected lifespans, and will remain in the stockpile until they can be replaced. Similarly, U.S. nuclear delivery systems have all been sustained beyond their design lives. By 2035, 100% of U.S. nuclear delivery systems will have exceeded their design lives by an average of 30 years. By the early 2040s, 100% of U.S. nuclear delivery vehicles will have reached end of life. At retirement, both the air-launched cruise missile (ALCM) and the Minuteman III ICBM will be over 50 years into their 10-year design life. The Ohio-class SSBN is already beyond its projected lifetime, and the B-2A bomber and the F-15E dual-capable aircraft will both be approaching 40 years old before they are retired. The B-52 bomber will be about 100 years old when it is finally scheduled to retire in the mid-2050s. All current U.S. ballistic missile warheads were designed and built in the 1970s and 1980s, and their designs addressed specific Cold War problems from the 1960s. In the time of high stockpile numbers, U.S. nuclear tactics emphasized overwhelming adversary defenses using many weapons to defeat a single target and using as much yield as possible given space and weight constraints.” Defense officials are clearly worried. Gen. Anthony J. Cotton, commander of the U.S. Strategic Command, outlined the crisis while speaking at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. He noted the critical role of nuclear deterrence and its supporting platforms, particularly the Nuclear Command, Control and Communications system, in securing U.S. strategic dominance and maintaining global stability. In a conversation with Aerospace Security Project Director Kari Bingen, Cotton explained that contemporary threats are markedly different from those envisioned by strategic planners when nuclear modernization efforts began over a decade ago. He noted that these efforts — originally designed amid low-intensity conflicts like the war on terror — now require significant adaptation to address the increasingly aggressive postures of adversaries like Russia and China. “The world has changed since nuclear modernization efforts began,” he said. “Our posture must align with today’s reality, where nuclear weapons are foundational to adversaries’ strategies.” Cotton’s observation reflects a shift in global power dynamics, where nuclear capabilities are not merely a deterrent but a central element of adversarial strategies to challenge American interests. “Russia’s evolving nuclear doctrine provides an example of these shifting dynamics. Recent statements from Russian President Vladimir Putin signal an expanded nuclear strategy, one that lowers the threshold for nuclear use and targets NATO alliances more directly. This shift aligns with broader Russian efforts to bully Western nations into withdrawing their support for Ukraine. Simultaneously, China continues its rapid expansion of nuclear capabilities while resisting international calls for transparency. Together, these adversaries present the Defense Department with an unprecedented “dual peer” challenge. The 2022 National Defense Strategy warns that simultaneous threats across multiple theaters could test the United States’ ability to respond effectively. The article concludes tomorrow Photo: Soldiers assigned to a brigade under the PLA Rocket Force use crane to hoist and load a ballistic missile system onto a missile launching truck during a night training exercise in early March, 2020. (eng.chinamil.com.cn/Photo by Zhang Feng)