The Democrats, their union supporters, and liberals in general are making a hard and concerted push for an increase in the minimum wage. President Obama mentioned the subject prominently in his State of the Union address on Tuesday night and even promised to take executive action to increase the minimum wage federal contractors must pay their workers starting in 2015. While Republicans and small business owners are sure to resist this push, it is important that everyone on both sides debates the issue with the correct facts. Much of what you hear about the minimum wage is completely untrue.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics there are about 3.6 million workers at or below the minimum wage (you can be below legally under certain conditions). That is 2.5 percent of all workers and 1.5 percent of the population of potential workers. Within that small group, 31 percent are teenagers and 55 percent are 25 years old or younger. That leaves only about 1.1 percent of all workers over 25 and 0.8 percent of all Americans over 25 earning the minimum wage.
Within that tiny group, most of these workers are not poor and are not trying to support a family on only their earnings. In fact, according to a recent study, 63 percent of workers who earn less than $9.50 per hour (well over the minimum wage of $7.25) are the second or third earner in their family and 43 percent of these workers live in households that earn over $50,000 per year. Thus, minimum wage earners are not a uniformly poor and struggling group; many are teenagers from middle class families and many more are sharing the burden of providing for their families, not carrying the load all by themselves.
These numbers reveal not just the selective statistics employed by the proponents of raising the minimum wage, but also that the debate has little to do with helping the poor. Instead, this is really a debate about income redistribution. Raising the minimum wage is actually just an attempt by liberals to punish a subset of business owners by redistributing a share of their supposed wealth to their employees. It is just another attempt at class warfare. Unfortunately, in many cases (including restaurants), the minimum wage increase results in price increases paid by the customers; customers who may be no richer than the workers whose pay increase they are being forced to fund.
Read the full article at Forbes.com.
Which of these alternative "economy boosting" ideas should Obama try next?
Total Voters: 158
Here’s why I didn’t watch the Creation-Evolution debate earlier this week: It’s never been about the science. Never.
The actual facts, as opposed to “Facts™” that the Religion of Evolution likes to pretend are actual facts, support neither theory. The “Facts™” like radiometric dating; images constructed from individual, miniscule bones; similar animals claimed as ancestors (in spite of similar animals alive today, which argue that similarity does not prove progeny); etc, Evolutionists love to wave about as if they are iron-clad proof that their religion is really science as opposed to “Science™” (the word Evolutionists use to describe their religion.)
The few Evolutionists with integrity admit that there exist no real proof, but given the only real options, they choose a materialistic theory over what they consider, a supernatural theory. I can respect them for having the honesty to admit it. But they are few.
Regardless what evidence you present to try to prove one or the other, it all boils down to interpretation. So a debate between two people focusing on the science will inevitably end in a stalemate, with both sides claiming victory. I predicted that, and that’s exactly what happened.
Although a handful of Evolutionists argue that the Creationists “won” because the debate lent credibility to Creationism, which they consider fairy tales, ignoring the number of actual scientists who are also Creationists. They believe they can prove their religion true by baselessly attacking any person who disagrees with them, as all “Science™” is proven.
My kids and my wife are wanting to watch the debate (which I downloaded after they asked) so ultimately it may be educational only inasmuch as I can show them how the whole debate is arguing about interpretation. You cannot convince someone that Evolution is false who insists that all of the evidence that shows it’s false is religious dogma, regardless how sound it is. Trust me, I’ve had an Evolutionist insist that trigonometry is religious dogma when I used it to show how stellar parallax is untrustworthy past 200 light years.
IRS Commissioner John Koskinen told reporters after the hearing before the House Ways and Means Committee that the singling out of such organizations for special scrutiny would be “intolerable,” and vowed the IRS is not doing so now.
“It won’t happen going forward,” Koskinen said. “And to the extent that people suffered accordingly, I apologize for that.”
Koskinen also expressed concern over the amount of time and manpower being spent by the IRS on the investigation into the scandal, calling the probe a “major drain” on resources.
“Which is one of the reasons I hope we can get to closure as soon as possible to get it behind us,” he said. “The facts will be what they are and we’ll respond appropriately. But we have a lot of resources that we could actually put to productive use dealing with services to taxpayers.”
Read the full story at FoxNews.com.
In other words, sorry we got caught, but can we just pretend it didn’t happen.
“Currently, one of nine drivers involved in fatal crashes would test positive for marijuana,” Dr. Guohua Li, director of the Center for Injury Epidemiology and Prevention at Columbia, and co-author of the study told HealthDay News.
Researchers from Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health gathered data from six states – California, Hawaii, Illinois, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and West Virginia – that perform toxicology tests on drivers involved in fatal car accidents. This data included over 23,500 drivers that died within one hour of a crash between 1999 and 2010.
Li reported in the study that alcohol contributed to about 40 percent of traffic fatalities throughout the decade.
The researchers found that drugs played an increasing role in fatal traffic accidents. Drugged driving accounted for more than 28 percent of traffic deaths in 2010, which is 16 percent more than it was in 1999.
The researchers also found that marijuana was the main drug involved in the increase. It contributed to 12 percent of fatal crashes, compared to only 4 percent in 1999.
Read the full article at CBS Seattle.