Adjusting for inflation raising the minimum wage to $12 by 2020 would return the minimum wage to where it was in 1968, the Economic Policy Institute said Thursday morning. In 1968, the minimum wage was 52.1% of the median wage. Current minimum wage is about 37.1% of the median wage. “Raising the federal minimum wage to $12.00 by 2020, under the conservative assumption of no real wage growth at the median, would leave the ratio at 54.1%, just above where it was in 1968,” EPI wrote in a report released Thursday.
The Guardian
May 1, 2015
A $10.10 wage would have brought it in line with about where it would have been if it had kept up with inflation since its peak in 1968. But this was, according to economist David Cooper with the Economic Policy Institute who has worked with lawmakers on crafting the $12 wage bill, “the lowest possible threshold for where you could be aiming.” He added, “What you’re saying is that low-wage workers should have seen no material improvement in their standard of living over the last 50 years.” That’s despite the fact that there has been significant economic growth, driven in part by rapidly increasing worker productivity.
Think Progress
May 1, 2015
The Raise the Wage Act would raise the federal minimum wage $0.75 in 2016 to $8.00 an hour and raise it an additional $1 per year for the next four years. The Economic Policy Institute estimates that 37.7 million workers would benefit from the cumulative five-year increase. As shown in the infographic above, the family of the average person in this group relies on the earner for more than half of its total income.
The Washington Post
April 30, 2015
“Most of this deceleration is likely transitory—due in part to particularly bad weather in the first quarter. Growth in the rest of 2015 will most likely be faster than previously projected, as the economy bounces back from this weak start to the year. Yet data on GDP in recent years confirms that the U.S. economy has not reached escape velocity—growth rates have not broken past the 2%-2.5% pace that normally is associated with rapid declines in economic slack. Because growth has been steady for years, it might be tempting for some policy makers to shrug their shoulders and declare that this is the ‘new normal’ and the best we can do. The economic evidence clearly suggests otherwise—this economy still needs active measures to boost demand to achieve a full recovery. At a minimum, this means the Federal Reserve should put off interest rate increases for the rest of 2015.” — Josh Bivens, Economic Policy Institute
Wall Street Journal
April 30, 2015
The Economic Policy Institute estimates that between 2007 and 2010, a total of $121.5 billion in executive compensation was deductible from corporate earnings, and roughly 55 percent of this total was for performance-based compensation.
The Atlantic Monthly notes that: “Between 1940 and 1970, average CEO pay remained below $1 million (in 2000 dollars). According to the Economic Policy Institute, from 1978 to 2013, CEO pay at American firms rose a stunning 937 percent, compared with a mere 10.2 percent growth in worker compensation over the same period, all adjusted for inflation. In 2013, the average CEO pay at the top 350 U.S. companies was $15.2 million.”
Congressional Mentions
April 30, 2015
Regarding the April 27 editorial “Mr. Obama’s trade fight,” defending the Trans-Pacific Partnership:
Critics object that the proposal would further lower incomes and opportunities for working Americans. The template for the trade deal is the1994 North American Free Trade Agreement with Canada and Mexico, upon which all of the major U.S. trade deals since have been based. Under that model, the United States negotiates away the interests of Americans who work here to gain benefits for Americans who invest elsewhere. Unsurprisingly, these agreements have helped generate chronic trade deficits, driven down wages and increased inequality.
The editorial was silent on this record. Its one reference to NAFTA was followed by the irrelevant point that the United States is running a surplus with four minor trading partners. The major argument seems to be that the Trans-Pacific Partnership will check China’s influence — in Asia!
The editorial board’s failure to demonstrate domestic economic benefits from the Trans-Pacific Partnership reveals just how weak the case for it is.
The Washington Post
April 29, 2015
While rising exports help support American jobs, rising imports can put Americans out of work. “Looking only at exports is like counting only the runs by the home team,” said Robert Scott, a trade economist at the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute. “Might make you feel good, but it doesn’t tell you the outcome of the game — it doesn’t tell you whether your team won or not.” The U.S. trade deficit with Korea has widened more than 80 percent since the trade deal took effect. Scott worries the Asia Pacific deal will bring more of the same. “My answer is, show me the money,” Scott said. “Show me the wages that you’re going to generate for working Americans. Explain how this policy is going to reverse the 30-year trend of stagnant real wages for most working Americans.”
NPR
April 29, 2015
Could you hold the key to eliminating income inequality? We unpack the belief that talking to your friends about how much money you make could help close the pay gap.
The Huffington Post
April 28, 2015
And we know, because we have seen the impact on our economy firsthand. Without our trade deficit with Japan, Michigan would have an estimated 56,200 more jobs, according to a report from the Economic Policy Institute. Let me tell you, people feel it.
Detroit Free Press
April 28, 2015
According to Sanders, the impacts he identified are based on an evaluation of House and Senate versions of the budget resolutions by the Office of Management and Budget, the Economic Policy Institute and the Institute of Taxation and Economic Policy. Some data was generated based on projections from the Census Bureau and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
The Hill
April 28, 2015