America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Nearly half of DC employers said they have laid off workers, reduced hours due to minimum wage hikes
By Ali Meyer Published June 07, 2016

Nearly half of Washington, D.C. employers said they have either laid off employees or reduced the hours of employees to adapt to the District of Columbia’s minimum wage hikes since 2014, according to a report from the Employment Policies Institute.

The minimum wage in the District of Columbia has increased from a $8.25 hourly rate in 2014 to the current rate of $11.50 per hour. Mayor Muriel Bowser advocated a $15 minimum wage in her State of the District address earlier this year.

“In recent months, the City Council in D.C. has considered enacting a number of new labor mandates, including a higher minimum wage, a bill that would fine employers for schedule changes, and a family leave policy funded by a tax on employers,” the report says.

The institute surveyed 100 employers in Washington, D.C. to understand how they would react to a further minimum wage hike.

“Employers affected by the proposed increase to a $15 minimum wage were asked if they had either reduced the number of employees on their staff, or reduced the hours of current employees, to adapt to recently enacted minimum wage increases,” the report says. “Nearly half of employers surveyed had already taken one of these steps—suggesting that 2014-16 minimum wage increases haven’t been absorbed through higher prices alone.”

According to the report, just over half of the businesses surveyed said they planned to raise prices in order to offset the cost of a minimum wage hike. Thirty-five percent said they would likely reduce staffing levels and 37 percent said they would reduce employees’ hours or reduce the number of hours they were open for business. Thirty-one percent of businesses said they were very likely to hire more skilled workers in the future to offset the higher wage.


Film at 11....

Perhaps....but just know that the 'Employment Policies Institute' is essentially a lobby organization for McDonalds...Gots to take their 'studies' with a big grain of McSalt

Switzerland rejects plan to pay every citizen at least $2,500 a month
A proposal to dramatically change social welfare policy has been soundly rejected in Switzerland.

The vast majority of Swiss voters on Sunday rejected a referendum that would have provided every citizen a guaranteed income of $2,500 Swiss francs ($2,520) after tax, regardless of their employment status or wealth.

All told, about 77% of Swiss voters were against the measure, which lost by at least 10 percentage points in all of the country's 26 districts.

The plan would have allowed those earning less than the minimum to have their pay topped up. Those out of work would have been handed the full amount. The income would have been unconditional and untaxed, and it would have replaced various welfare payments.

The Swiss government opposed the initiative, saying it would have needed to find 25 billion Swiss francs a year to pay for it. The resulting new taxes, or spending cuts, would have damaged the economy, it argued.

The Federal Council and Parliament feared that "fewer people would choose to work" if the measure had been approved.

The Swiss debate started in 2013, when a petition in favor of the initiative gathered more than the 100,000 signatures, and the idea attracted worldwide media attention leading up to the referendum on Sunday.

Switzerland is not the first country to debate the idea of basic income.

The basic income campaigners say it would boost entrepreneurship.

Finland is considering scrapping all welfare benefits and instead paying everyone $10,000 a year. A pilot program will launch early next year: Roughly 10,000 Finns will receive about 550 euros a month for two years.

http://money.cnn.com/2016/06/05/news/economy/switzerland-basic-income-referendum/index.html

---

Minimum wage advocates will never get it.

somebody's got an agenda????

I certainly get that.....It would be pretty silly of a group to be in favor of a policy that would be detrimental to them

My thing is that nobody expects unions to be altruistic or seeking some sort of greater good....they have a specific constituency to look out for. It's the sneaky nature of 'institutes' like EPI that leak or publish 'studies' that try to appear 'scientific' or 'reasoned' or non-partisan, when in fact, they're anything but

maybe a tad shortsighted....what about increase efficiency, reduce overhead, reduce shareholder dividends, lower profits, market more efficiently, or any number of other things....just playing devils advocate here...but if there is widespread acknowledgement that income gaps are increasing, it is an ineffective argument to say that you can't pay lowest tier better wages....not saying your points aren't valid...but it is rather pointless to raise arguments that only get through to those that already agree with you

I agree.
But in this instance, the unions aren't themselves front and center. It's sneaky and therefore disingenuous.

It's intended to help Obamacare... he thinks if he gives the poor more money they will buy his insurance...

Unions would rather you make much less outside of membership, so that you'll join, and pay dues. Why would a union want the government to give people more money, decreasing that chance that'll they'll join the union?
As a lifelong Union member, and a person with common sense, the whole, "it's the unions fault" is very stupid in this case.

It's comes with my dues receipt.

your most liberal post evah!

training costs (tax) money.

fishing is free, unless you need a license.

And Tacklewarehouse

that would be gay...

why buy the fish when you can get the milk for free

or something like that

Gummy milks fish ?

What a moronic thing to say. Coming from the guy who doesn't even know that his team is playing in the Stanley Cup Final.
Idiot!
I've been fishing for well over 50 years.
The cost of the boat, equipment, insurance, gas, licensing and the many other costs associated with fishing make it pretty tough to come out ahead economically when catching fish.
Just to reiterate, idiot.

Shut up! Wives may read this, damn you!

Salt water fishing poles = 3. $70, $182, and $224. Reels for those poles = 3. $109, $160, $433. That's almost $1,200 just for the rods/reels.

Tackle? Fuhgedaboudit.

i get it, really
but at least you own that rod and reel and squid and whatever.
think fishing is expensive get into competitive and/or long range shooting of any frequency

i am talking about the gov fees, no matter how big or small, to even contemplate said activities. despite our taxes, etc we still have to pay to play.

licensing to use your own pond or sit in a tree stand in your back yard seems crazy

a yearly sporstmans license is $40 (currently, goes up yearly) in wv, coupled with this economy, it is a lot for some folks - prohibitory even

head of uaw must put in a heck of a lot of overtime hours at minimum wage to have that 1mil+ salary

must be a workaholic

I good fisherman doesn't need the fancy stuff or a boat

Bow bow bow

So you eat carp and/or gar?

^^^^^^^^^^^This^^^^^^^^^^^

You also have to buy a salmon and trout stamp here, that money pays for stocking Lake Michigan with salmonids.

they do im sure

but im also sure there are other superfluous things that could be cut to free up the trillions in other tax dollars to fund that cause

what do the dnr folks do for a pennsylvanian that justifies $40 and extra $ for a doe tag so that guy can hunt on his own land?

the fact remains that some folks are very poor and some rely very heavily on game to survive. those little fees (that go up yearly) may not affect you or i but be prohibitive for them.

ya, but to some Vo-tech is like a Dollar General store... Way beneath them to step foot in one... Bernie promised to pay for Four year colleges for everyone..

good point

much less embarrassing to be third generation welfare rather than making $70k+/year as a welder