July, 20 2009, 04:09pm EDT

For Immediate Release
Contact:
Alan Barber, (202) 293-5380 x 115
CEPR Statement on the Increase of the Minimum Wage
WASHINGTON
Congress did not foresee the current economic crisis when it scheduled three annual minimum wage increases starting in 2007. But for struggling working-class families and the economy as a whole, the increase could not come at a better time.
When the federal minimum wage rises by 70 cents to $7.25 an hour on July 24th, it will raise the pay of the lowest-paid workers and boost the economy. The economic boost comes because workers who benefit from the increase will spend it in their local communities. According to an estimate by the Economic Policy Institute, the modest 70-cent increase will generate $5.5 billion in consumer spending over the next year - providing a boost to the economy without any increase in government spending.
Moreover, because they're more likely to be struggling to make ends meet, low-wage workers are even more likely to spend an increase in their pay than better-paid workers, making the minimum wage increase a fairly efficient form of economic stimulus.
When President Franklin Roosevelt proposed the first federal minimum wage law in 1937, he noted that "one-third of the population" were "ill-nourished, ill-clad, and ill-housed" and argued that America should be able insure to "all our able-bodied working men and women a fair day's pay for a fair day's work."
More than 70 years later, the federal minimum wage and regular increases in it, serve the same basic values of economic fairness and decency. Nearly all of the benefits of the current minimum wage increase will go to working-class families, typically headed by workers with high school degrees and some post-secondary education or training, but no college degree. Most of these families live above the stingy federal poverty line-but they don't live very far above it, and they struggle on a daily basis to meet mortgage or rent payments, put food on the table, gas in their cars, and pay for child care and doctor's visits.
The minimum wage increase has these broad benefits because it helps both the more than 2.2 million workers currently earning it and a significant portion of the roughly 7.8 million workers with wages just above it. This happens in part because businesses often are concerned to insure that more senior workers earn at least a $1 or more above just-hired workers who are paid the minimum.
Another historical continuity is the role that the minimum wage has played in ensuring that women and young people are paid fairly. Before the federal minimum wage was enacted, several states had minimum wage protections that applied only to women and young people (including, at that time, children). In 1923 and 1936, the Supreme Court struck down state laws of this sort, but then reversed course in 1937-the so-called "switch in time that saved nine" because FDR had threatened to add members to the Court if it continued to strike down New Deal legislation-to uphold Washington State's law.
The minimum wage remains an essential labor market protection for women and younger workers. Despite progress in the latter half of the 20th century, full-time working women are still paid about 80 cents for every dollar a full-time working man is paid. More than half of all minimum wage workers are adult women; if teenage girls are included, then women make up fully two-thirds of all minimum wage workers. As a result, even though they apply to both men and women, increases in the minimum wage help to reduce the gender wage gap.
While significant, this month's increase in the minimum wage will still leave a full-time worker receiving it with income far below what they need to make ends meet. Of course, what it takes to "make ends meet" is subject to much debate among experts, but regular Americans have a more definite opinion. Surveys conducted by Gallup over the last several decades have asked people to name the minimum amount of money that a family of four would need to "get along in your local community." For much of the 1950s and 1960s, the typical response to this question was around $32,000 in today's dollars. In 1969, a woman working in a minimum-wage job and supporting two children earned an amount not far below this basic "get-along" standard (adjusted for family size).
Today, such a worker would be nowhere near it. In 2007, the "get-along" amount was $45,000. Even after this week's increase, a minimum wage worker will still earn less than $15,000 a year. Moreover, most will have no health insurance, no retirement plan, no paid vacation, or even sick days.
The increase in the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour is an important, albeit very modest step on a path that leads to a fair and more inclusive economy for all. Along the way, it will increase the pay and consumption spending of the most cash-strapped working families in the United States, giving the economy a small but much needed boost.
Congress was prescient in passing a minimum wage increase that would go into effect in the midst of a recession and financial muddle, when the economy needed it most. But we cannot count on this always happening. The service and clerical workers, who together make up more than 80 percent of minimum wage workers, should not have to wait for an act of Congress to get a raise. Indexing the minimum wage to half the average hourly pay of production and nonsupervisory employees will allow the minimum wage to rise in line with the pay of other workers. At the same time, it will enable the minimum wage to function as an automatic economic stabilizer, putting a floor under consumption and giving a much-needed shot to the economy.
The following experts are available for comment:
Eileen Appelbaum: CEPR Advisory Board Member
Dean Baker: Co-Director, CEPR
The Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) was established in 1999 to promote democratic debate on the most important economic and social issues that affect people's lives. In order for citizens to effectively exercise their voices in a democracy, they should be informed about the problems and choices that they face. CEPR is committed to presenting issues in an accurate and understandable manner, so that the public is better prepared to choose among the various policy options.
(202) 293-5380LATEST NEWS
DNC Chair Takes Aim at Vice Chair David Hogg's Push for Primary Challengers
"There are some effective people in our party; there are certainly some who are failing to meet the moment and know it's time for them not to seek reelection," Hogg told The Washington Post's daily podcast.
Apr 24, 2025
Democratic National Committee Vice Chair David Hogg rankled some in the party when he announced last week that he intends to support primary challenges to "asleep-at-the-wheel" Democrats in safe-blue seats—and now DNC Chair Ken Martin has rebuked Hogg and is poised to offer him what amounts to an ultimatum.
According to Martin, Hogg's effort could threaten the perceived neutrality of the DNC.
"You can't be both the player and the referee. Our job is clear cut: let voters vote, and once they've made their choice, to fight like hell to get that Democrat elected to office," wrote Martin in a column forTime published on Thursday.
Martin also invoked an episode from DNC history, when revelations like leaked emails cast doubt on the DNC's neutrality in the 2016 primary race between then-presidential candidates Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton, in favor of Clinton.
"The controversy alienated even our party's most loyal supporters who felt that party bosses, not Democratic primary voters, were deciding which candidate would emerge in the general election as the Democratic nominee," Martin wrote of that moment.
Martin also said that in the coming days, he plans to introduce reforms that will codify "principles of neutrality and fairness in our official party rules," including requiring party officers to stay neutral in Democratic primaries.
The outlet NOTUS was first to report Wednesday that Martin was planning to unveil this requirement, citing an unnamed senior official. Currently officers must remain neutral in presidential races.
Politico framed the move as an ultimatum, and wrote that "if passed by DNC members at their August meeting, [it] would effectively force Hogg to choose between remaining a party vice chair or stepping back from the group he co-founded, Leaders We Deserve."
Hogg, a gun reform activist and survivor of the 2018 school shooting in Parkland, Florida, intends to support primary bids through Leaders We Deserve. The political action committee has pledged to spend $20 million to support challengers.
According to The Washington Post, Hogg has already identified some of the incumbents he would like to see gone and is recruiting people to mount bids against them.
"There are some effective people in our party; there are certainly some who are failing to meet the moment and know it's time for them not to seek reelection. Whether that's because they're too old, for example, or if that's just because they aren’t able to meet it," Hogg told Colby Itkowitz on "Post Reports," the newspaper's podcast. "Because frankly, unfortunately, sucking is something that is not limited to age."
Hogg said he would not support challenges to Reps. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), James Clyburn (D-S.C.), and Steny Hoyer (D-M.D.)—but did not name the incumbents he had in mind to challenge.
On Wednesday, the progressive group Our Revolution announced results from a survey which showed that there's support among progressive and Democratic-leaning voters for primarying establishment Democrats who "lack grassroots energy or urgency."
"Our Revolution polling shows Hogg's sentiment is shared by a large majority of engaged progressive voters," the group said.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Number of Jailed Writers Increases Worldwide for Sixth Consecutive Year
"We are seeing that free expression, and therefore writers, are increasingly in the crosshairs of repression in a much wider range of countries," said PEN America.
Apr 24, 2025
A report released Thursday by the free expression group PEN America detailed how authoritarian regimes around the world, recognizing "the role that writers play in promoting critical inquiry and cultivating visions of a better, more just world," jailed more journalists and writers last year than ever before.
The number of imprisoned writers has ticked up each year since the group began its yearly Freedom to Write Index six years ago. In 2024, the index recorded 375 writers in prison across 40 countries—up from 339 writers who were detained in 33 countries the previous year.
The group observed startling trends in governments' crackdown on freedom of expression last year. The number of women imprisoned for their writing rose, with women making up 16% of those incarcerated last year, compared with 15% in 2023 and 14% in 2022.
Writers classified as "online commentators" accounted for 203 imprisoned authors last year, while 127 journalists were jailed for their work. Other professions represented in the index include literary writers, poets, songwriters, and creative artists.
"The high numbers of writers in the online commentator and journalist categories suggest that a significant proportion of the cases included jailing or other threats because of their writing commentary on politics or official policies, economic or social themes, or advocacy for a range of human rights," reads the report.
China and Iran are the biggest jailers of writers, with the two countries accounting for 43% of imprisoned writers worldwide.
Other top offenders include Saudi Arabia with 23 writers, Israel with 21, Russia with 18, and Belarus with 15.
"Authoritarian regimes are desperate to control the narrative of history and repress the truth about what they are doing. That is why writers are so important, and why we see these regimes attempting to silence them," said Karin Deutsch Karlekar, PEN America's director of writers at risk. "Jailing one writer for their words is a miscarriage of justice, but the systematic suppression of writers around the world represents an erosion of free expression—which is often the precursor to the destruction of other fundamental human rights."
The index includes all cases in which writers are detained for at least 48 hours in its accounting of jailed writers. The report notes that as in previous years, PEN America observed an increase in the number of writers held without charge or in pre-trial detention, with 80 such cases last year—up from 76 in 2023.
The majority of writers held in administrative and pre-trial detention—"tools of repression," the report says—were detained by officials in China, Egypt, and Israel.
The index highlighted a number of cases of jailed writers, including:
- Ilham Tohti, a Uyghur economist and blogger who "has been detained incommunicado since 2017" after being sentenced to life in prison by a court in Umruqi, China in 2014;
- Nobel Peace Prize laureate and women's rights campaigner Narges Mohammadi, who was among several women attacked by Iranian military forces and prison guards at Iran's Evin prison in August 2024; and
- Mahmoud Fatafta, a Palestinian columnist who was arrested in May 2024 by Israeli security forces in the West Bank while traveling with his 10-year-old son, with authorities citing his Facebook post in which he quoted Egyptian scholar Abdul Wahab al-Mesiri: "The more brutal the colonizer becomes, the nearer his end is."
Fatafta's arrest came amid Israel's U.S.-backed assault on Gaza and the West Bank, which has provoked outcry by international human rights groups, including in Israel and the United States.
The U.S. was not named as a country of concern in the index, but PEN America pointed to "recent developments in the United States," with the Trump administration revoking visas of foreign students who have protested the government's support for Israel and detaining several student organizers, as evidence of "the precarious nature of freedom of expression."
"The suppression of free expression has taken on an especially troubling dimension on college campuses where Palestinian and pro-Palestinian voices are being silenced, including via attempts to deport student activists, limiting discourse on issues of the war in Gaza and human rights," reads the report.
PEN America noted that Columbia student organizers Mahmoud Khalil and Mohsen Mahdawi and Tufts student Rumeysa Ozturk were apparently detained "purely on the grounds of speech protected by the U.S. Constitution," with Ozturk targeted specifically because she co-authored an opinion piece for a student newspaper.
Their detention, said the group, "not only undermines academic freedom but also stifles the critical exchange of ideas."
"As geopolitics continue to shift and authoritarian tendencies spread to countries that were once considered safely anchored in openness," said PEN America, "we are seeing that free expression, and therefore writers, are increasingly in the crosshairs of repression in a much wider range of countries."
Karlekar said that writers like those who have been detained in the last year "represent a threat to disinformation and encourage people to think critically about what is going on around them."
"War, conflict, and attacks against the free exchange of information and ideas go hand in hand with lies and propaganda," said Karlekar. "With the index, we want to alert the world to the jailing and mistreatment of these 375 writers. Each and every one of them should be released, and we insist that the world's jailers of writers end this repression and abuse."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Flagrantly Enabling Insider Trading': Trump White House Reportedly Tips Off Wall St on Trade Talks
"Wall Street execs are getting a direct heads-up from the White House about news that could earn them billions on the stock market."
Apr 24, 2025
Officials inside U.S. President Donald Trump's White House have reportedly tipped off Wall Street executives about a potentially imminent trade agreement with India, a move that one watchdog group described as further evidence that the administration is "flagrantly enabling insider trading."
Fox Business correspondent Charles Gasparino reported Thursday that unnamed "people inside the Trump White House are alerting Wall Street execs they are nearing an agreement in principle on trade with India." Gasparino cited "senior Wall Street execs" with ties to the Trump White House.
It's not clear what kind of information Trump administration officials provided Wall Street executives or how the information differs from publicly available reporting and White House comments on the U.S.-India trade talks, which have thus far been scant on specific details about the timing or provisions of a potential deal.
U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, a former hedge fund manager, told reporters Wednesday that the Trump administration was "very close" to a bilateral trade agreement with India, one of the United States' largest trading partners.
The report of behind-the-scenes communications between the Trump White House and Wall Street executives on a matter that could substantially move financial markets drew immediate alarm.
Emily Peterson-Cassin, corporate power director at the Demand Progress Education Fund, said Thursday that "while we all look at our retirement accounts with alternating relief and horror, Wall Street execs are getting a direct heads-up from the White House about news that could earn them billions on the stock market."
"The White House is flagrantly enabling insider trading and is continuing their long history of embracing Wall Street while throwing everyday Americans to the wolves," said Peterson-Cassin. "These tip-offs also serve as a corrupt shakedown scheme to lure powerful CEOs into Trump's orbit to beg for their own special carve-outs. It is crystal clear that the president doesn't care about fighting for Main Street and just wears economic populism like one of his ill-fitting suits."
Earlier this month, Trump himself sparked insider trading concerns by writing on his social media platform that it was a "great time to buy" stocks shortly before announcing a partial 90-day tariff pause, which sent equities surging.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular