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
Slotkin Panned Online After Claiming That Voters Don't Know What 'Oligarchy' Means
"It's condescending to say that the median person doesn't understand what oligarchy is," said one progressive strategist. "They're living it."
Apr 25, 2025
U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders' tour headlined with this word has drawn more than 107,000 Americans in blue and deep-red states alike. Former President Joe Biden's use of it in his farewell speech prompted a spike in Google searches. And one recent poll found that a majority of U.S. voters, including 54% of Democrats and more than two-thirds of Independents, know exactly what it means.
Yet Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.) was among the Democratic politicians insisting this week that no one does.
The word is "oligarchy"—a government ruled by a small group of elites—and as experts have warned for years, the U.S. increasingly resembles one. As Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) have told huge crowds in places like Nampa, Idaho and Greeley, Colorado in recent weeks, President Donald Trump's alliance with billionaire tech mogul Elon Musk has made the country's shift even more obvious.
But even as evidence mounts that Americans understand that the political system has been captured by corporations and the wealthiest people—and are living their day-to-day lives with the results, including higher healthcare costs and disinvestment in public services—Slotkin toldPolitico on Thursday that Democrats should "stop using the term 'oligarchy,' a phrase she said doesn't resonate beyond coastal institutions."
On Bluesky, The Nation writer John Nichols said that the tens of thousands people who have packed stadiums and parks in recent weeks to hear Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez speak would disagree with Slotkin.
Michigan Senator Elissa Slotkin says Democrats should stop using the term "oligarchy" because, she says, no one knows what it means. These people say she’s wrong.
[image or embed]
— John Nichols (@nicholsuprising.bsky.social) April 24, 2025 at 8:00 PM
Slotkin's advice for Democrats, which she dubbed her "war plan" and gave ahead of several speeches she has planned, also included a call for the party to stop being "weak and woke," phrases she said she heard in Michigan focus groups.
Her comments echoed those of former Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, a longtime Democratic operative who told California Gov. Gavin Newsom on his podcast last week that using terms like "oligarchs" and "special interests" makes Democrats "worse marketers"; Newsom appeared to agree that people don't "understand" what an oligarchy is.
Emanuel also appeared on the political and pop culture podcast "I've Had It," hosted by Jennifer Welch and Angie Sullivan, and seemed caught of guard when Welch took him to task for his suggestion that Democrats should end their advocacy for issues that affect transgender Americans.
"That is total bullshit, that is buying into the right-wing media narrative, and I'm so sick of Democrats like you selling out and saying this," said Welch. "You know who talks about trans people more than anybody? MAGA... We've got to fucking fight. They're the gender-obsessed weirdos, not us. We're the ones who fight for Social Security, we fight for Medicare, and yeah, we're not gonna bully trans people."
Semafor political reporter Dave Weigel said Emanuel's derision of the word "oligarchy" is a clear "shot at Sanders/AOC, who keep saying it."
At one stop on the Fighting Oligarchy Tour recently, Sanders told a crowd that the enthusiasm for his and Ocasio-Cortez's message is "scaring the hell out of" Trump and Musk.
But shortly after Slotkin's comments, Ocasio-Cortez remarked—without naming the senator—that "plenty of politicians on both sides of the aisle feel threatened by rising class consciousness."
Angelo Greco, a progressive strategist who works with grassroots organizations including Our Revolution and One Fair Wage, told Common Dreams on Friday that establishment Democrats' dismissal of the term oligarchy is "out of touch" and "underestimates" voters.
"Tell me that farmers don't understand what the oligarchy is when there's a consolidation of the agribusiness that impacts them. Tell me that workers in Michigan don't understand what it means when trade deals that are written by multinational corporations have led to lower wages and plant closures," said Greco. "It's condescending to say that the median person doesn't understand what oligarchy is. They're living it."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Fascism Getting Turned Up' as Trump FBI Arrests Wisconsin County Judge
"This isn't justice," said one observer. "It's a warning shot: Obey, or get cuffed."
Apr 25, 2025
This is a breaking story... Please check back for possible updates...
Federal agents arrested a sitting Wisconsin judge on Friday, accusing her of helping an undocumented immigrant evade arrest after he appeared in her courtroom last week, FBI Director Kash Patel said on social media.
In a since-deleted post, Patel said the FBI arrested 65-year-old Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan "on charges of obstruction."
"We believe Judge Dugan intentionally misdirected federal agents away from the subject to be arrested in her courthouse... allowing the subject—an illegal alien—to evade arrest," Patel wrote. "Thankfully, our agents chased down the perp on foot and he's been in custody since, but the judge's obstruction created increased danger to the public."
FBI arrests judge in escalation of Trump immigration enforcement effort Federal agents arrested Milwaukee Circuit Court Judge Hannah Dugan on obstruction charges. Dugan is accused of “helping” an immigrant evade arrest. The fascism getting turned up!
[image or embed]
— RootsAction ( @rootsaction.org) April 25, 2025 at 8:05 AM
It is unclear why Patel deleted the post. U.S. Marshals Service spokesperson Brady McCarron and multiple Milwaukee County judges confirmed Dugan's arrest, according to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. McCarron said Dugan is facing two federal felony counts: obstruction and concealing an individual.
The Journal Sentinel reported that Dugan "appeared before U.S. Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Dries during a brief hearing in a packed courtroom at the federal courthouse" and "made no public comments during the brief hearing."
Dugan's attorney, Craig Mastantuono, told the court that "Judge Dugan wholeheartedly regrets and protests her arrest," which "was not made in the interest of public safety."
Prominent Milwaukee defense attorney and former federal prosecutor Franklyn Gimbel called Dugan's arrest "very, very outrageous."
"First and foremost, I know—as a former federal prosecutor and as a defense lawyer for decades—that a person who is a judge, who has a residence who has no problem being found, should not be arrested, if you will, like some common criminal," Gimbel told the Journal Sentinel.
"And I'm shocked and surprised that the U.S. Attorney's office or the FBI would not have invited her to show up and accept process if they're going to charge her with a crime," he added.
FBI has arrested Judge Hannah Dugan in Milwaukee, WI, for "helping an illegal escape arrest." FBI hasn't provided an arrest warrant or criminal complaint, but Judge Dugan already sits behind bars. We told you it would escalate when they disappeared immigrants without due process. This is fascism.
— Qasim Rashid, Esq. (@qasimrashid.com) April 25, 2025 at 9:21 AM
Julius Kim, another former prosecutor-turned defense lawyer, said on the social media site X that "practicing in Milwaukee, I know Judge Hannah Dugan well. She's a good judge, and this entire situation demonstrates how the Trump administration's policies are heading for a direct collision course with the judiciary."
"That being said, given the FBI director's tweet (since deleted), they are going to try to politicize this situation to the max," Kim added. "That sounds an awful lot like weaponizing the DOJ, doesn't it?"
Responding to Dugan's arrest, liberal podcaster Brian Allen wrote on social media: "This isn't justice. It's a warning shot: Obey, or get cuffed."
Keep ReadingShow Less
ICE Admits They Didn't Have a Warrant When They Arrested Mahmoud Khalil
"ICE has admitted it detained Mahmoud illegally and without a warrant—to justify it, they are now flat out lying with an absurd claim that he tried to flee," said a staff attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights.
Apr 25, 2025
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents did not have a warrant when they arrested Palestinian activist and green-card holder Mahmoud Khalil on March 8, according to court papers filed by the Department of Homeland Security on Thursday—an admission that elicited outrage from members of Khalil's legal team.
Marc Van Der Hout, an attorney representing Khalil, said Thursday that "DHS agents who arrested Mahmoud lied to him: They wrote in their arrest report that the agents told him that they had an arrest warrant, but DHS has now admitted in their filing that that was a lie and that there was no warrant at all at the time of the arrest."
"The government's admission is astounding," added Van Der Hout.
Officers with DHS served Khalil with a warrant after his arrest when he arrived at an ICE facility in New York for processing, according to court filings. In the filing, an attorney for DHS argued that "an exception to the warrant requirement exists where the immigration officer has reason to believe that the individual is likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained."
According to the government, immigration agents did not need a warrant to arrest Khalil because his conduct gave them reason to believe it was likely he would flee. The government also alleged that Khalil "refused to cooperate" with immigration agents arresting him—an account that Khalil's supporters say contradicts a video of his arrest that was taken by his wife, Noor Abdalla.
"ICE has admitted it detained Mahmoud illegally and without a warrant—to justify it, they are now flat out lying with an absurd claim that he tried to flee. At every step of the way, the Trump administration has flouted the law," said Samah Sisay, a staff attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights.
Another attorney for Khalil, Amy Greer, said she was on the phone with Khalil, his wife, and even spoke to the agent making the arrest on March 8.
"In the face of multiple agents in plain clothes who clearly intended to abduct him, and despite the fact that those agents repeatedly failed to show us a warrant, Mahmoud remained calm and complied with their orders," she said Thursday. "Today we now know why they never showed Mahmoud that warrant—they didn't have one."
According to CNN, these latest documents were filed to fulfill a request from the New Jersey federal district court judge overseeing Khalil's federal case, who directed Khalil's legal team and attorneys at the Department of Justice to submit all filings that were presented in his immigration case in Louisiana, where he is currently being held at an ICE detention center.
In federal court, Khalil's attorneys are challenging the legality of his detention and have sought his release on bail.
Khalil, who completed work on his masters degree from Columbia University in December, was active in pro-Palestine organizing on the school's campus last year. Another Palestinian green-card holder active in Columbia's student protest movement, Mohsen Mahdawi, was also recently arrested by federal immigration agents.
Abdalla was eight months pregnant when Khalil was detained. ICE denied Kahlil's request for a temporary furlough to be with his wife while she gave birth on April 21.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular