Share on Google Plus Share on Twitter Share on Facebook 2 Share on LinkedIn Share on PInterest Share on Fark! Share on Reddit Share on StumbleUpon Tell A Friend (2 Shares)  
Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites View Article Stats   2 comments

Elizabeth Warren: Minimum Wage Would Be $22 An Hour If It Had Kept Up With Productivity

Quicklink submitted by M. Wizard     Permalink
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; (more...) ; ; ; ; ; ; ; , Add Tags  (less...)

View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com


At www.huffingtonpost.com

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) made a case for increasing the minimum wage last week during a Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions hearing, in which she cited a study that suggested the federal minimum wage would have stood at nearly $22 an hour today if it had kept up with increased rates in worker productivity. 'If we started in 1960 and we said that as productivity goes up, that is as workers are producing more, then the minimum wage is going to go up the same. And if that were the case then the minimum wage today would be about $22 an hour,' she said, speaking to Dr. Arindrajit Dube, a University of Massachusetts Amherst professor who has studied the economic impacts of minimum wage. 'So my question is Mr. Dube, with a minimum wage of $7.25 an hour, what happened to the other $14.75? It sure didn't go to the worker.'

Read the rest of the story HERE:

At www.huffingtonpost.com


 

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this Quicklink has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
2 people are discussing this page, with 2 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)

Since we know the minimum wage is never going to b... by Mark Goldes on Thursday, Mar 21, 2013 at 12:29:50 PM
Elizabeth Warren's argument is based on one-factor... by Gary Reber on Thursday, Mar 21, 2013 at 1:12:52 PM