Obama-Clinton's New War On Wages

Obama And Clinton's New Clean Power Plan Threatens Wages, Jobs, And States' Electric Grids

CLINTON CONTINUES HER ASSAULT ON COAL FAMILIES WITH HER SUPPORT OF OBAMA'S CLEAN POWER PLAN

Clinton Called Obama's Flawed Clean Power Plan (CPP) A "Significant Step Forward"

Clinton Has Vowed To Defend And "Build On" Obama's New Clean Power Plan If Elected President, Calling It A "Significant Step Forward." "Democratic front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton pledged Sunday that if elected she will build on a new White House clean energy program and defend it against those she called 'Republican doubters and defeatists.' Clinton was the first 2016 candidate to respond to the ambitious plan that President Obama will debut on Monday. Details of the program, which aims to cut greenhouse-gas pollution, were released over the weekend. The new regulation will require every state to reduce emissions from coal-burning power plants. In a statement Sunday, Clinton called the plan 'a significant step forward in meeting the urgent threat of climate change.'" (Anne Gearan, "Hillary Clinton Promises To Build On Obama Climate Plan As President," The Washington Post , 8/2/15)

JOBS AND WAGES WILL BOTH BE IN DECLINE IN THE HARDEST HIT AREAS

The United Mine Workers Of America Predict Job Losses Of 75,000

United Mine Workers Of America's President Cecil Roberts: "The proposed rule issued today by the Environmental Protection Agency will lead to long-term and irreversible job losses for thousands of coal miners, electrical workers, utility workers, boilermakers, railroad workers and others without achieving any significant reduction of global greenhouse gas emissions." ( Press Release, "EPA Existing Source Emissions Rule Puts American Jobs At Risk, Does Nothing To Address Climate Change," United Mine Workers Of America, 6/2/14)

Analysis From The UMWA Show A Direct Loss Of 75,000 Jobs In Coal Generation By 2020, Because Of CPP. "'Our initial analysis indicates that there will be a loss of 75,000 direct coal generation jobs in the United States by 2020. Those are jobs primarily in coal mines, power plants, and railroads.'" ( Press Release, "EPA Existing Source Emissions Rule Puts American Jobs At Risk, Does Nothing To Address Climate Change," United Mine Workers Of America, 6/2/14)

"By 2035, Those Job Losses Will More Than Double To 152,000," A 50 Percent Cut In "Well-Paying, Highly Skilled Jobs. "'By 2035, those job losses will more than double to 152,000. That amounts to about a 50 percent cut in these well-paying, highly skilled jobs. When a U.S. government economic multiplier used to calculate the impact of job losses is applied to the entire economy, we estimate that the total impact will be about 485,000 permanent jobs lost.'" ( Press Release, "EPA Existing Source Emissions Rule Puts American Jobs At Risk, Does Nothing To Address Climate Change," United Mine Workers Of America, 6/2/14)

The Left-Leaning Economic Policy Institute's Review Of The CPP Show That Job Losses Will Be "Geographically Concentrated"

Economic Policy Institute's Josh Bivens Authored A Report That Showed How Jobs Losses From Obama's Climate Plan Would Be "Geographically Concentrated." "Gross job losses are likely to be geographically concentrated, raising the challenge of ensuring a fair transition for workers in sectors likely to contract due to the CPP." (Josh Bivens, "A Comprehensive Analysis Of The Employment Impacts Of The EPA's Proposed Clean Power Plan," Economic Policy Institute, 6/9/15)

This Movement Away From Coal-Fired Power Will Lead To "Significant Declines" In Coal Mining Jobs. "The switch from coal-fired generation will lead to a reduction in demand for coal, and subsequent significant declines in both the short and long term for coal mining jobs." (Josh Bivens, "A Comprehensive Analysis Of The Employment Impacts Of The EPA's Proposed Clean Power Plan," Economic Policy Institute, 6/9/15)

• By 2025, Coal Mining Jobs Will Be Reduced By Over 15,000. "In 2020, coal extraction employment is down 12,600 jobs relative to the non-CPP baseline. This means that employment in coal mining is lower by 12,600 jobs than would otherwise be expected in that year because of the CPP. In 2025, coal extraction employment is down 15,300 jobs relative to the baseline." (Josh Bivens, "A Comprehensive Analysis Of The Employment Impacts Of The EPA's Proposed Clean Power Plan," Economic Policy Institute, 6/9/15)

Wages Will Decline In Reaction To Rising Energy Prices. "There will also be supply-side reductions as the (slight) decline in real wages spurred by rising energy prices affects labor supply decisions." (Josh Bivens, "A Comprehensive Analysis Of The Employment Impacts Of The EPA's Proposed Clean Power Plan," Economic Policy Institute, 6/9/15)

The Report Also Shows How Electricity Rates Will Be Raised, Affecting Employment. "Another channel through which the CPP could affect employment that is missing from EPA estimates concerns the effect of electricity price increases. The CPP is estimated to raise electricity prices by 5 percent in 2020, and by smaller amounts in 2025 and 2030." (Josh Bivens, "A Comprehensive Analysis Of The Employment Impacts Of The EPA's Proposed Clean Power Plan," Economic Policy Institute, 6/9/15)

POLLING SHOWS HISPANICS AND AFRICAN AMERICANS ARE AGAINST NEW REGULATIONS

Hispanics Believe "Creating More Jobs" Should Be The Nation's Top Priority

41% Hispanic Voters Chose "Creating More Jobs," As The Top Priority For The Obama Administration, "Improving Air Quality" Came In Last With 4%. "More than four in 10 Hispanic voters (41%) chose 'creating more jobs' as the top priority for the Obama administration out of a list of six popular political issues, with 'improving air quality' coming in last with only 4 percent of Hispanic voters having chosen it." (Morning Consult Polling, 1,094 Hispanic Voters, MoE 3%, 6/15-6/16/15)

• "In Fact, Nearly Seven In 10 Hispanic Voters (69%) Are Satisfied With The Air Quality In Their City Or Local Area." ( Morning Consult Polling, 1,094 Hispanic Voters, MoE 3%, 6/15-6/16/15)
• "When Asked Directly, A Majority Of Hispanic Voters (63%) Said That The United States Should Focus On Creating Jobs And Growing The Economy Over Adding More Air Standards." ( Morning Consult Polling, 1,094 Hispanic Voters, MoE 3%, 6/15-6/16/15)

Hispanic Voters Also Feel That Costs Associated With The New Regulations Will Impact The Average American More Than Businesses

Via: Republican National Commiittee

Continue Reading....

BLS: Real Wages Declined in 3rd Quarter; Down 3.2% Under Obama

(CNSNews.com) - The real median earnings of both men and women dropped in the third quarter of 2013 and are down 3.2 percent since President Barack Obama took office in the first quarter of 2009, according to data released today by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

In non-inflation-adjusted dollars, Americans who worked full-time for a wage or salary had median usual weekly earnings of $775 in second quarter of 2013 and $777 in the third quarter. In current dollars that was $2-per-week increase. However, when adjusted for inflation, median earnings actually declined from the second to the third quarter, according to BLS.

BLS tracks median earnings not only in current dolalrs but also in constant 1982-84 dollars. Using that inlation-adjusted measure, full-time American wage and salary workers earned a median of $334 per week in the second quarter of this year, but only $333 per week in the third quarter.

Real median weekly earnings dropped for both male and female full-time workers during the quarter. The median weekly earnings for men dropped from $372 in the second quarter to $368 in the third, and the median weekly earnings for women dropped from $304 to $302.

When Obama took office in the first quarter of 2009, median weekly earnings for full-time wage and salary workers was $344. At that time, the median weekly earnings for men were $384 and the median weekly earnings for women were $304.

Via: CNS News

Continue Reading.....

Down With The Living Wage

Before we dismiss economics as a non-science, let’s recall its wisdom about the dangers of government intervention in markets.

---

A recent opinion piece in the New York Times by Alex Rosenberg and Tyler Curtain, both trained as philosophers of science, asks the intriguing question: “What is Economics Good For?” “Not much” is their largely skeptical answer. They argue that economics is a second-rate science, while the physical and biological sciences sport more impressive credentials. For all its use of fancy mathematics, they argue that “the trouble with economics is that it lacks the most important of science’s characteristics—a record of improvement in predictive range and accuracy.” Unfortunately, this increasingly fashionable view that economics is not a science too often leads people to endorse unwise regulatory policies.

Illustration by Barbara Kelley

Their column sparked a reply by the Harvard Nobel Prize–winning economist, Eric Maskin, who argued that even if economics fails the test of prediction, it offers explanations of phenomena just as the other sciences do. Maskin was chastised by a number of readers who denied, with good reason, any distinction between explanation and prediction. A theory that purports to explain something but predicts nothing is, intellectually, not very compelling.

So what, then, is economics good for?

Economics as a Guide to Politics

Rosenberg and Curtain’s argument misses the point. The purpose of economics is not to shape social institutions; it is to solve some of the tough and important problems of daily life, like how society can allocate resources efficiently. In this regard, it is not unlike physics. Physics has serious trouble probing the secrets of dark matter, or even predicting the next time an asteroid will crash into planet earth. But it does well building bridges and designing supercomputers. Ultimately, Rosenberg and Curtain’s emphasis on big economics leads us astray both analytically and politically, distracting us from what economics can really do.

Via: Defining Ideas

Continue Reading....

5 Effects Obamacare Will Have on Working Americans

Obamacare will certainly have a negative impact on every American, but here are five ways it will harm working Americans:

1. Two-thirds of American employees’ wages will decrease as employers deal with increasing costs. Heritage’s Drew Gonshorowski explains the results of an Urban Institute study: “The Urban Institute claims that mid-size firms will see spending per person increase by 4.6 percent, while large firms will see spending increases by 0.3 percent per person. According to the U.S. Census, this accounts for 65.1 percent of employees—or roughly 79 million—in the U.S. who are employed by medium- or large-size firms. The study suggests: ‘Any increase in employers’ health-related costs will be offset by decreases in other compensation—whether wages or other benefits.’ This means that individuals in mid- and large-size firms will receive less in take-home wages (or other benefits) and pay a greater proportion of their compensation to health care due to Obamacare.”
2. Loss of existing insurance coverage. Because of Obamacare’s high costs, experts predict that employers will stop offering employees health coverage, forcing employees into the new government-run exchanges. Although estimates vary, it is likely that millions of Americans will lose their current coverage. For instance, the non-partisanCongressional Budget Office estimates that between 5 million and 20 million Americans will lose employer-sponsored coverage, the American Action Forum estimates 35 million, and McKinsey, a consulting firm, estimates that 30 percent of employers will definitely or probably stop offering coverage after Obamacare takes full effect in 2014.
3. Premiums in the individual market are set to skyrocket. Obamacare’s new, extreme insurance rules and regulations will have dire effects on the cost of coverage that individuals and small businesses purchase on their own. As Forbes columnist and health policy analyst Avik Roy has pointed out in recent articles, “Obama adviser Jonathan Gruber has estimated that, by 2016, the cost of individual-market health insurance under Obamacare, relative to what it would have been under prior law, will increase by an average of 19 percent in Colorado, 29 percent in Minnesota, and 30 percent in Wisconsin. A prestigious actuarial firm, Milliman, has estimated that individual-market premiums in Ohio could increase by 55 to 85 percent.”
4. Full-time workers turned part-time to avoid the employer mandate. As Heritage predicted, businesses have already begun limiting the hours their employees can work, turning full-time workers into part-time workers, to avoid paying the employer mandate penalty or providing costly insurance coverage. For example, one of the nation’s 30 largest employers, Darden Restaurants, is experimenting with keeping employees under the 30-hour threshold established for Obamacare’s mandate. According to the Orlando Sentinel, “In an emailed statement, Darden said staffing changes are ‘just one of the many things we are evaluating to help us address the cost implications health care reform will have on our business.’”
5. The heavy burden of 18 taxes and penalties. Obamacare imposes 18 new taxes and penalties that will cost Americans over $836 billion between 2013 and 2022. These taxes will either hit consumers directly or be passed on through higher prices. For example, the infamous individual mandate to purchase health insurance will be imposed on 6 million Americans in 2016, many of whom are the working middle class. Nearly 70 percent of payers will be below 400 percent of the federal poverty level, and even those below the poverty level could be forced to pay the mandate tax.

Obamacare must be repealed in order to protect hard-working Americans from its harmful and far-reaching effects.

Via: The Foundry

Continue Reading...

Study: Most Jobs In ‘Economic Recovery’ Are Low Paying

Lower-paying jobs, with median hourly wages from $7.69 to $13.83, made up about 58% of the job growth from the end of the recession in late 2009 through early 2012.

WASHINGTON — Whereas 6 in 10 jobs lost during the Great Recession paid mid-level wages, the majority of jobs created in the recovery — positions such as store clerks, laborers and home healthcare aides — pay much less, according to a new study.

The findings highlight concerns about a shrinking middle class and pose another obstacle to getting the economy back on track, said Annette Bernhardt, policy co-director at the National Employment Law Project, which conducted the study.

"The recovery continues to be skewed toward low-wage jobs, reinforcing the rise in inequality and America's deficit of good jobs," she said. "While there's understandably a lot of focus on getting employment back to pre-recession levels, the quality of jobs is rapidly emerging as a second front in the struggling recovery."

Lower-paying jobs, with median hourly wages from $7.69 to $13.83, accounted for just 21% of the job losses during the recession. But they've made up about 58% of the job growth from the end of the recession in late 2009 through early 2012.

Those jobs have been concentrated in three industries: food services, retail and employment services, such as office clerks and customer service representatives, the study found.

In contrast, mid-wage occupations with median hourly wages from $13.84 to $21.13 — jobs such as construction workers, real estate brokers and data entry clerks — have accounted for just 22% of the new jobs in the recovery after making up 60% of the job losses in the recession.

Higher-wage occupations, with median hourly pay above $21.13, accounted for about 19% of the recession job losses and have made up about 20% of the jobs gained in the recovery, the study said.

The study covered jobs created from the first quarter of 2010 through the first quarter of 2012.

The recession and its aftermath have exacerbated a three-decade trend of growing wage inequality fueled by a shrinking number of mid-wage jobs, the study said.

Since the first quarter of 2001, employment in mid-wage jobs has decreased 7.3%. Meanwhile, lower-wage jobs have grown 8.7% and higher-wage jobs have increased 6.6%.

"The economy has fewer good jobs now than it did at the start of the 21st century," said Bernhardt, the study's coauthor.

She said there was no "single magic bullet" to reverse the trend.

But Washington officials could help improve the situation, Bernhardt added, by extending unemployment benefits, raising the minimum wage and enacting policies to stimulate job growth in highway construction and other infrastructure work, as well as helping prevent layoffs of teachers, police officers and firefighters.

Via: LA Times

Continue Reading