posted on January 31, 2007 10:57:55 AM
Published on Friday, March 11, 2005 by the Fort-Worth Star-Telegram
Minimum Wage: The Floor Has Holes In It
by Jack Z. Smith
A member of Congress making $162,100 a year probably has little comprehension of how difficult it would be to live on less than one-15th of that amount.
That cognition chasm appears to be especially wide and deep for many Republican members of Congress.
On Monday, the U.S. Senate voted 49-46 against a proposal by Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., to boost the federal minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 an hour -- a $2.10 increase.
Kennedy had proposed the long-overdue pay hike -- which would have come in three stages over two years -- as an amendment to a bankruptcy reform bill. But it was strongly opposed by Republicans in what was predominantly a party-line vote.
A minimum-wage earner working 40 hours a week has an annual gross income of $10,712. That's less than one-15th of the salary of members of Congress, who also enjoy ample benefits and perks not available to most low-wage workers.
Thanks to callous and indifferent Republicans, the minimum wage hasn't been increased since 1997. Since that time, members of Congress have received seven pay raises totaling $28,500, an increase easily exceeding the total annual pay of two minimum-wage workers, notes Holly Sklar, co-author of Raise The Floor: Wages and Policies That Work For All Of Us.
That's shameful.
Congress should approve a sizable increase in the minimum wage to help low-income workers and their families. Many are desperately struggling to cope with sharply rising housing, health care and energy costs.
A higher wage floor would not only help those making $5.15 an hour but also put upward pressure on the wages of millions of other working-class persons making $1 to $3 more than the current minimum.
When adjusted for inflation, the purchasing power of the minimum wage has sharply eroded since it stood at $1.60 in the late 1960s. Today's minimum wage would have to be raised to $8.70 to provide the same purchasing power as the $1.60 wage floor of nearly four decades ago, according to Kennedy.
A higher minimum wage would help working-class families, low-paid single adults and students trying to work their way through college or save money to buy a car.
Every time that Democrats suggest a minimum-wage increase, Republicans pitch a hissy fit. The GOP hand-wringers invariably claim that an increase in the floor wage would result in widespread layoffs of low-income workers, bring on a rash of small-business failures and fan a sharp rise in inflation.
How come none of these things happened after the last minimum-wage increase was approved in 1997? Indeed, the late 1990s were marked by strong job growth and a booming stock market.
Had Kennedy's amendment passed, when fully phased in, it would have meant $4,368 in increased annual pay for a full-time, minimum-wage worker.
The increase might have meant money for badly needed car repairs, long-postponed dental work, a warm coat for winter, a computer to help a child do schoolwork or the purchase of more nutritious food at the supermarket.
It also might have meant having enough money to enroll in college classes to gain the education and skills needed for a higher-paying job.
Higher wages would give many working-class people more money to spend. That in turn helps the economy and generates more jobs.
Taxpayers who bemoan the cost of social programs to help the poor should realize that higher working-class wages reduce the need for Medicaid, food stamps and government housing subsidies.
Those members of Congress who oppose raising the minimum wage might not realize that many full-time, low-wage workers don't enjoy such benefits as health insurance, a 401(k) savings plan, an expense account or a subsidized membership in a health club. In fact, many of these workers receive little or no paid vacation.
In the wake of Congress' failure to boost the minimum wage, many states are taking action on their own. Fourteen states and the District of Columbia now have higher minimum wages than the federal minimum, and another 17 states have proposals pending to raise the minimum this year.
Commendably, state Rep. Lon Burnam, D-Fort Worth, has filed a bill to raise Texas' minimum wage by $1, to $6.15. But don't expect that bill to get anywhere in a Republican-dominated Legislature.
President Bush has proven that he truly is a compassionate conservative when it comes to catering to the needs of America's affluent. He has successfully pushed, for example, for congressional approval of significant reductions in top marginal income tax rates, taxes on capital gains and dividends and estate taxes, as well as other measures disproportionately benefiting the upper crust.
Now it's time for him to show that his compassionate conservatism extends to the working poor. He should shock us all by championing a substantial minimum wage increase.
Jack Z. Smith is a Star-Telegram editorial writer.
FAIR USE NOTICE
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
posted on January 31, 2007 11:04:34 AM
"Thanks to callous and indifferent Republicans, the minimum wage hasn't been increased since 1997."
More whining from the left.
Few would agree that it's 'callous and indifferent' to want to PROTECT small business owners from the damage this raise would cause to happen to THEIR businesses....I guessbecause of the liberal callousness and indifference to small businesses.
The GOP GOT what they wanted - a protection clause.
Don't be such a sore loser.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on January 31, 2007 11:10:05 AM
Nasty Dope drools, """Few would agree that it's 'callous and indifferent' to want to PROTECT small business owners from the damage this raise would cause to happen to THEIR businesses....I guess because of the liberal callousness and indifference to small businesses."""
Small businesses did NOT fail the LAST time minimum wages were raised...
YOU'RE comfy so F--- everybody else !Yup, that attitude is one of the reasons your PARTY GOT TROUNCED IN THE LAST ELECTIONS.... Keep it up...it's working for US!!!
posted on January 31, 2007 11:16:04 AM
Nope...it's not because I'm comfortable. It's because I'm not ignorant of just who these min. wage earners are.
Mostly teenagers....a lot of illegals....a lot of part time [by CHOICE] part time workers....etc.
Very few are 'single parents' as the bleeding heart liberals like to FALSELY CLAIM they are. Those people are the smallest of the group of wage earners in that income catagory.
=========
Plus now BECAUSE of the democrats actions....they won't be getting their raise this year. LOL Serves them right.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on January 31, 2007 11:55:40 AM
linduh, as usual your ignorance is showing especially just on WHO is affected by the minimum wage....but that's not surprising...you haven't learned anything in the last 75 years !!!
posted on January 31, 2007 12:00:23 PM
Of course I know what I'm talking about. LOL And I've posted the proof/stats SEVERAL times. That you refuse to acknowledge those FACTS....doesn't change the truth one bit.
Then we had to listen to all that CHEST BEATING..."WE WON BOTH HOUSES"....over and over and over again.
Somehow that the republicans COULD and DID get in exactly what this President WANTED in the min. wage bill - the protection of businesses.....says A LOT of about how much 'so called power' you DON'T have.
You and 'waco'peepa can keep pretending all you want though....it's fun to watch.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on Jan 31, 2007 12:03 PM ]
I am betting that like me you are now working to elect even more Democrats in 2008.
How about the republican smear machine getting exposed for the lie machine it really is over Obama and Clinton. I guess Fox news had to finally retract their lie of a story about both Obama and Clinton.
The new-cons need to understand that we are all around them watching their every slimy move.
Slimy moves like blocking a minimum wage hike. The stupid new-con republican thinks its only Iraq the American are paying attention to.
We are seeing the political death of the Christianist new-cons. YES!!!
posted on January 31, 2007 08:24:03 PM
"as usual your ignorance is showing especially just on WHO is affected by the minimum wage"
Quite the contrary. You obviously did not read the statistics about the minimum wage I listed in one of peepa "look at everything the new Congress has passed" threads.
posted on January 31, 2007 08:44:59 PM
Doesn't matter HOW many times they're given the FACTS....the just pretend they never saw them....so, to them, they just don't exist.
pretty sad.
================
Desquirrel's previously posted info:
Some info on the minimum wage:
1) The vast majority of people classed as "working poor" earn more than the min. wage.
2) Less than .6% of American workers earn the minimum wage. Of that tiny percentage, the vast majority are not poor. Only 1 in 5 is below the poverty line. More than 60% work part time and have an avg household income of >$60K.
3) More than half min wage earners are under 25 and more than a quarter are 16-19. Many are students or part-timers.
4) 60% of min wage workers work in restaurants and bars and have untaxed income.
A mostly meaningless boondoggle that almost always backfires. Tell the restaurant owner to give a waitress $1, he simply charges her for her uniform rental.
posted on February 1, 2007 11:12:57 AM
In my opinion any business that only wants to pay $5.15 an hour needs to go out of business. Nobody can live on that. Even with the increase in wages, its too little to late because it will only raise the minimum wage to $5.85 in the first 60 days. $6.10 after the first year and then $7.25 after two years. Meanwhile they are raising your taxes out of site. Most people are not even going to get a tax refund this year. I really feel for the younger people with kids, they can no longer make it working at these jobs like the Dollar store that want to work them part time on minimum wage. Something is wrong with this picture.
**********************************
Two men sit behind bars,one sees mud the other sees stars.
posted on February 1, 2007 11:28:38 AM
Oh, Mah, (wink, wink)according to linduh those on minimum wage, working part time no less, make 60 grand a year !!!That should be enough for a family(another wink)..
My question is this:
If the economy is booming as the neocons claim,
then why should this very slight raise in the minimum wage hurt anybody ????
You're right, Mah, they deserve to go out of business and probably would eventually anyway if they're that "business disabled".
posted on February 1, 2007 11:34:32 AM
"In my opinion any business that only wants to pay $5.15 an hour needs to go out of business."
Another one that can't read. Why, pray tell us, should a restaurant be forced to pay some artificial wage when it has to beat job applicants off with a stick who think a hundred or two a night is enough for them?
"Most people are not even going to get a tax refund this year."
Are you using Peepa's crystal ball? Be aware it was pretty useless when he had it.
"I really feel for the younger people with kids, they can no longer make it working at these jobs like the Dollar store that want to work them part time on minimum wage. Something is wrong with this picture."
Sorry, but the ability to breed is a limited marketable skill. And working at the "Dollar store" is not a career. Think of it as a place where young people can learn workplace etiquette and anything they can use in a "real" job.
posted on February 1, 2007 11:40:38 AM
Before Democrats' ninth attempt at raising the minimum wage was killed once again in the Senate yesterday, Barbara Boxer (D-CA) let her Republican colleagues have it. She blasted them for their lack of true family values, said they were lying in their assertions that raising the minimum wage for the first time in a decade would harm the economy, and told them "the truth shall set you free."
Here's Boxer:
"Senator Enzi says this debate is grating on the Republican side of the aisle. Sorry, that is how it is when you are on the wrong side of the truth. It is grating to have to hear the truth as Senator Kennedy and others have spoken of.
"It has been 9 long years since there has been an increase in the minimum wage. It is a disgrace. While we see our friends on the other side fight for the CEOs of oil companies, in the Committee on Commerce, they would not even swear them in. They are all on that side. When it comes to working families, forget about it.
"Then Senator Enzi implies this does not have anything to do with women. Women make up 59 percent of the workers who would be affected as a result of raising the minimum wage; 1.4 million working mothers would benefit directly, 760,000 single moms would get an immediate raise, and over 3 million kids have parents who would get an immediate raise.
"What has happened to family values on the other side of the aisle? It seems to me it is just so many empty words.
"Then they scare you and say the economy will suffer. All you have to do, again, is look at the facts and look at the truth. In the 4 years after the last minimum wage increase passed, the economy experienced its strongest growth in over three decades. All the talk about how bad a minimum wage increase is for the economy is not true.
"I say to my Republican friends, support the Kennedy increase in the minimum wage. The truth shall set you free."
posted on February 1, 2007 11:57:23 AM
Yeah she really wowed them.
This stuff is aimed at her support base. You know, like the twits that post here and complain about "Linda's numbers" which come from the Dept of Labor, because they conflict with the bullsh*t they make up in their heads.
posted on February 1, 2007 12:15:06 PM
"linDUH's stats say that minimum wages amount to 60 grand a year LOLOLOLOLOL"
You see, you really are THAT stupid.
They are not Linda's stats and you should read that again, real slow this time (you can move your lips if need be), and then we'll explain what it means.
posted on February 1, 2007 06:43:42 PM
Senate Ups Wage to $7.25 Over Two Years
Updated 9:01 PM ET February 1, 2007
By JIM KUHNHENN
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Senate voted overwhelmingly Thursday to boost the federal minimum wage by $2.10 to $7.25 an hour over two years, but packaged the increase with small business tax cuts and limits on corporate pay that could complicate its path to become law.
The increase in the minimum wage, the first in a decade, was approved 94-3, capping a nine-day debate over how to balance the wage hike with the needs of businesses that employ low-wage workers.
A top priority of Democrats, the wage hike has both real and symbolic consequences. It would be one of the first major legislative successes of the new Democratic-controlled Congress.
"Passing this wage hike represents a small but necessary step to help lift America's working poor out of the ditches of poverty and onto the road toward economic prosperity," said Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass.
Republicans stressed the importance of the bill's business tax breaks, though it was a significantly smaller tax package than Republicans had sought during previous attempts to raise the minimum wage.
"The Senate's reasonable approach recognizes that small businesses have been the steady engine of our growing economy and that they have been a source of new job creation, a source of job training," said Sen. Michael Enzi, R-Wyo., who helped manage the debate for the GOP.
The bill must now be reconciled with the House version passed Jan. 10 that contained no tax provisions. House Democrats have insisted they want a minimum wage bill with no strings attached, though some have conceded the difficulty of passing the legislation in the Senate without tax breaks.
The measure presents a challenge to Democrats who must navigate between the demands of labor and other interest groups and the realities of the Senate, where Republicans hold 49 of 100 votes. House and Senate Democrats now must try to negotiate a way out of the potential standoff.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has said she supports some tax provisions in the House package, but said she would prefer them in a separate, House-initiated tax bill.
In a statement, President Bush encouraged House Democrats to accept the Senate version of the bill. "The Senate has taken a step toward helping maintain a strong and dynamic labor market and promoting continued economic growth," Bush said.
But AFL-CIO President John Sweeney vowed to "turn up the volume" to pass a bill without tax breaks.
"Minimum wage workers in this country have waited far too long for a raise," Sweeney said in a statement after the vote. "It's shameful that they must now wait even longer because of the Senate's insistence on business tax giveaways."
The three senators voting against the bill were Republicans Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, Jon Kyl of Arizona and Jim DeMint of South Carolina. Absent from the vote were Democrats Tim Johnson of South Dakota and Charles Schumer of New York and Republican James Inhofe of Oklahoma.
The legislation would raise the minimum wage in three steps. It would go to $5.85 an hour upon taking effect 60 days after the president signs it into law, then to $6.55 an hour a year later, and to $7.25 an hour a year after that.
An effort by the Senate last week to end debate on the House version of the bill failed when Democrats were unable to get the 60 votes needed. But many Democrats in the House and Senate would like to challenge Republicans to vote against a clean bill with no tax provisions.
"If we go through the process ... and the message comes back: 'You can have the minimum wage stripped down or not at all,' then we'll face another vote," said Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., the assistant majority leader. "We need Republicans to pass it. If they continue to oppose it then it will not pass."
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said Thursday he did not believe the business incentives were necessary. "The minimum wage will be increased," he said. "The question is do we need all these business pieces of sugar or not. We will see."
A spokesman for Reid said the tax breaks are needed to overcome a potential GOP filibuster.
posted on February 2, 2007 07:54:54 AM
"Meanwhile they are raising your taxes out of site."
Really??? I haven't read a thing about that happening. Maybe you could provide some proof that 'they are raising your taxes out of sight'. Mine were lowered....considerably.
"Most people are not even going to get a tax refund this year."
Who said this? And I do hope you realize that whether one gets a tax refund or not....has NOTHING to do with anything other than how many dependents they claim on their W-4's ....right???
As some have pointed out....IF they claim 0 all year long but have two or more dependents....then of course they're going to get a refund. If they claim all the dependents they have....of course they won't.
Washington, DC - With members of the House of Representatives expected to debate and vote on a proposed increase to the minimum wage today, Media Matters for America addressed common examples of conservative misinformation perpetuated in the media surrounding the discussion of an increase.
"Claims that an increase to the minimum wage will help few people and hurt the overall economy aren't supported by fact," said Karl Frisch, spokesman for Media Matters for America. "Hopefully members of the media will think twice before reporting on or using these bogus arguments without noting just how questionable, misleading and false they truly are."
Conservative Misinformation on Increasing the Minimum Wage
Minimum wage hike will result in job losses and discourage job creation. Conservatives commonly argue that increasing the minimum wage will negatively affect the economy, resulting in stagnating job growth and higher unemployment. However, numerous studies have examined recent increases in the minimum wage at both the federal and state level and found that higher wages do not result in job loss. One recent example is Oregon, which increased its minimum wage to $7.50 in 2002. Four years later, "Oregon's experience suggests the most strident doomsayers were wrong," according to a November 3, 2006, Wall Street Journal article. Indeed, private, nonfarm payrolls have increased there at twice the national rate, industries that employ many minimum-wage workers have experienced considerable job growth, and unemployment has dropped to 5.4 percent from 7.6 percent in 2002.
Only teenagers and part-time workers would benefit from wage increase. Conservative commentators have claimed that most employees who would benefit from the Democratic proposal to raise the federal minimum wage are "students and other part-time workers." In fact, while most workers earning the current minimum wage of $5.15 per hour are part-time workers, the majority of workers who would see their wages rise under the Democratic proposal are not. The Economic Policy Institute (EPI) found that a majority -- 53 percent -- of those who would be affected by the Democratic minimum-wage proposal are full-time workers (at least 35 hours a week). Similarly, an EPI study released October 25 found that "[i]f the federal minimum wage were increased to $7.25 per hour by 2008, 14.9 million workers would see their wages rise," and those affected by a minimum-wage increase would be "mainly adults who typically work full time and provide significant income to their families.
Minimum wage increase will hurt small businesses. Another common argument against raising the minimum wage is that it will put an undue burden on small U.S. businesses. But an April 2004 study by the Fiscal Policy Institute found that, between 1998 and 2001, the number of small businesses (defined as those with fewer than 50 employees) grew twice as quickly in states with higher minimum wages. EPI has attempted to explain this phenomenon by pointing to "[n]ew economic models," which recognize that employers in low-wage labor markets "may be able to absorb some of the costs of a wage increase through higher productivity, lower recruiting and training costs, decreased absenteeism, and increased worker morale." This may also help explain why most small business owners (three out of four, according to a March 2006 Gallup poll) believe a higher minimum wage would have no effect on them.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
I'd LOVE to see all those small business owners who say [SUPPOSEDLY] that raising the min. wage WON'T hurt their bottom line at all.
Anyone with two brain cells KNOWS that if a small business say with 10 or less employees is FORCED to pay them more....that WILL effect their bottom line.
Same goes with FORCING these small business owners to pay for med. ins. Their costs skyrockets....and it automatically effects their bottom line.
THUS...they think twice before they hire more workers....OR if it would put them in a 'no-profit' situation...then they might be forced to fired one or two employees...or worst case situation close down.
Since the recession that started during the end of the clinton administration, the largest JOB GROWTH our economy has seen is the growth of small busniness'.
Hurt them...you'll hurt our economy.
Force our new DEMOCRATIC congress to actually penalize companies who hire illegals...it will dry up the job market for them. Then companies will have to offer higher wages to all these TEENAGERS and those with very low skills.
Those who continue to mention what happened with jobs during the clinton administration REFUSE to acknowledge that the 'tech boom' was taking place. When that boom started to pop....the job market started to dry up. They refuse to acknowledge that 9-11 hurt our economy....they refuse to acknowledge that two wars have made it difficult for our economy to continue the 'boom' we enjoyed during the latter clinton years.
Nope....they continue to compare apples and oranges and won't acknowledge just how WELL our economy IS doing with all it's had to deal with. It's continuing to GROW....unemployment remains LOW....wages ARE increasing....the stock market is THRIVING....etc. etc.
But the 'doom and gloom' liberals/dems just could NEVER see anything positive about ANY situation under a President they bash all the time.
posted on February 2, 2007 10:15:29 AM
You're right Mingo, it won't hurt, because most small businesses pay over minimum wage now. I fail to understand what all the fuss is about.
posted on February 2, 2007 10:32:01 AMIt didn't hurt small business the last time it was passed and it won't now.
Yep, there are many states that have higher minimum wage rates than the current level establised by the federal government and all those small businesses are finding ways to make money.
When presented with actual results based on the same scare tactics that some are using, some people continue to deny the FACTS. Especially when the facts were presented by a highly admired newspaper.
I think some people did not pass Economics 101 during school.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
So....according to you liberals....it didn't hurt when our economy was in a tech boom....so that means it won't hurt now?????
Then why aren't the liberals/dems willing to BE SURE IT WON'T by protecting them.....just in case. LOL LOL LOL
===========
Minimum Wage Bill Heads to Negotiations
Friday, February 02, 2007
By JIM KUHNHENN, Associated Press Writer
E-MAIL STORY
PRINTER FRIENDLY VERSION
WASHINGTON — Republicans are warning Democrats not to tamper with Senate-passed minimum wage legislation, saying the bill's mix of $8.3 billion in tax breaks and a $2.10 an hour wage hike offers the right economic and political balance.
The Senate, in a 94-3 vote Thursday, passed an increase in the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 an hour over two years. The bill also would extend small business tax cuts, close off some corporate tax loopholes and rein in executive compensation.
Labor leaders and many Democrats, however, would like to strip the tax provisions from the bill and only send the minimum wage increase to President Bush for his signature.
A House version, passed last month, contains no tax measures.
"I strongly encourage the House to support this combined minimum wage increase and small business tax relief," Bush said in a statement following the Senate vote.
Democrats and Republicans already were blaming each other for any obstacles to reconciling the House and Senate bills.
"Republicans are demanding billions in corporate tax breaks in exchange for a $2 bump in the minimum wage," said Gerald W. McEntee, president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees.
"As they play their political games, low-income workers continue to wait for their first raise in a decade."
Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, said the overwhelming vote in favor of the Senate bill was a clear signal that the minimum wage and tax breaks must be linked.
He scolded House Democrats for insisting that the tax provisions be removed.
"No one should be mistaken," Grassley said. "It is House Democrats, not Senate Republicans, who are delaying passage of the minimum wage."
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on February 2, 2007 12:49:49 PM
Single mothers need $58k to make it in Mass.
To make ends meet, a single mother of two children in Boston needs to earn $27.53 an hour, or nearly four times more than the current Massachusetts minimum wage of $7.50 an hour, a new report said today.
In other words, a single mother of two needs to earn $58,133 a year if she doesn't receive some form of public or private assistance, according to a report issued by Crittenton Women's Union, a Boston nonprofit organization dedicated to changing the course of low-income women's lives.
The report noted that 47 percent of Boston families with children under 18 are headed by single mothers.
The high cost of living in Massachusetts, particularly the high cost of housing, is a major challenge for state employers seeking to lure and keep young workers.
To be economically self sufficient, a single Boston woman with two children needs to earn 13 percent more than the $51,284 she did in 2003, the date of the group's previous report, with escalating healthcare costs a big factor in the increase, the new Crittenton report said.
Since 2003, child care costs have risen almost 18 percent for families with two children, and healthcare costs have risen nearly 35 percent, Crittenton Women's Union said.
The median income for Massachusetts single mothers with children is $33,097, the report noted.
"If we want to make sure that women and their families actually do move up and out of poverty, we need to make investments in education and training so that more Massachusetts residents can work toward the all-important goal of economic independence," Elisabeth D. (Beth) Babcock, president and chief executive of Crittenton Women's Union, said in a statement.
(By Chris Reidy, Globe staff)
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
Keep it up...it's working for US!!!