Spoiler: It’s Not Higher Wages That’s Making The CEO of Carl’s Jr. Threaten Automation

March 21, 2016 Hanna Brooks Olsen

Off

$15, automation, Economics, Minimum Wage

I’m going to come right out and say something plainly: Andy Puzder, the CEO of CKE Restaurants, Inc (the parent company for Carl’s Jr.) is not a good dude. He’s an elite-level sexist—”I like our ads. I like beautiful women eating burgers in bikinis . I think it’s very American”—who, despite himself earning over $17,000 per day , has railed against paying overtime to salaried fast food managers because “what they lose in overtime pay they gain in the stature and sense of accomplishment.” He’s claimed that the existence of social services actually make people more poor, completely neglecting to note that the poverty wages he pays is actually the reason the working poor are reliant on social services , and seems to have a fundamental misunderstanding of how poverty actually works . So imagine my surprise when this Not Good Dude with a history of getting it wrong on basically everything having to do with labor and wages for the lowest earners makes a comment about automation and everyone—even sensible people!—point to it and say “See? See? We knew it!” In a Business Insider piece last week, Puzder said he’d like to try a fully automated restaurant because it would be cheaper. But it’s clear from him other quotes that it’s not just wages and the cost of health care that are making him look at robots—the man clearly just doesn’t like the idea of human beings, and his disdain for the very people who make him his multi-millions each year is evident in quotes like this one: [The machines are] always polite, they always upsell, they never take a vacation, they never show up late, there’s never a slip-and-fall, or an age, sex, or race discrimination case. Plus, he clearly thinks kiosks are simply more appealing to young people (he explains that “Millennials like not seeing people”) which means it’s less about the cost of the work and more about his own interest in trying something different and without humans. But that’s not stopping him from tying
+ Read More

+ Read More

It’s Ok, New York—Seattle’s Still Standing

March 14, 2016 Hanna Brooks Olsen

Off

$15, AEI, Minimum Wage, New York, Seattle

Dear New York City, I know that recently a certain Murdoch-owned newspaper may have tried to scare you about the potential minimum wage increase that Governor Andrew Cuomo is proposing. To make their point, this Paper Who Must Not Be Named pointed to Seattle, the land of ever-increasing rents and tall trees, as an example of a city that raised their wage and is now paying dearly with job losses that, to hear them tell it, make it sound like we’re living in a wasteland with a busted Space Needle and not a single barista in sight. But I want to tell you, from here on the ground and with statistics and studies in hand: It’ll be ok. When the Seattle City Council passed a $15 minimum wage 2014, they were fully aware that other cities and states would be looking to it as a model—would this grand experiment called Paying People Even A Fraction of What Their Time is Worth end poorly? And of course, it depends on who you ask; those who are fundamentally opposed to minimum wage increases—like, for example, the American Enterprise Institute, who you may know as the sole citation of That One Newspaper’s op-ed— have found models that work for their narrative , while others, like a state economist , our own Office of Economic Development , and basically anyone else , have actually shown quite a bit of job growth. It’s important to point out two things, though: First, that we’re not even a full year into this experiment yet. As I’ve written before , it’s just too soon to really see the impacts—positive or negative—of the new minimum wage because not even a complete 12 months has passed since workers saw a boost to their pay checks. And second, while the job losses or gains may all be hypothetical at this point, what is real is the higher earnings of thousands of workers in the city . Seattle’s job market may be cooling just like the rest of the country , or it may be booming thanks to tech jobs , or it may be a fiery hellscape of unemployed
+ Read More

+ Read More

Louis CK’s Call For ‘Balance’ Is A Position of Privilege and Fantasy

March 8, 2016 Hanna Brooks Olsen

Off

Donald Trump, Gender, Hillary Clinton, Media, Race

As you probably have heard, over the weekend, comedian Louis CK called Donald Trump “Hitler.” Literally, he wrote in an email (which was to promote his new show, but it was the addendum that’s gotten all the attention), “the guy is Hitler.” Immediately, the email was dubbed “ epic ” and “ compassionate ” and “ scathing ” and myriad other things. What it was not, however, was a.) revolutionary or b.) inclusive. In fact, I’d argue that CK’s email—which few people seem to have read past the “Hitler” part—is actively harmful to a whole lot of people in this country. CK had a lot of not-nice things to say about Trump—calling him “an insane bigot” and some other things that probably sound a lot like what you’ve said about Trump with your friends—but none of them were actually particularly new or novel. People have been comparing Trump to Hitler for months. Seriously, it’s a very populated Google search. Not exactly leading the conversation, then. Beyond the lack of novelty in CK’s critique, though, is a much more dangerous problem: That he seems to believe the right is a lot less harmful than it actually is. From the email: I’m not advocating for Hillary or Bernie. I like them both but frankly I wish the next president was a conservative only because we had Obama for eight years and we need balance. And not because I particularly enjoy the conservative agenda. I just think the government should reflect the people. And we are about 40 percent conservative and 40 percent liberal. When I was growing up and when I was a younger man, liberals and conservatives were friends with differences. They weren’t enemies. And it always made sense that everyone gets a president they like for a while and then hates the president for a
+ Read More

+ Read More

Why Tip Crediting Should Be Hillary Clinton’s Next Big Issue

March 3, 2016 Hanna Brooks Olsen

Off

food service, Hillary Clinton, Minimum Wage, tipping

One of the challenges of the presidential campaign trail is knowing which issues and talking points will land with which audiences. During a debate, for example, a viewer can expect to see candidates spar over ideas that are relatively palatable for the masses—think national security and some top-level economic policy ideas. During rallies with supports, local stump speeches, and private fundraisers, though, a candidate may try a slightly different approach that’s more tailored to the room. But sometimes, those ideas and policies that candidates research for small, targeted functions could actually have huge momentum on the national stage. Such is the case, I think, with tip-crediting which, this week, Hillary Clinton came out against—again. In front of a crowd made up largely of union members at the Javits Convention Center in New York City yesterday, Clinton praised Governor Andrew Cuomo’s proposal for a statewide $15 minimum wage. Then, she went a step further, decrying the practice of tip-crediting. “It is time we end the so-called tipped minimum wage…We are the only industrialized country in the world that requires tipped workers to take their income in tips instead of wages.” She called the practice—which is the law of the land in 43 states—”shameful.” Which, to be fair, it is. INFOGRAPHIC: Who are Tipped Workers? Tip crediting, also called the “sub-minimum wage,” assumes that a worker’s tips, combined with extremely low wages, will bring their hourly pay to a level that is commensurate with the federal minimum wage. Put another way, it directly puts customers on the hook for ensuring that a worker makes an amount of money that can even be passably considered to be appropriate for a day’s work in the year of our lord 2016. If a worker is unlucky enough to pull down less than $7.25 per hour in tips, then and only then is their employer required to float them the extra cash through
+ Read More

+ Read More

Why Paid Sick Leave is Feminist AF

February 25, 2016 Hanna Brooks Olsen

Off

gender wage gap, Income inequality, paid sick leave, Scheduling, sick leave

What is or is not feminist when it comes to politics will likely never be fully resolved, but boy howdy, we sure do love to talk about it. There have been acres of pixels dedicated to the debate over whether a vote for Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders is more or less feminist than a vote for the other candidate, not to mention plenty about the perceived feminism of candidates like Carly Fiorina and yes, even Sarah Palin. And of course, there’s John Kasich and his line about female voters “leaving the kitchen” to elect him—a statement which I would call arguably one of the least feminist comments uttered at a stump speech in the last decade if it weren’t for almost every single thing out of the mouths of Donald Trump and Mike Huckabee and any number of other white men who have run or are currently running for office. So I completely understand the skepticism and even exhaustion around this line of political criticism and critical thinking. But I feel quite confident in saying that regardless of which presidential bubble you color in on your November ballot, a vote on behalf of paid sick leave is one of the more inclusive, intersectional votes you can cast. Basically, paid sick leave is feminist AF. Allow me to explain. First, let’s get straight that intersectional feminism means raising up all kinds of people; it’s not about limiting the access or rights of men or white people or whatever else teenage trolls on Twitter seem to think. By “feminist,” I mean paid sick leave is extremely good for furthering the cause of equity, generally. Now let’s move on. Both an increase to the minimum wage and requiring employers to provide paid sick leave would directly benefit women and families (of note: for the rest of this piece,
+ Read More

+ Read More

There Are Kind of a Lot of Reasons Why Poor Kids’ Degrees are Worth Less

February 22, 2016 Hanna Brooks Olsen

Off

college loans, Economics, Income inequality, millennials, student debt

New numbers from the Brookings Institute demonstrate something that a lot of first generation college students already know: Your degree, despite being printed on the same paper and costing every bit as much (actually, if you took out loans, it could be much more expensive by the time you’re done paying it off ) as that of all the students in your class, seems to be worth less than you’d thought it would be—and certainly less than your guidance counselor promised you. Exactly how much less, though, is pretty startling. From Brookings: College graduates from families with an income below 185 percent of the federal poverty level (the eligibility threshold for the federal assisted lunch program) earn 91 percent more over their careers than high school graduates from the same income group. By comparison, college graduates from families with incomes above 185 percent of the FPL earned 162 percent more over their careers (between the ages of 25 and 62) than those with just a high school diploma. So while a bachelor’s degree will help you earn more than if you had no bachelor’s degree (at least until you’re in your 60s), if you grew up in an economically distressed household, you can expect it to be a much smaller bump than if your parents had means. That result flies in the face of the popular notion that going to college is a one-way ticket out of poverty and into a better life…which again, is something that most students who grew up poor and went to college have already discovered. And it’s not for one single reason; instead, the modesty of the “bachelor bump” for students who come from poorer households can be explained in any number of ways. In the Brookings blog post on the data, nonresident fellow Brad Hershbein posits several explanations, including “ family resources during childhood and the place where one grew up , to the colleges that low-income students attend “—all of which are plausible and in fact likely to
+ Read More

+ Read More

Sorry, Liver! Here’s Our GOP Debate Drinking Game

February 12, 2016 Hanna Brooks Olsen

Off

2016, debates, GOP

Another Saturday night debate, another excuse to get politically inebriated. Last week, we did pretty well on our BINGO card (just a few squares were left untouched), but then, who could have predicted Jeb!’s plan to mint millionaires or the spectacle that was Robot Rubio ? With Chris Christie’s tap out, Donald Trump’s trumping Ted Cruz in New Hampshire and Marco Rubio’s repetition ramifications, we anticipate that tomorrow night’s debate—which will feature a relatively slender six-man stage—should be rich in sideways punches, completely bombastic claims about national security, and likely a hefty dose of economic policies and ideas that are packaged for the little guy but, in truth, only serve to benefit the wealthy. Moderators for tomorrow night will be Face the Nation anchor John Dickerson, CBS News White House correspondent Major Garrett, and, interestingly, The Wall Street Journal‘s Kimberley Strassel, who has been extremely critical of Cruz in the past. It’s going to fiery, to be sure. For this weekend’s viewing, I figured I’d go ahead and stop pretending that any of us are watching these Saturday night GOP debates in any form of sobriety, and just made us a drinking game. All you’ll need is a beer or glass of wine, a shot glass, some form of hard liquor, and probably a grilled cheese sandwich or some other hearty food to line your gut. (For those among us who don’t imbibe, yes, this game works with mocktails and family-friendly beverages, too. Just make a really tall glass of soda-and-non-alcoholic-bitters and join in. As for the shots, can I suggest a nice demitasse of espresso?) Here’s the game board: And as always, you can follow us on Twitter (I’ll be tweeting, too ). Good luck and godspeed.

+ Read More

Seattle’s Booming Economy Is, Apparently, A Mirage

February 10, 2016 Hanna Brooks Olsen

Off

$15, hot takes, Minimum Wage, Seattle, Tim Worstall

Hot takes! Get your hot takes! Forbes contributor Tim Worstall has one cooling on the windowsill and you’d better grab it while it’s steaming. Actually, even if you don’t read it today, it’ll still steam because, like warm garbage on a summer day, his consistent beat regarding the economic calamity of a higher minimum wage is only getting more ripe as time goes on. Today, Worstall has chosen to launch an attack (kind of?) on a new paper about a year-old study. But does he refute it with evidence? Or data? Or, dare I ask, economic reasoning? Nope! He just disagrees with it. First let’s read the initial article that Worstall has decided to launch in on. It’s a really solid, illuminating paper by Jeannette Wicks-Lim about a study she co-authored in January of last year about the minimum wage’s impacts on the economy, and how raising the minimum wage changes consumer and employer behavior. The current state of research on this employment question, however, finds that minimum-wage increases do not produce significant job losses. This then raises an important policy question: Why haven’t there been significant job losses when minimum wages have increased? First, the basic law of demand actually says something quite different and more specific than just “if the price of something goes up, the quantity demanded of that thing goes down.” It actually says that if the price of something goes up—and nothing else changes—the quantity demanded of that something goes down. In the real world, however, other things are changing all the time. Moreover, raising the minimum wage itself causes businesses to change how they operate (more on this below). As a result, the minimum wage’s actual impact on jobs depends on what other factors are changing at the same time. Well now, that sounds like a reasonable understanding of the economy. And
+ Read More

+ Read More

Play GOP Debate Bingo With Us!

February 5, 2016 Hanna Brooks Olsen

Off

Policy

These Saturday night debates are a real bummer; the one night each week when wonky people can finally take a break from policy talk and hot takes off is smashed to bits by the siren song of Politics Twitter. But if you’re going to be watching tomorrow’s GOP debate (and, possibly, numbing the pain with a fine adult beverage) anyway, you may as well make a game of it. So here, we made one for you. We’re already anticipating lots of soundbites and, as is part and parcel for the GOP candidates, probably a lot of not-super-sound economic policy—which makes this particular Saturday night debate a perfect candidate for a good old-fashioned game of BINGO. The debate, hosted in New Hampshire by ABC, includea the usual suspects—Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Ben Carson, Jeb! Bush, Chris Christie, and John Kasich—but Carly Fiorina is notably out and, mercifully, there’s no “kid’s table” prior to the main event. Topics that will likely be discussed are also pretty predictable: Terrorism, who’s the most likely to carpetbomb an entire region, who can build the bigger wall on the Mexican border, and, probably, something about Trump’s general nature. The rules of the game are simple: Just mark off the squares if and when they’re addressed. If you want, you can also take a drink of whatever libation you’re enjoying. Here’s the card: You can tweet along with us (I’m @mshannabrooks , and we’ll also be at @CivicSkunkworks ) and by the end, we’ll all probably be at least a little inebriated or at least mildly entertained.

+ Read More

Republicans’ Counterproductive Fixation On A Worst-Case Scenario That Never Happens

January 20, 2016 Hanna Brooks Olsen

Off

AEI, Income inequality, Mark Perry, Minimum Wage

“Conservatives have argued for years that no matter how well-meaning, efforts to increase the minimum wage end up hurting the most vulnerable, those looking to grasp the first rung on the employment ladder,” writes right-wing blogger Jennifer Rubin in the Washington Post today. And while I, personally, would have just stopped the article right there with a quick note that, of course, those warnings have never actually come to fruition, she, of course, does not. Rubin goes on to cite the problematic, incorrect, and generally underwhelming conservative, anti-minimum wage economist Mark Perry as a source (at least she’s consistent), and then proceeds to chide Democrats about how “the impact on employment and on the poor, specifically, may be profound” should we keep hammering on about raising wages. Her thesis: That we’re not thinking this through, and that, just as the right has been warning for literally decades, our efforts to increase wages could possibly end in disaster. And yet, what Rubin never quite manages to get around to is the fact that the]is predicted apocalypse has yet to arrive, and likely never will. Since its birth, the minimum wage has been drawing concern and outright ire from the right, who have warned of the economic fire and brimstone it will rain down upon us, ensuring that no teen will have a job and that businesses will be forced to shutter more quickly than you can say “trickle-down.” Truly, the quotes go way back. In case you think I’m exaggerating, here are some: 2006: “If a simple legislative act increasing the minimum wage to $7.75 is all that is needed to improve the lot of the working poor by just a little, then why not raise it to $10 an hour and get them to the poverty level? For that matter, why
+ Read More

+ Read More

1 2 3

Civic Ventures

Posts by Hanna Brooks Olsen