# data[].attributes.body
https://pbs.twimg.com/tweet_video_thumb/DHMk1z2XcAEMk7P.jpg

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The federal minimum wage for covered nonexempt employees is $7.25 per hour.

Many states also have minimum wage laws. In cases where an employee is subject to both the state and federal minimum wage laws, the employee is entitled to the higher of the two minimum wages.

The federal minimum wage provisions are contained in the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The FLSA does not provide wage payment or collection procedures for an employee's usual or promised wages or commissions in excess of those required by the FLSA. However, some states do have laws under which such claims (sometimes including fringe benefits) may be filed.

The Department of Labor's Wage and Hour Division administers and enforces the federal minimum wage law.

Webpages on this Topic
Minimum Wage Overview History of Minimum Wage
State Minimum Wage Laws
A clickable map that tells you what the minimum wage laws are in each state.
Compliance Assistance: Minimum Wage
Questions and Answers About the Minimum Wage
Answers to questions ranging from "How often does the minimum wage increase?" to "Who ensures that workers are paid at least the minimum wage?"

What is the Minimum Wage?
Additional information about the minimum wage.

What is the Minimum Wage for Workers Who Receive Tips?
Additional information about the minimum wage.

Must Young Workers Be Paid the Minimum Wage?
Additional information about the minimum wage.

Information on the Youth Minimum Wage Program
A minimum wage of not less than $4.25 may be paid to employees under age 20 for their first 90 consecutive calendar days of employment, as long as their employment does not displace other workers.

Fact Sheet on Hours Worked Under the Fair Labor Standards Act
Provides general information concerning what constitutes compensable time under the FLSA.

Coverage Under the Fair Labor Standards Act Fact Sheet
General information about who is covered by the FLSA.

Equal Pay Act of 1963 (Public Law 88-38)
Equal pay provisions prohibit sex-based wage differentials between men and women employed in the same establishment who perform jobs requiring equal effort, skill, and responsibility. These provisions are enforced by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

Laws on this Topic

29 USC Chapter 8, Section 206 - Minimum Wage Statutes

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The federal minimum wage for covered nonexempt employees is $7.25 per hour. Many states also have minimum wage laws. In cases where an employee is subject to both the state and federal minimum wage laws, the employee is entitled to the higher of the two minimum wages.

# data[].attributes.body
https://quickbooks.intuit.com/ca/resources/accounting-news/minimum-wage-increase-ontario-employees/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
As of 2017, the minimum wage in Ontario is $11.40 per hour, but by January 2019, it's set to reach $15 an hour. If you currently work for minimum wage or if some of your clients work for minimum wage, you may be wondering how this shift will affect workers.

Higher Wages

The first and most obvious effect of the change is that minimum-wage workers will enjoy higher wages. Some employers in the province are boosting their workers' wages before the new law takes effect. Employees who currently earn $11.40 per hour will receive $3.60 more per hour, an increase of approximately 32%. The law takes effect incrementally, so minimum-wage workers can expect a raise to $14 in January 2018 and the remaining dollar per hour the following year.

In many businesses, workers who earn more than minimum wage may also see wage increases. For example, if a business currently pays its least experienced employees $11.40 and its intermediate workers $15 per hour, the business may decide to boost wages across the board.

Additional Benefits

The act that increases minimum wage also extends 10 personal leave days to employees each year, and two of those days are paid. On top of that, employers can no longer pay different rates to part-time and full-time workers who do the same job. The act also includes stronger provisions to prevent employers from misclassifying employees as independent contractors.

Those additional safeguards help ensure that a worker who's actually an employee can't be treated like a freelancer or an independent contractor. If you represent independent contractors, help to make sure they're classified correctly. Misclassification requires employers to pay extra payroll taxes and lose protections granted to employees.

Effect on Tax Benefit

Help your clients figure out how their wage increases may affect their tax benefits. In particular, the Canada Child Benefit, the GST/HST credit, and the working income tax benefit are all based on income. As people earn more, they receive reduced benefits until the benefits are completely phased out. If your clients are used to receiving monthly or quarterly benefits through these credits, use the Canada Revenue Agency's online benefits calculators to help your clients know what to expect so they can budget accordingly.

Potential Job Losses

According to some analysts, such as the Financial Accountability Office in Ontario, the minimum wage increase may result in some people losing their jobs. The Financial Accountability Office estimates that the province will lose over 50,000 jobs in the face of higher wages. To put that number into perspective, as of January 2017, approximately 7.1 million people are employed in Ontario. Most of the job losses are expected to be among teens, young adults, and immigrant workers.

If you do tax prep or accounting for people who earn minimum wage, be prepared to answer questions about Ontario's minimum wage increases or about minimum wage in general. Help your clients understand how these changes will affect them so you can offer them timely, useful advice.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How Ontario's Minimum Wage Increase Affects Employees | QuickBooks Canada

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As of 2017, the minimum wage in Ontario is $11.40 per hour, but by January 2019, it's set to reach $15 an hour. If you currently work for minimum wage or if some of your clients work for minimum wage, you may be wondering how this shift will affect workers.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Raising the minimum wage "destroys jobs," and the evidence for that "is overwhelming." The words of a business lobby? Of a self-interested corporation? No, that's Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan speaking.

The debate over raising Wisconsin's minimum wage has been painted as Republicans vs. Democrats, businesses vs. poor people. Politics aside, economists will tell you that a major problem with raising the minimum wage is that it has devastating consequences for the least skilled among us.

As Governor Doyle and the squabbling legislators consider the issue, they should bear in mind Chairman Greenspan's warning that a minimum wage hike "prevents people who are at the early stages of their careers...from getting a foothold in the ladder of promotions."

This ladder of promotions is no mere metaphor. Although wage hike proponents often argue that minimum wage employees haven't had a raise since Congress last increased the national rate, few entering the workforce at the minimum wage stay there for long. Nearly two-thirds get a raise within 1-12 months. After improving their skills and establishing their value, these employees receive raises at a rate nearly six times larger than everyone else.

The vast majority of low-wage earners simply don't need a mandated pay raise. They do it on their own.

That leaves us with a small group of the least skilled, who may remain at a minimum wage salary for extended periods. While mandating a wage boost for these individuals might seem like an attractive option, they are actually the people most likely to lose their jobs following a wage hike. Those most in need become the most likely to suffer.

Duke University researchers have found that after an increase in the minimum wage, the lowest skilled adults are crowded out of their jobs as better-educated teenagers (frequently from wealthier families) are drawn into the workforce. Their "need"? Simply to earn money for video games and iPods. But because they require less training, employers eagerly hire these higher-skilled teenagers to get the most out of their higher payroll costs.

Because of disparities in education, job losses often exact a crippling toll on minority communities. Cornell University researchers have determined that after a minimum wage hike, young African-Americans bear four times the employment loss of non-blacks.

In the years following World War II, the unemployment rate for young black males averaged lower than their white counterparts'. But in 1956, a 33% increase in the minimum wage precipitated an alarming turnaround. By 1960, unemployment for young black males had nearly doubled to 22.7% while increasing only slightly for young whites. By 1981, nearly annual minimum wage increases had greatly contributed to their 40.7% unemployment rate.

Artificially high wage mandates continue to price many less-educated African-Americans out of the labor market. Today, the unemployment rate for young blacks is 125% higher than for white youth. Nobel laureate economist Milton Friedman rightly notes that joblessness among so many young blacks "is both a scandal and a serious source of social unrest. Yet it is largely a result of minimum wage laws."

Proponents of minimum wage increases typically frame their efforts as a way to rescue society's most economically vulnerable-seniors trying to supplement their Social Security checks or single parents struggling to raise their children. But in Wisconsin, individuals earning $7 an hour or less have an average family income of nearly $58,000. Even former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich observed that "most minimum wage earners aren't poor."

If that seems implausible, consider that just 6% of these individuals are sole earners with children. A Cornell University study found only 15% of prospective wage hike beneficiaries across the nation are in poor families. Poverty is becoming a phenomenon confined largely to nonworkers. None of them will benefit from a minimum wage increase.

But they will be hurt by a minimum wage increase. A University of Wisconsin study revealed that welfare mothers in states which raised their minimum wage remained on public assistance 44 percent longer than those in states where the minimum wage was not raised.

Moreover, businesses with many low-wage employees frequently increase their prices after a minimum wage hike. Researchers from Stanford University have found that these price increases disproportionately effect the poor. In fact, they are more regressive than the sales tax, which is notorious for imposing a greater burden on low-income families.

Those with the least skills won't benefit from a minimum wage increase if they're shut out of the workforce. Instead of pushing for a minimum wage hike, Wisconsin legislators should be forging policies to help the needy without costing them their jobs.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Employment Policies Institute | Minimum Wage Increase Hurts Low-Income Families

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Raising the minimum wage "destroys jobs," and the evidence for that "is overwhelming." The words of a business lobby? Of a self-interested corporation? No, that's Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan speaking. The debate over raising Wisconsin's minimum wage has been painted as Republicans vs. Democrats, businesses vs. poor people.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Average prices of more than 40 products and services in United States. Prices of restaurants, food, transportation, utilities and housing are included.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/economy/2018/09/19/poverty-rates-america-cities-highest-levels/37799947/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In today's market, a seller's pain can be a renter's gain. The regions hardest hit by the subprime crisis are some of the cheapest markets to rent. Wichita, Kan., leads the cheap list, where $470 gets you a brand-new one-bedroom with views of open wheat fields.

You may have thought that with fewer people being able to buy, rents would have actually started to rise, but that is not the way it has worked. Rental vacancies have actually risen in 29 markets nationwide, including some of the most desirable, like Las Vegas, Palm Beach and Orange County, Calif. There are 350,000 vacant rental properties.

New developers are turning hard-to-sell condos into rental units. For example, in Palm Beach, developers moved 4,200 condos into the rental market. In Dumbo, Brooklyn, two large new developments converted to rentals, adding 144 rental units into that small neighborhood (99 Gold Street and 133 Water Street).

There are, however, more advantages to renting than just getting a place to live you couldn't afford to buy. For example, you can watch from the sidelines as the sale market stabilizes. You are not responsible for the maintenance. It is also a better bet if you think you will only be there for a few years; it usually takes at least two years to recoup realtor fees and closing costs. And, of course, for people with less than perfect credit, or uncertain employment, it is the only option right now.
Here are the five best places to rent on the cheap:
1. Wichita, Kan. Here you can get a 600-square-foot . Golf and country club fees are included. You can also join the fitness center and tanning parlor for a small cost.
Some fun facts about Wichita:

Dennis the Menace lived on the outskirts of town.

Pizza Hut started in Wichita and the original has been moved to the Wichita State campus where college kids regularly meet and eat.

Wichita has 250 days of sunshine a year.

2. Oklahoma City
Here you'll get a 900 square-foot home with a gym any fitness die-hard would kill for, . Some fun facts about Oklahoma City:

Oklahoma City has some of the cleanest air in the country.

You can still see real cowboys here, and it's home to theNational Cowboy Hall of Fame.

If you're chubby and want to lose some weight, the mayor himself has challenged his 1 million constituents to lose a collective 1 million pounds!

3. Tulsa, Okla.You can live in a brand-new, 600-square-foot one-bedroom on a pond filled with ducks for $520 a month. The apartment is right next door to several golf and country clubs.
Some fun facts about Tulsa:

Tulsa has one of the world's biggest pizza/amusement parks with all-you-can-eat pizza and all-you-can-ride go-carts and bumper cars, and bowling till you drop.

Tulsa also has the largestOktoberfest in the world outside of Germany.

4. Knoxville, Tenn. Some fun facts about Knoxville:

It's home to Davy Crockett's famous rifle, Old Betsy.

Boaters love Knoxville. A boater can set sail from Knoxville and travel more than 600 miles down to the Ohio River. All counted, that's more than 1,000 miles of uninterrupted travel on smooth waters through several different states.

5. Dayton, Ohio
You get a 500-square-foot one-bedroom on the lake, with your own parking space, for $570 a month. Best of all, you can use a portion of your monthly rent toward a down payment if you decide to buy.
Some fun facts about Dayton:

This city is made for inventors. The Wright Brothers designed their first airplane here.

Other inventions created in Dayton are the cash register, the stepladder, the pop-top beverage can, the movie projector and the parking meter.

If none of the above locations tickles your fancy, here is a list of the best fancy places with not-so-fancy prices:

1. Palm Beach West Palm Beach renters report average rents are down $29 per month compared to the previous 12 months.

2. Orange County The O.C. is currently looking at 5 percent vacancy, the lowest it's been since 2002. And rents only went up 2 percent in the past year, less than the cost of inflation.

3. Las Vegas Nearly 6,000 of the 2,400 homes listed for sale last month are now being listed as rentals.

4. Wall Street, NYC

Rent in studios in doorman buildings in the financial district dropped by $503, to $2,559 a month.

5. St. Petersburg, Fla. Rents dropped .6 of a percentage point just in the last quarter.
And if you are wondering how to go about finding cheap rentals, here are a few tips:

Look for "For Rent" signs that have been standing for months.

Play the landlords against each other. Bring competing advertisements for similar and cheaper apartments in the area and ask the landlord to match it.

Ask the landlord formore stuff, like health club membership, new carpeting, fresh paint, free gas and electric, and even a free TV.

Ask for atwo- or three-year lease. It will lock in your rate and save you money down the road.

With a new development, ask for a construction special. Ask the landlord to reduce your rent until the banging and dust settle down.

Ask the landlord towaive restrictions, like pet and barbecue restrictions.

Bring yourproof of earnings, credit history and letters of reference. It's your best leverage in negotiating.

If you can't get yourself a good deal in this market, then you're never going to be able to get one. Remember, every day these properties lie empty, the owners lose more money. They need you much more than you need them, so get out there and grab yourself a steal!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The 5 cheapest places to rent in America

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In today's market, a seller's pain can be a renter's gain. The regions hardest hit by the subprime crisis are some of the cheapest markets to rent.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The World Bank Group's goals are to end extreme poverty and promote shared prosperity. This mission underpins our analytical, operational, and convening work in about 140 client countries.

For three decades, the number of people living in extreme poverty- defined as those who live on less than $2.15 per person per day at 2017 purchasing power parity-was declining. But the trend was interrupted in 2020, when poverty rose due to the disruption caused by the COVID-19 crisis. The number of people in extreme poverty rose by 70 million to more than 700 million people. The global extreme poverty rate reached 9.3 percent, up from 8.4 percent in 2019.

The world's poorest people bore the steepest costs of the pandemic. Their income losses were twice as high as the world's richest, and global inequality rose for the first time in decades. The poorest also faced large setbacks in health and education which, if left unaddressed by policy action, will have lasting consequences for their lifetime income prospects.

The recovery since then has been uneven. Rising food and energy prices-fueled in part by the war in Ukraine and by climate shocks and conflict-have hindered a swift recovery. By the end of 2022, as many as 685 million people could still be living in extreme poverty.

The recent setbacks took place when the speed of progress toward poverty reduction was already slowing, in tandem with subdued global economic growth.

The recent crises have pushed the world further off track from the global goal of ending extreme poverty by 2030. Given current trends, 574 million people-nearly 7 percent of the world's population-will still be living on less than $2.15 a day in 2030. And the challenge is made harder by the fact that extreme poverty is concentrated in parts of the world where it will be hardest to eradicate: in Sub-Saharan Africa, in conflict-affected areas, and in rural areas.

Last Updated: Nov 30, 2022

The COVID-19 pandemic dealt the biggest setback to global poverty in decades. The economic recovery has been uneven, affected by rising food and energy prices-due to the war in Ukraine and climate change, among other factors-and high indebtedness in many countries. In addition, extreme poverty is now more concentrated in places where it will be hardest to eradicate, including in conflict-affected and rural areas.

Strategies to reach the least well-off must be tailored to each country's context, considering the latest data and analysis, and the needs of the population. How the world responds to these major challenges today will have a direct bearing on whether the current reversals in global poverty reduction can be turned around.

The World Bank provides recommendations for a complementary two-track approach: responding effectively to the urgent crisis in the short run, while continuing to focus on foundational development problems, including conflict and climate change.
Closing the gaps between policy aspiration and attainment
Too often, there is a wide gap between policies as articulated and their attainment in practice-between what citizens rightfully expect, and what they experience daily. Policy aspirations can be laudable, but there is likely to be considerable variation in the extent to which they can be realized, and in which groups benefit from them. For example, at the local level, those who have the least influence in a community might not be able to access basic services. It is critical to forge implementation strategies that can rapidly and flexibly respond to close the gaps.
Enhancing learning, improving data
From information gathered in household surveys to pixels captured by satellite images, data can inform policies and spur economic activity, serving as a powerful weapon in the fight against poverty. More data is available today than ever before, yet its value is largely untapped. Data is also a double-edged sword, requiring a social contract that builds trust by protecting people against misuse and harm, and works toward equal access and representation.
Investing in preparedness and prevention
The COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated that years of progress in reducing poverty can quickly disappear when a crisis strikes. Prevention measures often have low political payoff, with little credit given for disasters averted. Over time, populations with no lived experience of calamity can become complacent, presuming that such risks have been eliminated or can readily be addressed if they happen. COVID-19, together with climate change and enduring conflicts, is reminding us of the importance of investing in preparedness and prevention measures comprehensively and proactively.
Expanding cooperation and coordination
Contributing to and maintaining public goods require extensive cooperation and coordination. This is crucial for promoting widespread learning and improving the data-driven foundations of policymaking. It is also important for forming a sense of shared solidarity during crises and ensuring that the difficult policy choices by officials are both trusted and trustworthy.

Overall, with more than 60 percent of the world's extreme poor living in middle-income countries, we cannot focus solely on low-income countries if we want to end extreme poverty. We need to focus on the poorest people, regardless of where they live, and work with countries at all income levels to invest in their well-being and their future.

The goal to end extreme poverty works hand in hand with the World Bank Group's goal to promote shared prosperity, focused on increasing income growth among the bottom 40 percent in every country. Boosting shared prosperity broadly translates into improving the welfare of the least well-off in each country and includes a strong emphasis on tackling persistent inequalities that keep people in poverty from generation to generation.

Our work at the World Bank Group is based on strong country-led programs to improve living conditions-to drive growth, raise median incomes, create jobs, fully incorporate women and young people into economies, address environmental and climate challenges, and support stronger, more stable economies for everyone.

We continue to work closely with countries to help them find the best ways to improve the lives of their least advantaged citizens.

Last Updated: Nov 30, 2022

The World Bank Group works to end poverty in several ways:

Funding projects that can have transformational impacts on communities.

Collecting and analyzing the critical data and evidence needed to target these programs to reach the poorest and most vulnerable.

Helping governments create more inclusive, effective policies that can benefit entire populations and lay the groundwork for prosperity for future generations.

Some examples:

Cambodia has achieved remarkable progress in reducing poverty and boosting shared prosperity, but key reforms are needed to sustain pro-poor growth. The World Bank is supporting Cambodia to help address the country's challenges of limited economic diversification, rapidly increasing urbanization, human capital deficiencies, and infrastructure gaps.

Mexico has experienced high income inequality and concentration of poverty in a few states. The World Bank Group has supported Mexico's efforts to develop a more inclusive, effective, and integrated social protection system including relaunching a conditional cash transfer program to help improve access to higher education and formal employment.

In one of India's poorest states, Bihar, a program financed by the World Bank has transformed livelihoods by mobilizing almost 10 million rural women into self-help groups and granting them access to finance and markets to start and expand their businesses.

A pilot program in Ecuador used text messages to relay information and encouragement to caregivers in an impoverished region of the country and saw a significant improvement in the nutrition and health of children.

Since 2007, a team of experts from the World Bank has been helping Kenya strengthen statistical capacity by reshaping its National Bureau of Statistics. With World Bank's support, the bureau implemented a range of surveys to update key indicators of official statistics and improved the data ecosystem. The project is funded by $50 million from the World Bank's International Development Association (IDA).

In-depth maps in countries such as Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Croatia, Republic of Serbia, and Vietnam show where economic diversity and gaps in services exist within a country. This, as part of the poverty assessment process, helps policymakers better target policies and programs to reach and benefit the poor.

Yemen's high malnutrition rates have drawn global attention, highlighting the impact the country's five-and-half-year civil war has had on its population. The Emergency Crisis Response Project gives pregnant women and women with children under the age of five money to buy food and teaches them about child nutrition. It has been able to reach more than 165,000 pregnant or lactating women and 175,000 children so far.

Conflict-affected communities in Mindanao are among the poorest in the Philippines, suffering from poor infrastructure and lack of basic services. The World Bank along with other partners have aimed to enhance access to services and economic opportunities and build social cohesion. These projects have help build water systems, community centers, sanitation facilities, access roads, post-harvest facilities, and farming and fishing equipment, benefiting 650,000 people in 284 villages in a decade.

An innovative series of rapid survey methodologies were pioneered in Somalia, one of the poorest countries in Sub-Saharan Africa. The surveys overcame significant security and implementation obstacles to yield the most comprehensive analysis of the welfare of the Somali people in decades and is now being used in other countries.

Last Updated: Nov 30, 2022

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Fighting poverty in all of its dimensions lies at the core of the World Bank's work. We work closely with governments to develop sound policies so that poor people can improve their livelihoods, and access social and infrastructure services and good jobs.

# data[].attributes.body
-Michael

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The federal minimum wage for nonexempt employees in the United States is $7.25. It is meant to be a living wage, but this isn't the case in practice. The hourly rate hasn't kept up with the cost of living since the late 1960s. In fact, the earnings of a minimum-wage worker with a family of four fall well below the poverty line.

While many states and some cities have minimum-wage rates much higher than $7.25 and continue to revise them-in 2022, 26 U.S. states are increasing their minimum wages-minimum-wage earners still struggle to pay bills, secure housing, and support a family.

Key Takeaways

What Is the US Federal Minimum Wage?

Since 2009, the federal minimum wage has been $7.25, or $15,080 a year. Many economists believe this is woefully inadequate and unjust. Consider this: In 1968, the minimum waged peaked at an inflation adjusted value of $10.15 in 2018 dollars, which was worth 28.6% more than the federal minimum wage in 2018.

The minimum wage has been a political issue since its inception. During his presidency, Barack Obama signed an executive order to increase the minimum wage of some federal workers to $10.10, reasoning that the overall federal rate should also be raised to that amount. Although this campaign stalled in Congress, federal inaction prompted many states to legislate their own minimum-wage increases.

In early 2021, the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate both referred the Raise the Wage act of 2021 to committee. The bill is aimed to gradually increase the federal minimum wage to $15 by 2025. It was last introduced in 2019 but did not make it out of committee and, as a result, the debate about whether to lift the federal minimum wage rages on today.

Over the last decade, a movement to increase the minimum wage has been largely worker-driven. Fast-food and retail workers have staged nationwide walkouts in grassroots efforts to effect change. Home care workers, labor organizations, and women's groups have also joined the fight.

Thirty states, plus the District of Columbia, Guam, and the Virgin Islands currently pay more than the federal wage floor. Individual cities have also taken action. For example, the minimum wage in New York City is $15-more than double the federal minimum. At the start of 2022, 22 states had raised their minimum wages, with four others set to do so during the course of the year.

In November 2020, Florida residents voted to increase the state's minimum wage incrementally (beginning at $10 per hour on Sept. 30, 2021) until it reaches $15 per hour in September 2026.

Can a Family Survive on Today's Minimum Wage?

The minimum wage is meant to be a living wage. In 1933, five years before the first minimum wage became law, then-President Franklin Delano Roosevelt said, "By living wages, I mean more than a bare subsistence level-I mean the wages of a decent living." The first U.S. minimum wage was implemented in 1938 as part of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Today, full-time employees earning the federal minimum annually pocket just $15,080 (if they work 40 hours, each of the 52 weeks in a year), placing them well below the $18,310 poverty line in 2022 for families of two. Meanwhile, a full-time minimum wage earner with a family of four falls $12,670 below the poverty line of $27,750.

Pay Is Not the Only Problem

Many companies don't offer full-time hours, even when workers want them. Fluctuating work schedules, split shifts, and the dreaded "clopening" (closing the store at night, then reporting back to work early the next morning to open it) make it difficult for employees to work second jobs, attend college classes, or arrange childcare.

Minimum-wage employees are also vulnerable to pay reduction from wage theft, which includes lack of overtime pay, erased time cards, and any unpaid time that employees spend while at work, such as going through lengthy security bag checks.

The vulnerabilities of hourly wage earners have been further highlighted during the COVID-19 pandemic. Employees at grocery stores and some large retailers, as well as delivery workers, were forced to work on the frontlines at the height of the outbreak without being offered paid sick leave or health insurance by their employers.

Some retailers temporarily boosted pay or offered bonuses. But workers-including those at Whole Foods, Instacart, and Amazon-maintained that this wasn't enough to put their health at risk. They staged walkouts to demand safer working conditions when much of the U.S. was under varying degrees of lockdown in March 2020.

The Typical Minimum-Wage Worker

In 2020, 73.3 million workers were paid hourly, representing more than half (55.5%) of all wage and salary workers in the U.S., according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). Of that group, 247,000 earned $7.25 per hour. Almost three-quarters of workers earning the minimum wage or less in 2020 were employed in service jobs, mainly food preparation and serving related jobs.

About 2% and 1% of hourly paid women and men, respectively, were paid at or below the federal minimum, according to the BLS. Meanwhile, in terms of race, the BLS claimed that about 1% of hourly paid White, Asian, and Latinx workers earned the minimum wage or less, while about 2% of hourly paid Black workers earned the minimum wage or less.

If the Raise the Wage Act had passed and the minimum federal rate were raised to $15 by the end of 2024, almost 40 million workers would have seen an increase in pay, according to the Economic Policy Institute. Workers who would have benefited include:

38.6 million adults ages 18 and older

23.8 million full-time workers

23 million women

11.2 million parents

5.4 million single parents

The parents of 14.4 million children

Arguments for and Against Raising the Minimum Wage

Business groups such as the National Retail Federation (NRF) and the National Federation of Independent Businesses (NFIB) opposed the minimum-wage increase in the Raise the Wage Act, arguing that it was a one-size-fits-all approach that would force businesses to hire fewer people, slash growth plans, and/or raise their prices. In general, they believe that the act would negatively affect early-career and low-wage workers as well as causing harm to the economy in a variety of other ways.

In a report published in February 2021, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) concluded that when the minimum wage reaches $15 in 2025, it would benefit up to 27 million workers-significantly fewer than the Economic Policy Institute's estimate-but would cost an estimated 1.4 million jobs. The CBO also concluded that 0.9 million people would see their annual incomes rise above the poverty level.

Groups such as Small Business Majority, Main Street Alliance, and Business for a Fair Minimum Wage support a higher wage, believing it will inspire employee loyalty and boost workplace morale, which leads to more satisfied customers and an increase in consumer spending.

Some large U.S. employers that pay an hourly wage have established company-wide minimum wages in recent years. They include big retailers such as Amazon ($15 an hour), Target ($15 an hour), Costco (an average of $24 an hour for hourly workers), and Walmart (an average total compensation of $18 an hour, including benefits).

What Is the Minimum Wage?

The current federal minimum wage is $7.25 an hour; however, many states, cities, and municipalities have a minimum wage that is higher than the federal minimum wage. Many companies have also implemented minimum wages higher than the federal minimum wage.

What Is the Minimum Wage in California?

The minimum wage in California is $15 for businesses with 26 or more employees. For businesses with 25 employees or less, it is $14.

What Is the Minimum Wage in Florida?

The minimum wage in Florida is $10. Each year, on Sept. 30, the minimum hourly wage in the Sunshine State is set to increase a dollar until it reaches $15 in 2026. After that point, the state will revert back to adjusting its minimum hourly wage based on inflation.

The Bottom Line

The minimum wage in the United States is no longer a living wage. Even though many states are paying more than this amount, minimum-wage earners continue to struggle to make ends meet.

At $7.25, the federal minimum wage hasn't kept up with the cost of living in more than half a century. But there is a growing movement among workers, policy analysts, state and city governments, and even some employers to raise it.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Can a Family Survive on the US Minimum Wage?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The federal minimum wage for nonexempt employees in the United States is $7.25. It is meant to be a living wage, but this isn't the case in practice. The hourly rate hasn't kept up with the cost of living since the late 1960s.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.tampabay.com/news/business/economicdevelopment/Florida-Chamber-Foundation-summit-focuses-on-poverty-child-care-and-education_163070764

# data[].attributes.body
Justin S.

# data[].attributes.body
- Jeremy

# data[].attributes.body
- Jeremy

# data[].attributes.body
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/38168029/ns/business-careers/t/lowest-paying-jobs-america/

# data[].attributes.body
- Jeremy

# data[].attributes.body
- Jeremy

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/gender-equality/women-in-the-workplace-2017

https://talkpoverty.org/2015/08/20/unworthy-poor/

https://www.latimes.com/projects/la-na-pol-poverty-poll/

# data[].attributes.body
https://highline.huffingtonpost.com/articles/en/life-and-death-amazon-temp/

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/04/01/the-poor-are-treated-like-criminals-everywhere-even-at-the-grocery-store/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.a195b9fb6a77

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In the summer of 2014, several prominent politicians made an unusual choice. For one week, they all voluntarily set aside their generous salaries and tried to live on just $7.25 an hour - the federal minimum wage.

No, they weren't crazy. They were taking the Live the Wage Challenge.

This challenge was created as part of a campaign to raise the federal minimum wage, which hasn't increased since 2009. The campaign encouraged politicians, bloggers, and others to try living for one week on minimum wage and write about it. The organizers set up a discussion on Twitter at #LiveTheWage for people to share their experiences. Their goal was to show people firsthand how difficult it is to live on $7.25 an hour and encourage them to support the wage hike.

All those who took the challenge say they learned from the experience. Mostly, they say, it helped them understand how difficult it is to get by on minimum wage. But also, they learned to distinguish between wants and needs - to recognize which of their expenses were truly necessary, and which were extras they could cut if they had to. Ultimately, they came away from the experience more grateful for the little luxuries they once took for granted.

Rules of the Challenge

The official website for the challenge, which has now been taken down, outlined both the purpose of the challenge and the rules for taking it. In a nutshell, you get $77 per week for each adult in your household to pay for everything except your housing expenses.

Here's how the website explained that figure:

Weekly Income. The challenge gives you a weekly budget of $290 based on 40 hours of work at $7.25 per hour. The Live the Wage website didn't explain what to do if you come from a two-income household, but most couples who took the challenge simply multiplied this number by two, pretending that they both earned minimum wage.

Taxes. From your $290 salary, take out $35.06 for taxes. The website said this was the average amount that minimum-wage workers pay in tax each week, including federal and state income taxes and the Social Security payroll tax.

Housing Expenses. The website gave $176.48 per week as the average amount a minimum-wage worker pays for housing. However, it didn't explain where this figure comes from or what it includes. An article about the challenge in TIME suggests that rent and utilities (monthly bills for gas, electricity, and telephone service) should be treated as part of the $176.48 weekly housing costs, not part of the $77 weekly budget, which is money leftover after housing expenses are deducted.

Final Budget. Deducting the taxes and housing costs from a $290 weekly salary leaves $78.46 per week. It's not clear why the organizers of the challenge chose to round that figure down to $77 a week - perhaps it was to make it divide evenly by seven, giving a budget of $11 per day. This amount has to cover all non-housing expenses, including food, healthcare, transportation, childcare, and entertainment.

Stories From the Challenge

The original sponsors of the minimum wage challenge were three Democratic politicians: Representative Tim Ryan of Ohio, Representative Jan Schakowsky of Illinois, and Ted Strickland, the former governor of Ohio. They took the challenge the week of July 24, 2014, the fifth anniversary of the last increase in the minimum wage. Several other politicians joined them, along with a few bloggers, including myself.

Some of the people who took the challenge were trying to support a family on their pretend minimum-wage salary, while others had only themselves. Some made it through the whole week, others went over budget, and nearly all of them ran into problems they hadn't expected.

Mixed Results

Most politicians who took the Live the Wage Challenge couldn't manage to stretch their minimum-wage budget through the whole week. Strickland's $77 ran out on Thursday evening, the fifth day of the challenge. Schakowsky, in an account of her experience on a blog run by the U.S. Department of Labor, says she and her husband "didn't quite make it" through the week, though she doesn't say just how long they lasted. And Ryan ran short with two days left, spending his last $4 - plus a little bit more - on a bag of trail mix right after returning to his office in Washington.

Bloggers who tried the challenge had a little more success. Christine Owens, writing for Raise the Minimum Wage, went over her limit as a result of a friend's birthday lunch. Joshua Mbanusi, at the anti-poverty organization MDC, extended the challenge across several weeks, succeeding on weeks one and three but going over-budget on week two. As for me, I made it through the entire week with money to spare, though that was largely because I was lucky enough not to run into any unexpected expenses.

Unfortunately, I couldn't find any stories out there from people who took the Live the Wage Challenge as single parents. All the participants who had kids to support also had two incomes. Yet in reality, about 1 out of 10 minimum-wage workers is a single parent, according to data from the Economic Policy Institute. As the stories show, this challenge is a struggle even for families with two working parents; presumably, it would be even more difficult for single parents.

Biggest Challenges

Different people had different reasons for failing the challenge. In nearly every case, it was an unexpected expense that put them over their budget, but those expenses fell into several different categories.

The tricky areas included the following:

Transportation. Schakowsky says "a big chunk of her budget" went toward a 140-mile car trip for her granddaughter's birthday party - even though she counted only the cost of gas and not maintenance or insurance. Mbanusi writes that he started buying just $10 worth of gas at a time, rather than filling his tank, and a $24 bill for routine maintenance nearly wrecked his budget for week one. And Strickland describes showing up late for a meeting because he had to walk from his apartment - in 90-degree heat - rather than taking a cab.

Food. Nearly everyone who took the challenge says eating healthy food was a problem. Only a few say they actually went hungry, but most say their diets were less varied and less healthful during their minimum-wage week. Strickland says he couldn't afford most fresh fruits and vegetables and had to rely heavily on cheap staples like bread, bologna, bananas, and peanut butter. Schakowsky reports that she and her husband "stretched a package of romaine and a few tomatoes to last the week."

Health Care. Mbanusi says his budget went off the rails in week two when he had to pay $40 for a doctor's appointment he'd made weeks earlier. Ryan notes that the first big stumbling block in his week was a $25 charge for vitamin D drops and a few other items for his newborn baby. Strickland, in an interview on the left-wing website ThinkProgress, says he was lucky to have medicine at home when he caught a cold early in the week; otherwise, he says, "I don't think I would have been able to buy that Afrin nasal spray."

Kids and Pets. For Ryan, the expense that finally knocked his budget off track was his 10-year-old daughter's summer camp. Schakowsky says she learned that "pets are luxury," as one of her biggest expenses was caring for her dog Lucky, who is disabled.

Laundry. One surprising stumbling block in Schakowski's account of her week was the cost of laundry. She says that she and her husband not only couldn't afford to pick up their dry cleaning, they couldn't even spare the quarters to do laundry in their building's coin-operated machines.

Lessons Learned

Even though most people who tried the challenge couldn't beat it, most of them still say it was a valuable experience. Here are some of the lessons people say they learned by spending a week on minimum wage:

Gratitude. Several participants say the challenge made them realize how lucky they are just to be able to pay their bills each week and not have to worry about how to pay for random expenses, such as a car repair or a doctor's appointment. For instance, Strickland says in an account of his minimum-wage week for Politico Magazine that his experience with the cold medicine made him realize how for many workers, even small expenses can "prevent the budget from stretching as far as it needs to stretch."

Empathy. Most participants in the challenge say they discovered how stressful it is to live on a bare-bones budget and what a toll it takes on your mind and body. Several of them say this was the first time in their lives they had actually gone hungry. Living this way for just one week made them realize how hard it must be to do all the time and made them care more about finding ways to help people who are struggling.

The Difference Between Wants and Needs. Most challenge participants write about the small treats they found themselves skipping during the week: a dinner with friends, a drive-in movie with the kids, a cold beer after work, a cup of coffee. Even at the grocery store, they found themselves classifying certain items, from steaks to sports drinks, as luxuries they couldn't afford.

How to Depend on Others. Being able to turn to friends and family for assistance makes a big difference when you're in a tight spot financially. Although the rules of the challenge say not to accept free meals at friends' houses, several participants admit that they did just that, and it greatly eased the pressure on their budgets. One of my biggest discoveries about this challenge was how much easier it is to do as a couple, since there are so many costs you can reduce by sharing them, from food, to gas, to Internet service. I concluded that a single person making minimum wage would have a much easier time either living with adult family members or having a roommate to share living expenses.

The Value of a Dollar. On a budget of just $77 a week, every dollar is crucial. In her Department of Labor blog entry, Schakowsky says the challenge taught her quite literally what a dollar can do: "It can buy a can of tuna or baked beans or a box of pasta." Other participants in the challenge talk about stretching their dollars as far as possible by using coupons, cutting back on driving, and relying on free entertainment.

The Importance of Good Planning. Many participants discovered that when money is this tight, planning is essential. They learned to budget down to the penny, plan their meals, keep track of everything they ate, and time their work hours to coincide with bus schedules. Schakowsky says a minimum-wage paycheck leaves "no room for error," as even small mistakes, such as forgetting your lunch, can derail your budget.

The Benefits of Foot Power. During our week on minimum wage, my husband and I used our car only once, to stock up on groceries for the week. He rode his bike to work every day, and I did all my other errands on foot. Strickland also says that he walked as much as possible during his minimum-wage week to keep his transportation costs down.

The Cheapest Way to Eat. Of all the people who took the challenge, I was the only one who didn't eat any differently during the week than I do normally. There are two reasons for this: First, my husband and I are near-vegetarians, and second, we have a home garden that supplies us with fresh veggies during the summer. This meant the only groceries we needed to buy were staples like flour, cheese, oatmeal, and milk, plus a bag of fresh apples from the farmers market. With these plus the produce from our garden, we were able to eat our usual healthy diet and even squeeze in a trip to Starbucks over the weekend.

Problems With the Challenge

Although the Live the Wage Challenge is useful as a learning exercise, it's also unrealistic in several ways. The limitations of the challenge include:

Less Stress. Living for just one week on a minimum-wage budget can't begin to mimic the stresses of living that way week in and week out. The people who take the challenge know that it's only for a week, and they also know that there are no real consequences even if they don't make it through the week. If an emergency crops up, they can always just pull out their credit cards and declare the challenge a failure.

Inability to Budget. Many of the expenses workers have aren't paid on a weekly basis. The challenge takes out money for housing, which is usually a monthly expense, but it doesn't account for occasional costs like clothing or insurance or maintenance for cars. In real life, workers know that these are expenses that will come up eventually, so they have to set aside money for them ahead of time. In the challenge, though, the only expenses that count are weekly ones.

No Way to Plan for Emergencies. In a long-term budget, you can plan for expenses that only come up occasionally, such as car repairs or doctor visits, by setting aside a few dollars each week. But on the Live the Wage Challenge, if one of these expenses comes up, you have to pay the entire cost immediately out of your $77 budget. Many participants say emergencies like this left them with too little cash to get through the rest of the week.

No Adjustments for Location. The minimum wage challenge requires you to work with a budget of $7.25 an hour, even if the actual minimum wage in your state is higher. So if you live in a state where the cost of living is high, you end up having to pay above-average prices for everything without an above-average minimum wage to make up for it.

No Way to Change Housing Costs. The challenge allots $176.48 of your $290 paycheck for housing, based on some theoretical "average" cost. It doesn't give you the option of cutting your housing cost, which is one of the most important things you can do when you're really living on a minimum-wage budget. Most of the people interviewed in this New York Times article about living on the minimum wage say they live with family members, share a home with a boyfriend or girlfriend, or rent a room in a friend's house.

A more realistic way of figuring out whether you could really survive on the minimum wage long-term is to use this interactive tool via The New York Times. It starts by calculating your yearly income, based on the actual minimum wage for your state. Then you take out all your expenses for the year, including taxes, housing, healthcare, food, and transportation. This shows you how much you could save - or how much debt you would pile up - over the course of a whole year, and what cuts you would have to make to keep your budget under control.

Final Word

Despite its flaws, most participants seem to think the Live the Wage Challenge is a worthwhile experience. Ryan, discussing the challenge on his Facebook page, acknowledged that it couldn't match the stress of living on minimum wage for real, but he said it still helped him to understand his constituents and their needs. Schakowsky says it convinced her that living on a minimum-wage salary is not just difficult but impossible. And I learned how well our frugal lifestyle stands up to the rigors of a true bare-bones budget, and which of our money-saving strategies are most helpful.

Do you think you could live on minimum wage? Have you ever had to do it?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Living on Minimum Wage - Is It Possible? (Live the Wage Challenge)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In the summer of 2014, several prominent politicians made an unusual choice. For one week, they all voluntarily set aside their generous salaries and tried to live on just $7.25 an hour - the federal minimum wage. No, they weren't crazy. They were taking the Live the Wage Challenge.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The national living wage makes a bad situation for young people even worse | Rys Farthing

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Over 25s on the national living wage are about to get a pay rise, but 21-24s aren't. The UK is highly unusual in making this distinction

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.usnews.com/news/the-report/articles/2016-03-28/ask-an-economist-will-a-minimum-wage-hike-help-or-hurt-workers

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Are low-wage workers treated poorly in the U.S.?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Debate.org is a dynamic social community where you can voice your opinion on today's hottest issues.

# data[].attributes.body
-fernando

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In the summer of 2014, several prominent politicians made an unusual choice. For one week, they all voluntarily set aside their generous salaries and tried to live on just $7.25 an hour - the federal minimum wage.

No, they weren't crazy. They were taking the Live the Wage Challenge.

This challenge was created as part of a campaign to raise the federal minimum wage, which hasn't increased since 2009. The campaign encouraged politicians, bloggers, and others to try living for one week on minimum wage and write about it. The organizers set up a discussion on Twitter at #LiveTheWage for people to share their experiences. Their goal was to show people firsthand how difficult it is to live on $7.25 an hour and encourage them to support the wage hike.

All those who took the challenge say they learned from the experience. Mostly, they say, it helped them understand how difficult it is to get by on minimum wage. But also, they learned to distinguish between wants and needs - to recognize which of their expenses were truly necessary, and which were extras they could cut if they had to. Ultimately, they came away from the experience more grateful for the little luxuries they once took for granted.

Rules of the Challenge

The official website for the challenge, which has now been taken down, outlined both the purpose of the challenge and the rules for taking it. In a nutshell, you get $77 per week for each adult in your household to pay for everything except your housing expenses.

Here's how the website explained that figure:

Weekly Income. The challenge gives you a weekly budget of $290 based on 40 hours of work at $7.25 per hour. The Live the Wage website didn't explain what to do if you come from a two-income household, but most couples who took the challenge simply multiplied this number by two, pretending that they both earned minimum wage.

Taxes. From your $290 salary, take out $35.06 for taxes. The website said this was the average amount that minimum-wage workers pay in tax each week, including federal and state income taxes and the Social Security payroll tax.

Housing Expenses. The website gave $176.48 per week as the average amount a minimum-wage worker pays for housing. However, it didn't explain where this figure comes from or what it includes. An article about the challenge in TIME suggests that rent and utilities (monthly bills for gas, electricity, and telephone service) should be treated as part of the $176.48 weekly housing costs, not part of the $77 weekly budget, which is money leftover after housing expenses are deducted.

Final Budget. Deducting the taxes and housing costs from a $290 weekly salary leaves $78.46 per week. It's not clear why the organizers of the challenge chose to round that figure down to $77 a week - perhaps it was to make it divide evenly by seven, giving a budget of $11 per day. This amount has to cover all non-housing expenses, including food, healthcare, transportation, childcare, and entertainment.

Stories From the Challenge

The original sponsors of the minimum wage challenge were three Democratic politicians: Representative Tim Ryan of Ohio, Representative Jan Schakowsky of Illinois, and Ted Strickland, the former governor of Ohio. They took the challenge the week of July 24, 2014, the fifth anniversary of the last increase in the minimum wage. Several other politicians joined them, along with a few bloggers, including myself.

Some of the people who took the challenge were trying to support a family on their pretend minimum-wage salary, while others had only themselves. Some made it through the whole week, others went over budget, and nearly all of them ran into problems they hadn't expected.

Mixed Results

Most politicians who took the Live the Wage Challenge couldn't manage to stretch their minimum-wage budget through the whole week. Strickland's $77 ran out on Thursday evening, the fifth day of the challenge. Schakowsky, in an account of her experience on a blog run by the U.S. Department of Labor, says she and her husband "didn't quite make it" through the week, though she doesn't say just how long they lasted. And Ryan ran short with two days left, spending his last $4 - plus a little bit more - on a bag of trail mix right after returning to his office in Washington.

Bloggers who tried the challenge had a little more success. Christine Owens, writing for Raise the Minimum Wage, went over her limit as a result of a friend's birthday lunch. Joshua Mbanusi, at the anti-poverty organization MDC, extended the challenge across several weeks, succeeding on weeks one and three but going over-budget on week two. As for me, I made it through the entire week with money to spare, though that was largely because I was lucky enough not to run into any unexpected expenses.

Unfortunately, I couldn't find any stories out there from people who took the Live the Wage Challenge as single parents. All the participants who had kids to support also had two incomes. Yet in reality, about 1 out of 10 minimum-wage workers is a single parent, according to data from the Economic Policy Institute. As the stories show, this challenge is a struggle even for families with two working parents; presumably, it would be even more difficult for single parents.

Biggest Challenges

Different people had different reasons for failing the challenge. In nearly every case, it was an unexpected expense that put them over their budget, but those expenses fell into several different categories.

The tricky areas included the following:

Transportation. Schakowsky says "a big chunk of her budget" went toward a 140-mile car trip for her granddaughter's birthday party - even though she counted only the cost of gas and not maintenance or insurance. Mbanusi writes that he started buying just $10 worth of gas at a time, rather than filling his tank, and a $24 bill for routine maintenance nearly wrecked his budget for week one. And Strickland describes showing up late for a meeting because he had to walk from his apartment - in 90-degree heat - rather than taking a cab.

Food. Nearly everyone who took the challenge says eating healthy food was a problem. Only a few say they actually went hungry, but most say their diets were less varied and less healthful during their minimum-wage week. Strickland says he couldn't afford most fresh fruits and vegetables and had to rely heavily on cheap staples like bread, bologna, bananas, and peanut butter. Schakowsky reports that she and her husband "stretched a package of romaine and a few tomatoes to last the week."

Health Care. Mbanusi says his budget went off the rails in week two when he had to pay $40 for a doctor's appointment he'd made weeks earlier. Ryan notes that the first big stumbling block in his week was a $25 charge for vitamin D drops and a few other items for his newborn baby. Strickland, in an interview on the left-wing website ThinkProgress, says he was lucky to have medicine at home when he caught a cold early in the week; otherwise, he says, "I don't think I would have been able to buy that Afrin nasal spray."

Kids and Pets. For Ryan, the expense that finally knocked his budget off track was his 10-year-old daughter's summer camp. Schakowsky says she learned that "pets are luxury," as one of her biggest expenses was caring for her dog Lucky, who is disabled.

Laundry. One surprising stumbling block in Schakowski's account of her week was the cost of laundry. She says that she and her husband not only couldn't afford to pick up their dry cleaning, they couldn't even spare the quarters to do laundry in their building's coin-operated machines.

Lessons Learned

Even though most people who tried the challenge couldn't beat it, most of them still say it was a valuable experience. Here are some of the lessons people say they learned by spending a week on minimum wage:

Gratitude. Several participants say the challenge made them realize how lucky they are just to be able to pay their bills each week and not have to worry about how to pay for random expenses, such as a car repair or a doctor's appointment. For instance, Strickland says in an account of his minimum-wage week for Politico Magazine that his experience with the cold medicine made him realize how for many workers, even small expenses can "prevent the budget from stretching as far as it needs to stretch."

Empathy. Most participants in the challenge say they discovered how stressful it is to live on a bare-bones budget and what a toll it takes on your mind and body. Several of them say this was the first time in their lives they had actually gone hungry. Living this way for just one week made them realize how hard it must be to do all the time and made them care more about finding ways to help people who are struggling.

The Difference Between Wants and Needs. Most challenge participants write about the small treats they found themselves skipping during the week: a dinner with friends, a drive-in movie with the kids, a cold beer after work, a cup of coffee. Even at the grocery store, they found themselves classifying certain items, from steaks to sports drinks, as luxuries they couldn't afford.

How to Depend on Others. Being able to turn to friends and family for assistance makes a big difference when you're in a tight spot financially. Although the rules of the challenge say not to accept free meals at friends' houses, several participants admit that they did just that, and it greatly eased the pressure on their budgets. One of my biggest discoveries about this challenge was how much easier it is to do as a couple, since there are so many costs you can reduce by sharing them, from food, to gas, to Internet service. I concluded that a single person making minimum wage would have a much easier time either living with adult family members or having a roommate to share living expenses.

The Value of a Dollar. On a budget of just $77 a week, every dollar is crucial. In her Department of Labor blog entry, Schakowsky says the challenge taught her quite literally what a dollar can do: "It can buy a can of tuna or baked beans or a box of pasta." Other participants in the challenge talk about stretching their dollars as far as possible by using coupons, cutting back on driving, and relying on free entertainment.

The Importance of Good Planning. Many participants discovered that when money is this tight, planning is essential. They learned to budget down to the penny, plan their meals, keep track of everything they ate, and time their work hours to coincide with bus schedules. Schakowsky says a minimum-wage paycheck leaves "no room for error," as even small mistakes, such as forgetting your lunch, can derail your budget.

The Benefits of Foot Power. During our week on minimum wage, my husband and I used our car only once, to stock up on groceries for the week. He rode his bike to work every day, and I did all my other errands on foot. Strickland also says that he walked as much as possible during his minimum-wage week to keep his transportation costs down.

The Cheapest Way to Eat. Of all the people who took the challenge, I was the only one who didn't eat any differently during the week than I do normally. There are two reasons for this: First, my husband and I are near-vegetarians, and second, we have a home garden that supplies us with fresh veggies during the summer. This meant the only groceries we needed to buy were staples like flour, cheese, oatmeal, and milk, plus a bag of fresh apples from the farmers market. With these plus the produce from our garden, we were able to eat our usual healthy diet and even squeeze in a trip to Starbucks over the weekend.

Problems With the Challenge

Although the Live the Wage Challenge is useful as a learning exercise, it's also unrealistic in several ways. The limitations of the challenge include:

Less Stress. Living for just one week on a minimum-wage budget can't begin to mimic the stresses of living that way week in and week out. The people who take the challenge know that it's only for a week, and they also know that there are no real consequences even if they don't make it through the week. If an emergency crops up, they can always just pull out their credit cards and declare the challenge a failure.

Inability to Budget. Many of the expenses workers have aren't paid on a weekly basis. The challenge takes out money for housing, which is usually a monthly expense, but it doesn't account for occasional costs like clothing or insurance or maintenance for cars. In real life, workers know that these are expenses that will come up eventually, so they have to set aside money for them ahead of time. In the challenge, though, the only expenses that count are weekly ones.

No Way to Plan for Emergencies. In a long-term budget, you can plan for expenses that only come up occasionally, such as car repairs or doctor visits, by setting aside a few dollars each week. But on the Live the Wage Challenge, if one of these expenses comes up, you have to pay the entire cost immediately out of your $77 budget. Many participants say emergencies like this left them with too little cash to get through the rest of the week.

No Adjustments for Location. The minimum wage challenge requires you to work with a budget of $7.25 an hour, even if the actual minimum wage in your state is higher. So if you live in a state where the cost of living is high, you end up having to pay above-average prices for everything without an above-average minimum wage to make up for it.

No Way to Change Housing Costs. The challenge allots $176.48 of your $290 paycheck for housing, based on some theoretical "average" cost. It doesn't give you the option of cutting your housing cost, which is one of the most important things you can do when you're really living on a minimum-wage budget. Most of the people interviewed in this New York Times article about living on the minimum wage say they live with family members, share a home with a boyfriend or girlfriend, or rent a room in a friend's house.

A more realistic way of figuring out whether you could really survive on the minimum wage long-term is to use this interactive tool via The New York Times. It starts by calculating your yearly income, based on the actual minimum wage for your state. Then you take out all your expenses for the year, including taxes, housing, healthcare, food, and transportation. This shows you how much you could save - or how much debt you would pile up - over the course of a whole year, and what cuts you would have to make to keep your budget under control.

Final Word

Despite its flaws, most participants seem to think the Live the Wage Challenge is a worthwhile experience. Ryan, discussing the challenge on his Facebook page, acknowledged that it couldn't match the stress of living on minimum wage for real, but he said it still helped him to understand his constituents and their needs. Schakowsky says it convinced her that living on a minimum-wage salary is not just difficult but impossible. And I learned how well our frugal lifestyle stands up to the rigors of a true bare-bones budget, and which of our money-saving strategies are most helpful.

Do you think you could live on minimum wage? Have you ever had to do it?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Living on Minimum Wage - Is It Possible? (Live the Wage Challenge)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In the summer of 2014, several prominent politicians made an unusual choice. For one week, they all voluntarily set aside their generous salaries and tried to live on just $7.25 an hour - the federal minimum wage. No, they weren't crazy. They were taking the Live the Wage Challenge.

# data[].attributes.body
-heather

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Early Sunday morning, Jewel Walker gets home from her full-time job as a wheelchair assistant at this city's airport and sets her alarm clock for 6 a.m.

It is still dark when she wakes, and the exhausted 19-year-old does not stop for breakfast. To make her 8 a.m. shift at her second job as a Burger King cashier, she has to ride two buses and a train 30 miles out to Atlanta's northern suburbs.

Even working seven days a week - 52 hours in all - Walker cannot scrape together enough money to buy a secondhand car or move out of her father's place in Dixie Hills, a poor west Atlanta neighborhood.

"I'm just running all the time and I never have any money left over for me," she said. "I'm still struggling from paycheck to paycheck."

Walker is one of several million low-income workers across the nation who subsist, barely, on or below the federal minimum wage of $7.25.

This week, California became the first state in the nation to raise its eventual minimum wage to $15 an hour, yet hourly wages in other parts of the country, particularly in the Southeast, continue to lag. While 29 states and Washington, D.C., have set the bar higher than the federal minimum, 14 states match the federal rate and five states have no minimum wage at all.

Here in Georgia, one of two states where the minimum wage remains stuck at $5.15, lawmakers have long resisted any increases. The majority of low-income workers - except for those who work for small businesses that make less than $500,000 a year or are not involved in interstate commerce - make the federal minimum.

Many who earn $7.25 an hour work long days, cobbling multiple jobs together to get by. Others scramble to amass enough hours to keep up with basic household bills, surviving only with a patchwork of help from family or government subsidies.

Lissette Rowe, 30, a psychology student from East Point, Ga., who earns $7.25 an hour making subs at a gourmet sandwich chain, relies on her father in Florida to send money for bills. Her sister shares food stamps. Her mother, who is struggling to afford repairs for her own car, lent her $400 so her electricity would not be cut off.

"Today my rent is due and I'm not able to pay," she said Monday. "Mother says, 'Keep going in school. God is going to bless you.' It's tough. I feel like I'm always robbing Peter to pay Paul and I'm never caught up."

For many low-wage workers, the challenge is not just to survive on low wages but to find ways to advance beyond bottom-rung food service and cleaning jobs.

Last week, Nicole Malone, 28, quit an $8-an-hour job as a janitor at Clark Atlanta University for a $7.75 job at McDonald's in the hope that she would have a better chance of a promotion. Working 40 hours a week, the single mother of two relies on $100 in food stamps and a government subsidy for her two-bedroom apartment just south of downtown Atlanta.

"I can't stay at a place where I can't progress," Malone said. "It's hard labor for hardly any money. We're doing slave work while the big corporations collect."

Still, Malone is grateful. Not only does she have a job, but her grandmother buys diapers and wipes for her 6-month-old, and a friend provides child care for only $40 a week. "By the grace of God, I'm managing on my own," she said.

Wages at the bottom of the income scale have stagnated or dropped over the last three decades, and the minimum wage has not kept up with productivity and inflation.

While the federal minimum hourly wage has remained static since 2009, Georgia's has not changed since 2002, when it increased from $3.25 to $5.15.

It makes no sense that Georgia's minimum wage is less than the federal level, according to Tsedeye Gebreselassie, a senior attorney at the National Employment Law Project, a nonprofit based in New York.

"The federal minimum wage already lags behind what people need," Gebreselassie said. "A $7.25 minimum wage does not cut it. It's unconscionable. You can't survive on $15,000 a year."

Of the 3 million Americans living on or below the federal minimum wage in 2014, many were young and female, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor. Nearly two-thirds work in service occupations, preparing food and serving, cleaning and offering personal care and healthcare support.

After working 10 years as a custodian at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport, Carolyn Allen's pay has crept up from $7.25 to $7.70 an hour. Yet no matter how much the 58-year-old scrimps and saves, shopping at discount stores, she never has enough. "I budget and budget, and I still can't really buy no food."

Allen's rent in East Atlanta takes up nearly half of her $1,000 monthly wages, yet she said she doesn't qualify for food stamps. Her budget, which includes nearly $100 for public transport to get to work and $86 for her cellphone, leaves little wiggle room for medical care or emergencies.

For months, Allen hasn't been able to pay a $100 medical bill after visiting a hospital emergency room for a crick in her neck. "I know it's not much, but I can't pay it," she said. "It's impossible."

If the minimum wage were increased, Allen said, she would prioritize catching up on all her bills. Then she would buy simple household goods. "Just little things," she said, "you know, like Pine-Sol and bleach."

This year, Democratic lawmakers in Georgia sponsored bills to raise the state minimum wage to $10.10 and to $15, yet neither proposal gathered enough support to advance in the Republican-dominated General Assembly.

In the meantime, many workers are left scrambling to find extra sources of income.

On his days off from his $7.50-an-hour job as a cook at the Chicken Hut restaurant in Riverdale, Ga., Laugudria Screven Jr., 23, travels more than 25 miles across Atlanta to sell plasma. By offering up his arm to a technician's needle twice a week at $50 a shot, he scrapes together enough to pay his $360 rent.

Yet donating plasma takes a toll on Screven's body, leaving him drowsy and weak. And even with the extra income, he says he sometimes can't afford to eat more than once a day. Often he comes home to a refrigerator that contains little more than mustard, ketchup and peanut butter.

"I sell my blood to pay my bills," he said, rubbing his arm as he waited for a bus in East Point, Ga. "It's kind of messed up. If I were paid a fair wage, I wouldn't have to go through this."

At least, Screven tells himself, donating blood is legal. Some of his acquaintances make money pursuing more illicit activities, stealing and dealing drugs.

"Sometimes it feels that you've got to break the law to survive in this world," he said. "I could make more dealing drugs or trying to get by on people. My brother, he's a good one, he's always telling me: 'You've got to find the other way.'"

Jarvie is a special correspondent based in Atlanta.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Early Sunday morning, Jewel Walker gets home from her full-time job as a wheelchair assistant at this city's airport and sets her alarm clock for 6 a.m. It is still dark when she wakes, and the exhausted 19-year-old does not stop for breakfast. To make her 8 a.m.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/budget-and-spending/2018/01/11/what-living-on-an-11-minimum-wage-looks-like/109360122/

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.everplans.com/article

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Disease, poverty, and abuse are just a few of the causes. While songs like " We Are The World" or " Do They Know It's Christmas " had the sole purpose of raising awareness, there are many others, some from unexpected bands and artists that tackled tough issues as well.

Some of these causes might hit close to home. Even if you don't have the resources to write a check today, you can arrange to help out after you're gone by donating money or assets from your estate. It's also common to see "in lieu of flowers, please donate to..." in obituaries and death notices allowing mourners to give as well. (For more info on this, check out our How To Give to Charity After You Die article.)

For those of you who haven't championed a cause, maybe some of these songs will inspire you. Or maybe they'll just get stuck in your head for a while. (We're looking at you, Phil Collins!)

Soul Asylum, "Runaway Train"

Cause: Missing Children

Standout Lyric: "Can you help me remember how to smile? Make it somehow all seem worthwhile."

Tidbit: Released in 1993, this video featured the names and photos of 36 missing children, 26 of which were located.

Related Charities: National Center for Missing & Exploited Children ; Child Find of America

Phil Collins, "Just Another Day In Paradise"

Poison, "Something To Believe In"

Cause: Loss, Veterans, Homelessness, Poverty, Disillusionment (Poison really covers a lot of ground here.)

Standout Lyric: "I drive by the homeless sleeping on a cold dark street, like bodies in an open grave. Underneath the broken old neon sign, that used to read 'JESUS SAVES.'"

Tidbit: When Poison wants to confront social injustice, they go big. Just like their hair. The song also honors lead singer Bret Michaels' late friend and security guard James Kimo Maano, who's mentioned in the song.

Related Charity: Tragedy Assistance Program for Survivors

Pat Benatar, "Hell Is For Children"

Bruce Springsteen, "Born In The USA"

Cause: Veterans

Standout Lyric: "End up like a dog that's been beat too much, 'till you spend half your life just covering up."

Tidbit: Lots of politicians have attempted to use this song for their campaigns, but The Boss shot them all down. He was doing those politicians a favor because they apparently never listened to the lyrics. While "Born in the USA" has a patriotic chorus, the rest of the song is about how horribly America treats its war veterans.

Related Charity: Operation Homefront

Living Colour, "Open Letter To A Landlord"

Cause: Housing, Slumlords

Standout Lyric: "Now you can tear a building down, but you can't erase a memory."

Tidbit: Best known for the song "Cult of Personality," Living Colour's "Open Letter To A Landlord" is a personal and powerful message for those dealing with their neighborhoods being neglected then destroyed.

Related Charity: Legal Aid Society

Depeche Mode, "People Are People"

Billy Joel, "Allentown"

Cause: Unemployment

Standout Lyric: "Well we're waiting here in Allentown, for the Pennsylvania we never found."

Tidbit: Like "Born in the USA," "Allentown" is another song often thought of as a celebration of American, when it's really shining a light on how the loss of factory jobs destroy blue collar towns. We blame Billy Joel's smooth pipes for making something so sad sound so good.

Related Charity: The United Way

Joni Mitchell, "Big Yellow Taxi"

Cause: Environment, Gentrification

Standout Lyric: "Don't it always seem to go, that you don't know what you've got 'til it's gone."

Tidbit: According to Songfacts.com, in a 1996 interview with the Los Angeles Times, Mitchell said she wrote this song after checking into a hotel in Hawaii, opening her curtains and seeing beautiful green mountains in the distance...and a parking lot as far as the eye could see on the ground.

Related Charity: The Conservation Fund

Elvis Presley, "In The Ghetto"

Cause: Poverty, Crime

Standout Lyric: "And his mama cries..."

Tidbit: This song was written by Mac Davis, who also wrote "A Little Less Conversation." In 2007 Lisa Marie Presley recorded a version of this song to benefit The Elvis Presley Charitable Foundation, which helps homeless families.

Related Charities: Children's Defense Fund ; Catholic Charities

Midnight Oil, "Beds Are Burning"

Cause: Reparations, Environment

Standout Lyric: "The time has come, to say fair's fair. To pay the rent, to pay our share."

Tidbit: Lead singer Peter Garrett proved his activism wasn't just a pop star fad and pursued a career in politics serving as the Australian Labor Party member of the House of Representatives from 2004-2013.

Related Charities: Australia: Indigenous Literacy Foundation ; America: Native American Heritage Association

Kelly Clarkson, "People Like Us"

Red Hot Chili Peppers, "Under The Bridge"

Cause: Drug Addiction

Standout Lyric: ""Under the bridge downtown, I gave my life away."

Tidbit: According to Wikipedia, lead singer Anthony Kiedis "wrote the lyrics to express feelings of loneliness and despondency, and to reflect on narcotics and their impact on his life."

Related Charity: Partnership for a Drugfree America

Temple of the Dog, "Hunger Strike"

Cause: Hunger

Standout Lyric: "I don't mind stealing bread, from the mouths of decadence."

Tidbit: This was the first collaboration of two powerhouse lead singers from the '90s -- Chris Cornell, Soundgarden and Eddie Vedder, Pearl Jam. The song has a Robin Hood, rob-from-the-rich and give-to-the-poor quality, but with a grungy Seattle edge that gets it stuck in your head for days.

Related Charities: Action Against Hunger ; Food for the Hungry

Sarah McLachlan, "Angel"

Cause: Abused and Abandoned Pets

Standout Lyric: "In the arms of the angel, fly away from here."

Tidbit: This song might not have been specifically about rescuing pets, but when that commercial comes on TV late at night...and those little sad puppy and kitty faces in cages stare back...ok...we gotta go...<sniffle>

Related Charities: Best Friends ; ASPCA

REM, "Everybody Hurts"

Cause: Suicide Prevention

Standout Lyric: "If you think you've had too much of this life, well hang on."

Tidbit: This song has been re-recorded for other causes but was specifically written as an anti-suicide anthem for teenagers.

Related Charities: American Foundation For Suicide Prevention

Bruce Springsteen, "Streets of Philadelphia"

Cause: AIDS

Standout Lyric: "Ain't no angel gonna greet me. It's just you and I my friend."

Tidbit: The Boss makes the list twice, this time contributing to the Philadelphia soundtrack and winning the Oscar for Best Original Song in 1994.

Related Charities: American Sexual Health Organization ; Foundation for AIDS Research

Dixie Chicks, "Goodbye Earl"

Cause: Battered Women; Domestic Abuse

Standout Lyric: "Well, the weeks went by and spring turned to summer, and summer faded into fall. And it turns out he was a missing person who nobody missed at all."

Tidbit: "An estimated 1.3 million women are victims of physical assault by an intimate partner every year," according to the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence. That means there are too many Earls out there who don't face Dixie justice.

Related Charity: National Coalition Against Domestic Violence

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
18 Songs That Make You Want To Give To Charity

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Disease, poverty, and abuse are just a few of the causes. While songs like " We Are The World" or " Do They Know It's Christmas " had the sole purpose of raising awareness, there are many others, some from unexpected bands and artists that tackled tough issues as well.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
At least one part of the labor force has expanded significantly since the recession hit: the low-wage part, made up of burger flippers, home health aides and the like.

Put simply, the recession took middle-class jobs, and the recovery has replaced them with low-income ones, a trend that has exacerbated income inequality. According to Labor Department data, about 1.7 million workers earned the minimum wage or less in 2007. By 2012, the total had surged to 3.6 million, with millions of others earning just a few cents or dollars more.

In his State of the Union address in February, President Obama made raising the federal minimum wage his banner economic proposal. The White House argued that increasing the wage to $9 an hour from its current $7.25 and indexing it to inflation would lift hundreds of thousands of families above the poverty line.

Combined with tax measures the administration has supported, Alan B. Krueger, the departing chairman of the White House's Council of Economic Advisers, said that raising the minimum wage would undo "a lot of the rise in inequality we've seen over the last 20 years."

But the proposal has gone nowhere. Democrats in Congress put forward a bill raising the minimum wage to more than $10 an hour, and their Republican counterparts voted it down.

Many conservatives and some economists say that raising the cost of employing workers results in fewer workers. "What happens when you take away the first couple of rungs on the economic ladder, you make it harder for people to get on," John A. Boehner, the House speaker, has said.

Mr. Krueger disagrees. His work with David Card of the University of California, Berkeley (later replicated by others) demonstrated in a real-life experiment that raising the minimum wage did not result in businesses shedding workers, perhaps in part because it helped reduce turnover.

But for now, it seems the minimum will stay where it is. Because of inflation, the minimum wage loses value over time if it is not bumped up. Accounting for inflation's effects, it is now worth less than in the 1960s and 70s. And, as the people pictured here can attest, getting by on it - whether the federal minimum or a state version, which can be somewhat higher - is getting harder.

-Annie Lowrey

Dilip Vishwanat for The New York Times

Ashely Sanders, 20, St. Louis

Where she works: Hardee's

"I have bills to pay, and I need to provide the necessities for my son. He's 6 months old.

"I get food stamps; they help to feed the five other adults in my household, too. I want to move out of my mom's house, but it's difficult to put pennies aside. I plan to return to cosmetology school, but I need to find a better job."

Bryan Thomas for The New York Times

Denis Belioglo, 19, Queens, N.Y.

Where he works: Telco Stores

"I came to New York from Moldova with my mother and younger brother about six months ago. We live with my grandparents. My mother is ill and can't work. My grandmother works and my grandfather gets food stamps. I have a green card and was lucky enough to find a job as a stock attendant through the Edith and Carl Marks Jewish Community House.

"As an immigrant, getting that first job is important. It has also improved my English. If I made more money, it would be easier to go to school."

Khalim Bhatti for The New York Times

Anita Braden, 40, Camp Hill, Pa.

Where she works: Fire Mountain Restaurant

"I'm a cashier and bakery worker in a restaurant and a single mother. Four of my five children and one grandchild live with me. I get food stamps, and I'm trying to get more hours. My boyfriend has moved in to help me. I'm always stressed. I worry about everything, and that stress gets passed on to my kids. They want to work to try and help me. It breaks my heart."

Bryan Thomas for The New York Times

Amin Arnold, 25, Manhattan

Where he works: Guitar Center

"I produce electronic dance music. My goal is to be a full-time musician, but for now I work as a salesperson. New York City is a good place for an artist, but it's extremely difficult living here. One of my colleagues is sharing a bedroom. I'm living with a family member here, but it's still tough after I pay rent and buy food.

"I was in college until I had to drop out because of finances. There's no way I can save to return to school and find better work."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
At least one part of the labor force has expanded significantly since the recession hit: the low-wage part, made up of burger flippers, home health aides and the like. Put simply, the recession took middle-class jobs, and the recovery has replaced them with low-income ones, a trend that has exacerbated income inequality.

# data[].attributes.body
-deema

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Dina Smith sits down at the kitchen table with a small stack of bills every two weeks and asks herself the same question.

"What needs to be taken care of right this second?"

Her twice-monthly paycheck of about $350 means her options are usually limited to paying utilities and restocking a near-empty refrigerator. She'll put off repairs to her broken-down 2001 Saturn - again - and try to find a few dollars for bus fare instead.

This is life today in one of the tens of thousands of Greater Cincinnati and Northern Kentucky households that survive on the paycheck of a low-wage breadwinner.

Now, their numbers are growing faster, putting more families at risk and slowing an already fragile economic recovery regionwide. Everyone feels the sting when households have less money for homes, furniture, cars, TVs, toasters, smartphones and new shoes.

It's a legacy of the crash that families and the wider economy may suffer with for years.

A study by the National Employment Law Project finds that low-wage jobs, or those it defines as paying less than $14 an hour, have dominated the economic recovery, often at the expense of better-paying jobs.

The group's Census-based research shows that low-wage jobs accounted for about 20 percent of job losses during the recession, but almost 60 percent of jobs gained during the recovery.

Mid-wage jobs, by contrast, accounted for 60 percent of recession losses, but only about 20 percent of recovery growth.

"It's very challenging," said Smith, who supports three sons in Cumminsville on the $9.80 an hour she earns working as a janitor. "We have to live paycheck to paycheck."

Life 'more precarious' for low-wage workers

Low-wage jobs always have been an important part of the economy, whether they're fast-food jobs that give teenagers their first taste of the working world, or entry-level jobs for adults who want to learn a trade or bring in some extra money for their family.

The difference now is that those jobs increasingly are supporting families, rather than supplementing the income of a better-paid breadwinner.

Since the recession, the number of households with one wage earner has climbed almost 6 percent, according to the U.S. Census. At the same time, the median income of households with one wage earner has fallen almost 4 percent.

So as more families have become reliant on one income, the value of that income has dropped.

"Their lives are more precarious," said Randy Albelda, an economics professor at the University of Massachusetts, Boston, who has studied the expansion of low-wage jobs. "When a large number of people supporting families can't do it, then you have a problem."

The trend toward more low-wage breadwinners has helped fuel the national debate over raising the minimum wage, which is $7.95 in Ohio and $7.25 in Indiana, Kentucky and other states tied to the federal minimum wage.

Albelda's latest research found that as many as 20 million people, about half the low-wage workers in America, are household breadwinners. She defined low-wage breadwinners as primary earners who make less than $11 an hour, or about $23,000 a year.

She estimated that between 10 and 14 percent of adult workers now earn a low wage and rely on those earnings to support a household, the biggest share since at least the 1980s.

The instability of low-wage jobs often creates as many problems as the low pay, Albelda said. Benefits typically are minimal, or non-existent, and layoffs or reduced hours are common as employers try to shave costs.

That's certainly been Smith's experience. She once worked full eight-hour days, but those hours have been cut to less than five since the recession.

If she misses work because of illness, as she did a few weeks ago, she doesn't get paid. If her car breaks down, as it did last month, she's dependent on the bus.

Smith, 43, has considered looking for a job with more hours, but after eight years with the same company, she fears starting over elsewhere will leave her more vulnerable to layoffs. She's also thinking about taking on a second job, something she's done in the past.

"A lot of janitors I know work two or three jobs. I've been there, done that," Smith said. "We should be able to work one job, a respectable job, to live."

Smith doesn't receive food stamps or other public assistance, and she moved out of public housing and in with a friend because she felt the neighborhood was getting too rough for her 14-year-old son. Her daughter lives on her own, but her other sons, ages 20 and 18, still live at home.

Smith pays utilities and groceries; her friend pays the rent. She's the only one in her household with a steady job and knows her family can't survive on her income forever, especially if her hours get cut again.

"I may end up having to sleep in a car, and I don't want to do that," she said.

Competition greater for low-paying jobs

Smith, who has a high school diploma, is in some ways a typical low-wage worker. According to Albelda's study, more than 54 percent are women, 43 percent are minorities and more than 90 percent don't have a college degree.

During the recession, however, more educated workers slipped into the ranks of low-wage earners, which created problems not only for them, but for the less-educated workers they sometimes displaced.

"It's a bit more competitive now," said Chris Janson, Cincinnati metro market manager for the Robert Half staffing agency. "We've got folks willing to take less than they're worth. They're willing to do it for a limited time, until something better comes along."

Janson said starting pay for some of those temporary jobs is between $10 and $15 an hour, although he said salaries are beginning to creep up and more options are becoming available to workers as the economy improves.

How much it will improve - and how long it will take wages to reach pre-recession levels - is a question economists have been wrestling with for years. Some fear lower pay and fewer benefits will become the new normal, because the labor pool is large and companies have learned to get by with less.

"This recession was an opportunity for a lot of employers to clear out a lot of people," Albelda said. "It's workers on demand now. In industry, they call it just-in-time inventory. So this is just-in-time workers."

Growing uncertainty in the job market means households would be better off with a second wage earner, regardless of how much the primary wage earner is making. The Economic Mobility Project of the Pew Charitable Trusts has found that many families now require at least two incomes to match or exceed the household income of the previous generation.

"Mobility is increasingly a family enterprise," said Diana Elliott, a research officer at Pew. "Families need those second earners' money to move them up the income ladder."

The impact of more low-wage breadwinners isn't limited to the breadwinners' families. If paychecks cover little more than rent, utilities and groceries, the broader economy doesn't benefit much.

"People have to make a lot of very tough choices," said Leslie Mendoza Kamstra, spokeswoman for the Service Employees International Union Local 1, which represents janitors, such as Smith, and security officers. "It's not a high school kid. It's someone supporting a family."

Low-paying jobs have been part of Smith's life since she started working more than 25 years ago. There was a time, she said, when those jobs were more plentiful, the hours were more reliable and the pay was better.

Today, Smith said, that stability is gone. Finding a new job, or a second job, may be the only way she can continue to support her family.

But she said that's no easy task, either.

"It's hard to find one job," she said. "There's so many people out here looking." ■
More households survive on one (shrinking) income
Households with one wage earner in 2007: 43.3 million

Households with one wage earner in 2012: 45.8 million

Percent change since 2007: +5.8 percent

Median income of households with one wage earner in 2007: $45,082

Median income of households with one wage earner in 2012: $43,335

Percent change since 2007: -3.9 percent

Source: U.S. Census
Low-paying jobs rebound faster from recession
Share of job losses in recession

Low-wage jobs - 21 percent

Mid-wage jobs - 60 percent

High-wage jobs - 19 percent

Share of job gains in recovery

Low-wage jobs - 58 percent

Mid-wage jobs - 22 percent

High-wage jobs - 20 percent

Definitions: Low-wage jobs are defined as median hourly wages of $7.69 to $13.83, mid-wage jobs are $13.84 to $21.13, and high-wage jobs are $21.14 to $54.55.

Source: National Employment Law Project analysis

of U.S. Census data
What is the minimum wage?
Ohio: $7.95 for non-tipped employees; $3.98 for tipped employees

Kentucky: $7.25 for non-tipped employees; $2.13 for tipped employees

Indiana: $7.25 for non-tipped employees; $2.13 for tipped employees

Federal: $7.25 for non-tipped employees; $2.13 for tipped employees

Source: U.S. Department of Labor

Read or Share this story: http://cin.ci/1i5GAQg

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
More families rely on one low-paying job to survive

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Dina Smith sits down at the kitchen table with a small stack of bills every two weeks and asks herself the same question. "What needs to be taken care of right this second?" Her twice-monthly paycheck of about $350 means her options are usually limited to paying utilities and restocking a near-empty refrigerator.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The minimum wage is meant to act as a backstop for American workers, allowing them to at least make ends meet as long as they're working. However, no matter the intent, the minimum wage still isn't enough to get by in a number of places across the country.

With the cost of living on the rise - especially in major cities - there's a growing number of places where a minimum wage is, well, still less than the minimum of what you need.

That's what a GOBankingRates study has turned up, identifying some 30 cities where the cost of basic necessities - things like housing, groceries, utilities and healthcare - still outpace your earnings if you put in 40 hours a week at the minimum wage in the city. In fact, almost every city included here leave a minimum-wage worker more than $10,000 short of what they need to get by.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Where Cost of Living Outpaces Minimum Wage in America

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The minimum wage is meant to act as a backstop for American workers, allowing them to at least make ends meet as long as they're working. However, no matter the intent, the minimum wage still isn't enough to get by in a number of places across the country.

# data[].attributes.body
-deema

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why do people in low-wage jobs have children? Why not wait until they make a decent income so they can raise their kids in a better envir...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Answer (1 of 158): The answer is perspective. For some people, being able to put clothes on your child's back and feed that child and have that child go to school everyday is good parenting. For others, living on a neighborhood where your child is going to the best school and only eats organic...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Many Iowans - even those who are working full-time - cannot pay their bills, two recent studies show. The United Ways of Iowa found that 31 percent of households did not bring in enough money to meet their basic needs - housing, child care, food, healthcare and transportation. The Iowa Policy Project (IPP) did a similar study, though it limited its review to households where an adult was employed at least 30 hours a week and thus included fewer seniors and people on public assistance. IPP's study found that about 19 percent of these working households could not meet basic needs. If you drill down in the United Way report, the findings are remarkably similar.

I focus on Iowa simply because there have been two rigorous studies there on the gap between household resources and basic needs. Nothing makes Iowa uniquely prone to hardship. In fact, the Great Recession and its aftermath caused less unemployment there than the national average, and Iowa has a relatively low cost of living. This suggests that the situation in the country as a whole could well be worse than it is in the Hawkeye State.

If we extrapolate that 30 percent of American households cannot afford the basic necessities of living - and that about two thirds of those are working households - we have nothing less than a national crisis on our hands. Damage is being done on several levels.

No fair start for our children. In both studies, families with young children were over-represented, and single-parent families fared the worst. Their expenses were far higher, driven in part by child care and health care costs. A single parent supporting a young child needed an hourly wage of $21 to provide basic needs. Most jobs in Iowa pay much less than that.

So what are the alternatives? Leaving children in substandard child care, with all the developmental and safety concerns inherent in that. Avoiding preventative health care to save money, even though we know that is the most effective and economical form of care. Stretching the food budget with low quality carbohydrates that fill more than they nourish.

We know that growing up in poverty has real costs to children, in health and in school readiness. This is a result of material deprivation, as well as the toxic stress that comes from living in poverty. Thankfully, many non-profits work hard to support struggling families and offer children brighter futures. But their reach is not universal.

Taxpayer-subsidized corporations. When employers do not pay a living wage, the community takes up some (but usually not all) of the slack. For example, low-wage workers commonly enroll in SNAP, the federally funded program that distributes food stamps. Many also rely on local non-profits that offer essential assistance such as free diapers, sliding scale medical care, and so on. I am certainly not arguing against programs like SNAP and community-based helping organizations. I applaud them. But I wonder why through taxes and charitable gifts a community has to fill the gap to create a living wage. Isn't that an employer's responsibility?

If close to a third of households cannot meet their basic needs, why aren't we hearing about this every, single day? Poverty is probably the biggest uncovered story in America. That is a problem of media focus and also a problem of language. We do not talk about poverty realistically in this country. If you cannot pay for your basic needs, you are poor. That is commonsense. But that's not how we track poverty in the U.S.

The IPP study did county by county research to determine the true cost of getting by - not going out to dinner once a week, not putting a single cent in savings, just staying fed, warm and healthy.

The federal poverty line, developed in the 1960s, is based on the assumption that food makes up 30 percent of a family's expenses and is indexed to food prices. Today, food generally makes up far less of a family's spending, with expenses like health and child care placing a greater burden on the budget. So more people are truly poor than are officially poor in America. Groups like the Economic Policy Institute have developed alternate measures that look at the actual cost of living. These calculations should guide our understanding of poverty.

Too many of us are not getting by in America, despite our best efforts. The Iowa studies are a good deep dive into this problem. Now the challenge is to develop a national picture of poverty in the United States. This should lead to a greater resolve to help families and individuals to at least meet their basic needs. We will not have a stable economy or a just society until we do.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Many Iowans - even those who are working full-time - cannot pay their bills, two recent studies show. The United Ways of Iowa found that 31 percent of households did not bring in enough money to meet their basic needs - housing, child care, food, healthcare and transportation.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In the center of Boston rises the small neighborhood of Fort Hill, on top of which sits Highland Park, designed in the 1800s by Frederick Olmsted. ¹ Patriots stored gunpowder here during the Revolutionary War, and a tower fit for Rapunzel commemorates their efforts. The abolitionist writer William Lloyd Garrison fought against slavery from a house on this hill. And now the battle for urban housing affordability rages on these streets. It's a microcosm of the battle playing out on a neighborhood level in every growing city in America: a battle between those who want to keep property values high, and those who want the chance to live in the cities that have the best economic prospects.

If cities want to retain a middle class, experts say, they will have to make it happen on their own.

The casualties in this war are mostly the middle class. In 2016, rents continued their years-long rise, incomes stratified further, and the average price to buy a home in major US cities rose. The strain pushed the middle class out of cities like Boston, San Francisco, Los Angeles, New York, Austin-the so-called "hot cities." Some families move to the suburbs. Others flee for less expensive cities. But across the US, the trend holds: cities are increasingly home to high-rollers who can pay the high rents or down payments and lower income people who qualify for subsidized housing.

Macroeconomists say this a good problem to have. These cities are growing. People want to live in them. Stagnating economies in the Rust Belt might envy this kind of trouble. From the perspective of the overall wealth of cities, the middle class being pushed out doesn't matter. But it matters on the human level, the neighborhood level. In Fort Hill, it means that a teacher at the local elementary school cannot afford to live in the neighborhood where she works. The effects on inequality, mobility, and the demographic composition of cities are very real, their causes multifold, and the solutions difficult.

Experts reading into president-elect Donald Trump's proposed tax and housing policies-including his appointment of Ben Carson to lead the Department of Housing and Urban Development-see little hope that the federal government will help reverse this course next year. If cities want to retain a middle class, experts say, they will have to make it happen on their own.

Out of Reach

The affordability crisis in US cities is not just about buying homes. Rents, too, have been rising since the Great Recession. In the coastal and hot cities like Denver and Austin, those increases have put even rentals out of reach for many in the middle class-defined as those making between $50 to $125,000 depending on household size. In 2016, the capital required to sign a lease on the average-priced $3,500-a-month apartment in San Francisco often topped $12,000, owing to requirements for first and last month's rent plus security deposits and a broker fee.

The savings that used to be associated with the middle class have dried up in the past few years, as interest rates stayed low and wage growth stagnated. Not only does this make it harder for people to stay in the middle class, but it makes coming up with high sums to rent or buy city apartments impossible.

"It's very hard to get people to understand that the affordable housing crisis is not for the very poor," says lawyer Mechele Dickerson of the University of Texas, an expert in housing and the middle class. It's for people with good jobs who are not poor enough to qualify for subsidized housing, nor rich enough to pay the rising housing prices. "A family that makes $100,000 can't afford to buy a house in most US cities," Dickerson says.

NIMBY Naysayers

The intractability of the middle class' affordable housing problem stems largely from strict zoning laws that restrict building new housing, and the not-in-my-backyard mindsets of homeowners who oppose affordable housing initiatives.

"Housing issues are a product of economic growth in the city bumping up against strict zoning constraints. That's what leads to the unaffordability problem," says David Shulman, Senior Economist at UCLA's Anderson School of Management. "You don't want to stop economic growth."

The opposition to change drives the price of the existing housing supply up-which homeowners love-and ripples into the rental market. Landlords are able to charge more, and long-time rental residents get displaced when they can't afford the new prices. That's what's happening in Fort Hill, a traditionally African American neighborhood that is whitening every year as black residents who've rented there for decades are replaced by high-turnover college students willing to pay the ever-higher market rates for apartments.

"As a landlord, if you can turn it over, you're always at the market, and you want to turn it over faster," says Lee Lin, data scientist and cofounder of the rental site RentHop.

'As soon as you call it affordable housing, the existing residents shift into NIMBY.'

This high-turnover rate is even more of a problem when you factor in what economists call "the AirBnB effect," where homeowners are able to charge exorbitantly high rates for short-term rentals. Lin says 2016 actually saw the first signs of a crackdown against this trend, starting in New York City, which passed strict regulation to make it harder for homeowners to make money on short-term rentals.

In Fort Hill in 2016, meanwhile, initiatives to build new affordable housing to keep those long-time residents in the neighborhood were met with resistance by some homeowners fearing an influx of low-cost housing would negatively affect their home values.

Dickerson says part of the problem is that when homeowners hear the phrase "affordable housing," they think of public assistance and housing projects like those that went up in cities in the 1970s. "As soon as you call it affordable housing, the existing residents shift into NIMBY," Dickerson says.

In San Francisco, which has some of the strictest zoning laws in the nation-precluding high-rise buildings in most neighborhoods-this has resulted in the nearly complete white-washing of the Fillmore, a formerly robust black neighborhood. The last predominantly African American neighborhood in the city-Bayview-Hunter's Point-saw rents rise to an average of $2,715 for a one-bedroom in 2016, with increasing gentrification pushing residents across the bay to Oakland as hip restaurants and condos remake the area in tech-obsessed SOMA's image.

The States Rights Approach in 2017

The incoming administration has given experts no reason to expect it will prioritize fixing the affordability crises for the middle class. "In terms of the federal government, I see no hope," Dickerson says. But as with immigration reform and climate change, housing affordability is something that states and cities can tackle on their own. In 2017, this trend toward decentralized power will continue-that is, if cities make retaining middle class residents a priority. That means relaxing the zoning laws to permit more housing stock to enter the market. This is the single most helpful thing the city of San Francisco could do, for example, to counter the tech money forcing prices on the limited housing stock up, says Shulman.

They could also adopt initiatives to require that all new housing developments include a certain amount of below-market-rate affordable units-a program that cities like New York City and Boston already do, Lin says.

Dickerson says cities could go a step further than that by requiring developers to set aside housing for people who actually work in the city in exchange for tax breaks. This would also, she thinks, be less controversial to NIMBY-minded residents.

Lin, meanwhile, predicts more cities will follow New York City's lead in fighting back against the AirBnB effect in 2017, which would also help ease the pressure on housing supply.

Middle class would-be residents can also look to a few bright spots. Thanks to the Great Recession, many millennials delayed marriage and children until they were more financially stable, and Shulman says they may now be reaching the age where they are ready for those big life milestones. He notes that in 2016, many millennials began to buy homes in the suburbs, seeking better school systems and more space.

Additionally, interest rates are expected to rise and the economic outlook in response to Trump's presidency is so far relatively optimistic, as evidenced by the surging stock market in December. This bodes well for wage growth, which Shulman and his colleagues at UCLA expect to see over the next two years. All of this could help the middle class grow their savings. But for now, they'll be doing it from the suburbs.
¹ Correction on January 1 at 6pm: Highland Park was designed in the 1800s.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Year in Housing: The Middle Class Can't Afford to Live in Cities Anymore

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In the center of Boston rises the small neighborhood of Fort Hill, on top of which sits Highland Park, designed in the 1800s by Frederick Olmsted. 1 Patriots stored gunpowder here during the Revolutionary War, and a tower fit for Rapunzel commemorates their efforts.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Posted on

It's hard work being poor in America. Forget about the stereotype of lazy folks grabbing government handouts that are paid for by those who are self-reliant and industrious. The truth is that millions of poor people work full time, but their wages are so low that a 40-hour week isn't enough to lift them out of poverty.

Imagine supporting your family on just $14,500 a year. That's what a full-time, minimum-wage job pays. Wages come to less than $279 a week-and that's before payroll taxes.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, a family of four needs to earn approximately $23,000 a year to live above the poverty line. Working full time, year-round at a minimum-wage job doesn't get you even close to that figure. We're talking about millions of people- 8.9 million working adults, in fact-who work full time but are unable to keep their families out of poverty. More and more, the face of the poor is that of mothers and fathers struggling to feed, house, clothe, and educate their children-parents who are doing their best but still aren't getting by.

Here are the shameful facts: Millions of full-time, low-wage workers are forced to rely on federal nutritional assistance programs to put food on the table. Millions of low-wage families can't afford to live in safe housing. According to the National Low Income Housing Coalition, there is not one congressional district in this country where a full-time minimum-wage worker can afford fair-market rent for a two-bedroom apartment. This means that millions of low-wage families are forced to rent places that eat up their paychecks, are unsafe, or are far from their jobs. In some cases, this lack of affordable housing means homelessness.

What's more, most minimum-wage jobs don't provide paid sick leave or health insurance. Imagine this: The school nurse calls to say that your child is sick and needs to go to the doctor. If your job doesn't provide paid sick leave, your pay will be docked for the hours of work that you miss. If you don't have a car, you need to take public transportation to pick up your child and take him or her to the doctor-that is, if you have a doctor. Otherwise, you'll likely have to wait in an emergency room. And when you finally take your sick child home, you will need to figure out who can take care of them so that you can go back to work. All in all, you've probably missed half a day's work and wages-if not more-just to get your child to and from the doctor.

At least your child is eligible for health insurance, however, thanks to a federal program that covers low-income children. But if you are the one who gets sick, you probably don't have employer-based health insurance, which means that in most states you're out of luck-and money. That is one reason the Affordable Care Act's provision to expand state Medicaid coverage is so important. It provides health insurance to millions of low-wage workers, improving their lives and cutting down on their health care costs.

Let's be clear: Low-wage workers are essential contributors to our economy. According to my colleague Melissa Boteach, Director of the Poverty and Prosperity Program at the Center for American Progress, "These workers care for our aging parents, take care of our children, clean our offices, and more. Basically, they enable us to do our jobs. They're critical players in keeping our economy humming, but are not benefiting from the prosperity they're helping create."

President Barack Obama addressed this problem in his State of the Union address earlier this month. He said that in the wealthiest nation on earth, it is wrong for anyone who works full time to live in poverty. President Obama urged Congress to raise the minimum wage from $7.25 an hour to $9 an hour and index it to inflation. It's a reasonable proposal, especially when you consider that if the minimum wage had been indexed to inflation over the past 40 years, today's minimum wage would be $10.58 an hour.

In a recent interview with me, Boteach listed a number of reasons for wage stagnation and the economic inequality that's grown over the last four decades. "Unionization declined," she said, "and as the economy became globalized we didn't invest in skills and education. Middle-skill jobs went offshore, and low-wage work exploded."

People bought into the myth of trickle-down economics, Boteach continued. "The theory was if we make sure the top 1 percent is okay, the rest of us will be too. But history has disproven that theory. What works is investing in middle- and low-income families. Putting money in their pockets keeps the economy healthy for all of us, including those at the top."

The good news is that cracks are appearing in the theory of trickle-down economics. Especially in the wake of the Great Recession, the public is seeing corporate profits explode, while economic stress and pain remain for those on the middle and bottom rungs of the ladder. People are realizing that something is very wrong. It's wrong for a secretary to pay a higher tax rate than her wealthy boss. It's wrong for corporations to manipulate the system so that they don't have to pay any income taxes at all. And it's wrong for someone in America today to work full time and live in poverty.
Sally Steenland is Director of the Faith and Progressive Policy Initiative at the Center for American Progress. Steenland, a best-selling author, former newspaper columnist, and teacher, explores the role of religion and values in the public sphere.
State campaigns to raise the minimum wage have seen impressive success. In states like Florida, Montana, Ohio, and Missouri, voters approved raising the minimum wage. And so did voters this past November in Albuquerque, New Mexico; and San Jose and Long Beach, California. It's time now for Congress to do its part, for representatives and senators who make $174,000 a year -12 times more than a minimum-wage worker-and enjoy high-quality health insurance, paid sick leave, and a host of other benefits to finally raise the minimum wage so that millions of Americans who put in 40-hour work weeks can begin to earn a fair and living wage.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Working Full Time and Still Poor - Center for American Progress

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Posted on It's hard work being poor in America. Forget about the stereotype of lazy folks grabbing government handouts that are paid for by those who are self-reliant and industrious. The truth is that millions of poor people work full time, but their wages are so low that a 40-hour week isn't enough to lift them out of poverty.

# data[].attributes.body
-deema

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Here's How I Make a Good Living Without Working Full Time

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Maybe you hate full-time employment. Or, like me, maybe you find jobs interesting for a few months at most, and then you're ready to do something else. But hey, you still have to pay the bills, right? So can you survive without a full-time job, or even with no job at all?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America