Minimum Wage, GDP Growth, and Walton-omics

The OECD

Australia's economy has had 20 years of uninterrupted economic growth, low inflation, and low unemployment. Australia even maintained positive GDP growth during the 2008-2010 global recession! 

The chart below shows GDP for Australia and a sample of other nations in the OECD Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development. Australia and the United States are among the members. Australia is regularly among the top performers.

And ... Australia's federal minimum wage is $16.37 per hour ... which is more than $15.00 per hour in U.S. dollars. Minimum wage in the United States is just $7.25. 




The U.S. Federal 

The United States economy has been on a roller coaster of growth and unemployment (but steady at low inflation) for 40 years ... at a U.S. federal minimum wage that has declined in real (constant) dollars and, currently, stands at $7.25 per hour. NOTE that this is the U.S. FEDERAL minimum wage, meaning that employers can pay less in states with lower STATE minimum wages. 

In a 40-hour per week work week, a minimum wage job  at $7.25 per hour pays less than $15,000 per year and at $15.00 per hour pays $20,000 per year. In context, the official United States poverty level is $15,000 per year. 

Yes, minimum wage employees are paid less than the poverty rate. In the United States, the richest nation in history, minimum wage employees literally are "The Working Poor". Is job creation at less than the poverty rate the kind of job creation we want?

Taken together, all of the above and below facts show that in today's global market the minimum wage in an industrialized country does not suppress economic growth or push up inflation and unemployment.

On the contrary, a higher minimum wage likely would expand the economy by an amount greater than a 1:1 ratio -- meaning that for every dollar added to minimum wage the GDP would grow by more than one dollar -- because the velocity of money is highest among the lowest paid. 

Velocity of money is one way of measuring the degree of income sufficiency and of economic health. 

The more personal income you earn, the larger the percentage of that income you are likely to save or invest, rather than spend. And, visa-versa. The more of you your income that you spend, the more that dollar is passed from employee to baker to landlord to auto dealer ... and so on. 

Additionally, the facts -- U.S. Department of Labor economic statistics, since 1938, show that U.S. federal minimum wage has been increased just prior and during economic booms, meaning that minimum wage hikes did not suppress growth in GDP or job creation.

Minimum hourly wage of workers in jobs first covered by

Effective Date		1938 Act 1		1961 Amendments 2		1966 and Subsequent Amendments3
						Nonfarm		Farm
Oct 24, 1938		$0.25
Oct 24, 1939		$0.30
Oct 24, 1945		$0.40
Jan 25, 1950		$0.75
Mar 1, 1956		$1.00
Sep 3, 1961		$1.15		$1.00
Sep 3, 1963		$1.25
Sep 3, 1964				$1.15
Sep 3, 1965				$1.25
Feb 1, 1967		$1.40		$1.40		$1.00		$1.00
Feb 1, 1968		$1.60		$1.60		$1.15		$1.15
Feb 1, 1969						$1.30		$1.30
Feb 1, 1970						$1.45
Feb 1, 1971						$1.60
May 1, 1974		$2.00		$2.00		$1.90		$1.60
Jan. 1, 1975		$2.10		$2.10		$2.00		$1.80
Jan 1, 1976		$2.30		$2.30		$2.20		$2.00
Jan 1, 1977						$2.30		$2.20
Jan 1, 1978		$2.65 for all covered, nonexempt workers
Jan 1, 1979		$2.90 for all covered, nonexempt workers
Jan 1, 1980		$3.10 for all covered, nonexempt workers
Jan 1, 1981		$3.35 for all covered, nonexempt workers
Apr 1, 19904		$3.80 for all covered, nonexempt workers
Apr 1, 1991		$4.25 for all covered, nonexempt workers
Oct 1, 1996		$4.75 for all covered, nonexempt workers
Sep 1, 19975		$5.15 for all covered, nonexempt workers
Jul 24, 2007		$5.85 for all covered, nonexempt workers
Jul 24, 2008		$6.55 for all covered, nonexempt workers
Jul 24, 2009		$7.25 for all covered, nonexempt workers

The U.S. States

The table below pulls a sample of U.S. states to look for a correlation, a relationship, between states' minimum wage and GDP economic growth in 2012 and per capital income rank. I selected states from each geographic section of the nation as well as each range of per capita income in the nation. 

The actual 2012 data shows no relationship between a state's minimum wage, GDP annual economic growth, and/or per capital personal income rank. 

For example, Washington state had one of the highest gains in GDP and highest minimum wage rate, while Texas had the one of the highest gains in GDP and lowest minimum wage rate. California and Minnesota both had 3.5%, among the highest, gains in GDP, yet California had one of the highest minimum wage rate and Minnesota one of the lowest. 

STATE	PER CAPITA INCOME 2012 (RANK)	CHANGE IN GDP 2012 (PERCENT)	MINIMUM WAGE 2012 (DOLLARS)
Washington (state)	13	3.6%	$ 9.19
Connecticut	1	0.0%	$ 8.25
California	11	3.5%	$ 8.00
Minnesota	12	3.5%	$ 7.25
Ohio	26	2.2%	$ 7.85
Florida	21	2.4%	$ 7.79
North Carolina	33	2.7%	$ 7.25
Texas	29	4.8%	$ 7.25

Historical changes in Minimum Wages by State also shows that increases in Minimum Wage have occurred before and during economic booms without impeding, and perhaps improving, GDP economic growth and job creation. The historical table below from the U.S. Department of Labor details specific changes in minimum wage by state by year:  

CHANGES IN BASIC MINIMUM WAGES IN NON-FARM EMPLOYMENT UNDER STATE LAW: SELECTED YEARS 1968 TO 2013

State or other jurisdiction	1968 (a)	1970 (a)	1972	1976 (a)	1979	1980	1981
Federal (FLSA)	$1.15 & $1.60	$1.30 & $1.60	$1.60	$2.20 & $2.30	$2.90	$3.10	$3.35
Alabama	…	…	…	…	…	…	…
Alaska	2.10	2.10	2.10	2.80	3.40	3.60	3.85
Arizona	18.72 - 26.40/wk(b)	18.72 - 26.40/wk(b)	18.72-26.40/wk(b)	…	…	…	…
Arkansas	1.25/day(b)	1.10	1.20	1.90	2.30	2.55	2.70
California	1.65(b)	1.65(b)	1.65(b)	2.00	2.90	2.90	3.35
Colorado	1.00 - 1.25(b)	1.00 - 1.25(b)	1.00 - 1.25(b)	1.00 - 1.25(b)	1.90	1.90	1.90
Connecticut	1.40	1.60	1.85	2.21 & 2.31	2.91	3.12	3.37
Delaware	1.25	1.25	1.60	2.00	2.00	2.00	2.00
Florida	…	…	…	…	…	…	…
Georgia	…	…	1.25	1.25	1.23	1.25	1.25
Hawaii	1.25	1.60	1.60	2.40	2.65	2.90	3.10
Idaho	1.15	1.25	1.40	1.60	2.30	2.30	2.30
Illinois	…	…	1.40	2.10	2.30	2.30	2.30
Indiana	1.15	1.25	1.25	1.25	2.00	2.00	2.00
Iowa	…	…	…	…	…	…	…
Kansas	…	…	…	…	1.60	1.60	1.60
Kentucky	.65 - .75(b)	.65 - .75(b)	.65 - .75(b)	1.60	2.00	2.15	2.15
Louisiana	…	…	…	…	…	…	…
Maine	1.40	1.60	1.40 - 1.80	2.30	2.90	3.10	3.35
Maryland	1.00 & 1.15	1.30	1.60	2.20 & 2.30	2.90	3.10	3.35
Massachusetts	1.60	1.60	1.75	2.10	2.90	3.10	3.35
Michigan	1.25	1.25	1.60	2.20	2.90	3.10	3.35
Minnesota	.70 - 1.15(b)	.70 - 1.15(b)	.75 - 1.60	1.80	2.30	2.90	3.10
Mississippi	…	…	…	…	…	…	…
Missouri	…	…	…	…	…	…	…
Montana	…	…	1.60	1.80	2.00	2.00	2.00
Nebraska	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.60	1.60	1.60	1.60
Nevada	1.25	1.30	1.60	2.20 & 2.30	2.75	2.75	2.75
New Hampshire	1.40	1.45 & 1.60	1.60	2.20 - 2.30	2.90	3.10	3.35
New Jersey	1.40	1.50	1.50	2.20	2.50	3.10	3.35
New Mexico	1.15 - 1.40	1.30 - 1.60	1.30 - 1.60	2.00	2.30	2.65	2.90
State or other jurisdiction	1968 (a)	1970 (a)	1972	1976 (a)	1979	1980	1981
New York	1.60	1.60	1.85	2.30	2.90	3.10	3.35
North Carolina	1.00	1.25	1.45	2.00	2.50	2.75	2.90
North Dakota	1.00 - 1.25	1.00 - 1.45	1.00 - 1.45	2.00 - 2.30	2.10 - 2.30	2.60 - 3.10	2.80 - 3.10
Ohio	.75 - 1.25(b)	.75 - 1.25(b)	.75 - 1.25(b)	1.60	2.30	2.30	2.30
Oklahoma	1.00	1.00	1.40	1.80	2.00	2.00	3.10
Oregon	1.25	1.25	1.25`	2.30	2.30	2.90	3.10
Pennsylvania	1.15	1.30	1.60	2.20	2.90	3.10	3.35
Rhode Island	1.40	1.60	1.60	2.30	2.30	2.65	2.90
South Carolina	…	…	…	…	…	…	…
South Dakota	17.00 - 20.00/wk	1.00	1.00	2.00	2.30	2.30	2.30
Tennessee	…	…	…	…	…	…	…
Texas	…	…	1.40	1.40	1.40	1.40	1.40
Utah	1.00 - 1.15(b)	1.00 - 1.15(b)	1.20 - 1.35(b)	1.55 - 1.70(b)	2.20 - 2.45(b)	2.35 - 2.60(b)	2.50 - 2.75(b)
Vermont	1.40	1.60	1.60	2.30	2.90	3.10	3.35
Virginia	…	…	…	2.00	2.35	2.35	2.65
Washington	1.60	1.60	1.60	2.20 - 2.30	2.30	2.30	2.30
West Virginia	1.00	1.00	1.20	2.00	2.20	2.20	2.75
Wisconsin	1.25 (b)	1.30 (b)	1.45 (b)	2.10	2.80	3.00	3.25
Wyoming	1.20	1.30	1.50	1.60	1.60	1.60	1.60
District of Columbia	1.25 - 1.40	1.60 - 2.00	1.60 - 2.25	2.25 - 2.75	2.46 - 3.00	2.50 - 3.50	2.50 - 3.75
Guam	1.25	1.60	1.90	2.30	2.90	3.10	3.35
Puerto Rico	.43 - 1.60	.43 - 1.60	.65 - 1.60	.76 - 2.50	1.20 - 2.50	1.20 - 2.50	1.20 - 3.10
U.S. Virgin Islands	NA	NA	NA	NA	2.90	3.10	3.35
State or other jurisdiction	1988	1991	1992	1994	1996	1997	1998
Federal (FLSA)	$3.35	$3.80	$4.25	$4.25	$4.25	$4.75	$5.15
Alabama	…	…	…	…	…	…	…
Alaska	3.85	4.30	4.75	4.75	4.75	5.25	5.65
Arizona	…	…	…	…	…	…	…
Arkansas	3.25	3.35	3.65	4.25	4.25[c]	4.25[c]	5.15[c]
California	3.35	4.25	4.25	4.25	4.25	4.75	5.15
Colorado	3.00	3.00	3.00	3.00	3.00	4.75	5.15
Connecticut	3.75	4.25	4.27	4.27	4.27	4.77	5.18
Delaware	3.35	3.80	4.25	4.25	4.65	5.00	5.15
Florida	…	…	…	…	…	…	…
Georgia	3.25	3.25	3.25	3.25	3.25(d)	3.25(d)	3.25(d)
Hawaii	3.85	3.85	3.85	5.25	5.25	5.25	5.25
Idaho	2.30	3.80	4.25	4.25	4.25	4.25	5.15
Illinois	2.30	3.80	4.25	4.25	4.25[c]	4.75[c]	5.15[c]
Indiana	2.00	3.35	3.35	3.35	3.35(e)	3.35(e)	3.35(e)
Iowa	…	4.25	4.65	4.65	4.65	4.75	5.15
Kansas	1.60	2.65	2.65	2.65	2.65	2.65	2.65
Kentucky	3.35	3.80	4.25	4.25	4.25	4.25	4.25
Louisiana	…	…	…	…	…	…	…
Maine	3.65	3.85	4.25	4.25	4.25	4.75	5.15
Maryland	3.35	3.80	4.25	4.25	4.25	4.75	5.15
Massachusetts	3.65	3.75	4.25	4.25	4.75	5.25	5.25
Michigan	3.35	3.35	3.35	3.35	3.35(e)	3.35(e)	5.15(e)
Minnesota	3.55 & 3.50(f)	4.25(g)	4.25(g)	4.25(g)	4.25(g)	4.25(g)	5.15(g)
Mississippi	…	…	…	…	…	…	…
Missouri	…	3.80	4.25	4.25	4.25	4.75	5.15
Montana	3.35	3.80	4.25(g)	4.25(g)	4.25(g)	4.75(g)	5.15(g)
Nebraska	3.35	3.35	4.25	4.25	4.25[c]	4.25[c]	5.15[c]
Nevada	3.35	3.80	4.25	4.25	4.25	4.75	5.15
New Hampshire	3.55	3.85	4.25	4.25	4.25	4.75	5.15
New Jersey	3.35	3.80	4.25	5.05	5.05	5.05	5.05
New Mexico	3.35	3.35	3.35	4.25	4.25	4.25	4.25
New York	3.35	3.80	4.25	4.25	4.25	4.25	4.25
North Carolina	3.35	3.35	3.80	4.25	4.25	4.25	5.15
State or other jurisdiction	1988	1991	1992	1994	1996	1997	1998
North Dakota	2.80 - 3.10	3.40	4.25	4.25	4.25	4.75	5.15
Ohio	2.30	3.80(g)	4.25(g)	4.25(g)	4.25(g)	4.25(g)	4.25(g)
Oklahoma	3.35	3.80(g)	4.25(g)	4.25(g)	4.25(g)	4.75(g)	5.15(g)
Oregon	3.35	4.75	4.75	4.75	4.75	5.50	6.00
Pennsylvania	3.35	3.80	4.25	4.25	4.25	4.75	5.15
Rhode Island	3.65	4.25	4.45	4.45	4.45	5.15	5.15
South Carolina	…	…	…	…	…	…	…
South Dakota	2.80	3.80	4.25	4.25	4.25	4.25	5.15
Tennessee	…	…	…	…	…	…	…
Texas	3.35	3.35	3.35	3.35	3.35	3.35	3.35
Utah	2.50 - 2.75(b)	3.80	4.25	4.25	4.25	4.75	5.15
Vermont	3.55	3.85	4.25	4.25	4.75(e)	5.00(e)	5.25(e)
Virginia	2.65	2.65	3.65	4.25	4.25[c]	4.75[c]	5.15[c]
Washington	2.30	4.25	4.25	4.25	4.90	4.90	4.90
West Virginia	3.35	3.35	3.80	4.25	4.25 (d)	4.25 (d)	4.75 (d)
Wisconsin	3.35	3.80	3.80	4.25	4.25	4.75	5.15
Wyoming	1.60	1.60	1.60	1.60	1.60	1.60	1.60
District of Columbia	3.50 - 4.85	3.70 - 4.85	3.90 - 5.45	4.25	5.25 (h)	5.75	6.15
Guam	3.35	3.80	4.25	4.25	4.25	4.75	5.15
Puerto Rico	1.20 - 3.35	1.20 - 4.25(i)	1.20 - 4.25(i)	1.20 - 4.25(i)	1.20 - 4.75(i)	1.20 - 4.75(i)	1.20 - 5.15(i)
U.S. Virgin Islands	3.35	4..65(g,,j)	4..65(g,,j)	4..65(g,,j)	4.65(g)	4.65(g, j)	4.65(g, j)
State or other jurisdiction	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006
Federal (FLSA)	$5.15	$5.15	$5.15	$5.15	$5.15	$5.15	5.15
Alabama	…	…	…	…	…	…	…
Alaska	5.65	5.65	5.65	7.15	7.15	7.15	7.15
Arizona	…	…	…	…	…	…	…
Arkansas	5.15[c]	5.15[c]	5.15[c]	5.15[c]	5.15[c]	5.15[c]	5.15 [c]
California	5.75	6.25	6.75	6.75	6.75	6.75	6.75
Colorado	5.15	5.15	5.15	5.15	5.15	5.15	5.15
Connecticut	6.15	6.40	6.70	6.90	7.10	7.10	7.40
Delaware	5.65	6.15	6.15	6.15	6.15	6.15	6.15
Florida	…	…	…	…	…	…	6.40
Georgia	3.25(d)	3.25(d)	5.15(d)	5.15(d)	5.15(d)	5.15(d)	5.15(d)
Hawaii	5.25	5.25	5.75	6.25	6.25	6.25	6.75
Idaho	5.15	5.15	5.15	5.15	5.15	5.15	5.15
Illinois	5.15[c]	5.15[c]	5.15[c]	5.15[c]	5.50[c]	6.50[c]	6.50[c]
Indiana	5.15(e)	5.15(e)	5.15(e)	5.15(e)	5.15(e)	5.15(e)	5.15(e)
Iowa	5.15	5.15	5.15	5.15	5.15	5.15	5.15
Kansas	2.65	2.65	2.65	2.65	2.65	2.65	2.65
Kentucky	5.15	5.15	5.15	5.15	5.15	5.15	5.15
Louisiana	…	…	…	…	…	…	…
Maine	5.15	5.15	5.75	6.25	6.25	6.35	6.50
Maryland	5.15	5.15	5.15	5.15	5.15	5.15	5.15
Massachusetts	6.00	6.75	6.75	6.75	6.75	6.75	6.75
Michigan	5.15(e)	5.15(e)	5.15(e)	5.15(e)	5.15(e)	5.15(e)	5.15(e)
Minnesota	4.90 - 5.15(g)	4.90 - 5.15(g)	4.90 - 5.15(g)	4.90 - 5.15(g)	4.90 - 5.15(g)	4.90 - 5.15(g)	5.25 - 6.15(g)
Mississippi	…	…	…	…	…	…	…
Missouri	5.15	5.15	5.15	5.15	5.15	5.15	5.15
Montana	4.00 - 5.15(g)	4.00 - 5.15(g)	4.00 - 5.15(g)	4.00 - 5.15(g)	4.00 - 5.15(g)	4.00 - 5.15(g)	4.00 - 5.15
Nebraska	5.15[c]	5.15[c]	5.15[c]	5.15[c]	5.15[c]	5.15[c]	5.15[c]
Nevada	5.15	5.15	5.15	5.15	5.15	5.15	5.15
New Hampshire	5.15	5.15	5.15	5.15	5.15	5.15	5.15
New Jersey	5.15	5.15	5.15	5.15	5.15	5.15	6.15
New Mexico	4.25	4.25	4.25	4.25	5.15	5.15	5.15
New York	4.25	5.15	5.15	5.15	5.15	6.00	6.75
North Carolina	5.15	5.15	5.15	5.15	5.15	5.15	5.15
State or other  jurisdiction	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006
North Dakota	5.15	5.15	5.15	5.15	5.15	5.15	5.15
Ohio	2.80 - 4.25(g)	2.80 - 4.25(g)	2.80 - 4.25(g)	2.80 - 4.25(g)	2.80 - 4.25(g)	2.80 - 4.25(g)	2.80 - 4.25(g)
Oklahoma	2.00 - 5.15(g)	2.00 - 5.15(g)	2.00 - 5.15(g)	2.00 - 5.15(g)	2.00 - 5.15(g)	2.00 - 5.15(g)	2.00 - 5.15
Oregon	6.50	6.50	6.50	6.90	7.05	7.25	7.50
Pennsylvania	5.15	5.15	5.15	5.15	5.15	5.15	5.15
Rhode Island	5.65	6.15	6.15	6.15	6.75	6.75	6.75
South Carolina	…	…	…	…	…	…	…
South Dakota	5.15	5.15	5.15	5.15	5.15	5.15	5.15
Tennessee	…	…	…	…	…	…	…
Texas	3.35	3.35	5.15	5.15	5.15	5.15	5.15
Utah	5.15	5.15	5.15	5.15	5.15	5.15	5.15
Vermont	5.75(e)	6.25(e)	6.25(e)	6.25(e)	6.75(e)	7.00(e)	7.25
Virginia	5.15[c]	5.15[c]	5.15[c]	5.15[c]	5.15[c]	5.15[c]	5.15[c]
Washington	6.50	6.72	6.90	7.01	7.16	7.35	7.63
West Virginia	5.15(d)	5.15(d)	5.15(d)	5.15(d)	5.15(d)	5.15(d)	5.15(d)
Wisconsin	5.15	5.15	5.15	5.15	5.15	5.15	5.70
Wyoming	1.60	1.60	5.15	5.15	5.15	5.15	5.15
District of Columbia	6.15	6.15	6.15	6.15	6.15	6.60	7.00
Guam	5.15	5.15	5.15	5.15	5.15	5.15	5.15
Puerto Rico	3.61 - 5.15(i)	3.61 - 5.15(i)	3.61 - 5.15(i)	3.61 - 5.15(i)	3.61 - 5.15(i)	3.61 - 5.15(i)	3.61 - 5.15(i)
U.S. Virgin Islands	4.30 - 4.65(g,j)	4.30 - 4.65(g,j)	4.30 - 4.65(g,j)	4.30 - 4.65(g,j)	4.30 - 4.65(g,j)	4.30 - 4.65(g,j)	4.30 - 4.65 (g)
State or other jurisdiction	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012	2013
Federal (FLSA)	5.15	5.85	6.55	7.25	7.25	7.25	7.25
Alabama	…	…	…	...	...	...	...
Alaska	7.15	7.15	7.15	7.75	7.75	7.75	7.75
Arizona	6.75	6.90	7.25	7.25	7.35	7.65	7.80
Arkansas	6.25[c]	6.25[c]	6.25[c]	6.25[c]	6.25[c]	6.25[c]	6.25[c]
California	7.50	8.00	8.00	8.00	8.00	8.00	8.00
Colorado	6.85	7.02	7.28	7.24	7.36	7.64	7.78
Connecticut	7.65	7.65	8.00	8.25	8.25	8.25	8.25
Delaware	6.65	7.15	7.15	7.25	7.25	7.25	7.25
Florida	6.67	6.79	7.21	7.25	7.25	7.67	7.79
Georgia	5.15(d)	5.15(d)	5.15(d)	5.15(d)	5.15(d)	5.15(d)	5.15(d)
Hawaii	7.25	7.25	7.25	7.25	7.25	7.25	7.25
Idaho	5.15	5.85	6.55	7.25	7.25	7.25	7.25
Illinois	6.50[c]	7.50[c]	7.75[c]	8.00[c]	8.25[c]	8.25[c]	8.25[c]
Indiana	5.15(e)	5.85(e)	6.55(e)	7.25(e)	7.25(e)	7.25(e)	7.25(e)
Iowa	5.15	7.25	7.25	7.25	7.25	7.25	7.25
Kansas	2.65	2.65	2.65	7.25	7.25	7.25	7.25
Kentucky	5.15	5.85	6.55	7.25	7.25	7.25	7.25
Louisiana	…	…	…	...	...	...	...
Maine	6.75	7.00	7.25	7.50	7.50	7.50	7.50
Maryland	6.15	6.15	6.55	7.25	7.25	7.25	7.25
Massachusetts	7.50	8.00	8.00	8.00	8.00	8.00	8.00
Michigan	6.95(e)	7.15(e)	7.40(e)	7.40(e)	7.40(e)	7.40(e)	7.40(e)
Minnesota	5.25-6.15(g)	5.25-6.15(g)	5.25-6.15(g)	5.25-6.15(g)	5.25-6.15(g)	5.25-6.15(g)	5.25-6.15(g)
Mississippi	…	…	…	...	...	...	...
Missouri	6.50	6.65	7.05	7.25	7.25	7.25	7.35
Montana	4.00-6.15(g)	4.00-6.25(g)	4.00-6.90(g)	4.00-7.25(g)	4.00-7.35(g)	4.00-7.65(g)	4.00-7.80(g)
Nebraska	5.15[c]	5.85[c]	6.55[c]	7.25[c]	7.25[c]	7.25[c]	7.25[c]
Nevada	6.15	6.33	6.55-6.85	6.55-7.55	7.25-8.25	7.25-8.25	7.25-8.25
New Hampshire	5.15	6.50	7.25	7.25	7.25	7.25	7.25
New Jersey	7.15	7.15	7.15	7.25	7.25	7.25	7.25
New Mexico	5.15	6.50	7.50	7.50	7.50	7.50	7.50
New York	7.15	7.15	7.15	7.25	7.25	7.25	7.25
North Carolina	6.15	6.15	6.55	7.25	7.25	7.25	7.25
State or  other jurisdiction	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012	2013
North Dakota	5.15	5.85	6.55	7.25	7.25	7.25	7.25
Ohio	6.85	7.00	7.30	7.30	7.40	7.70	7.85
Oklahoma	2.00-5.15(g)	2.00-5.85(g)	2.00-6.55(g)	2.00-7.25(g)	2.00-7.25(g)	2.00-7.25(g)	2.00-7.25(g)
Oregon	7.80	7.95	8.40	8.40	8.50	8.80	8.95
Pennsylvania	6.25	7.15	7.15	7.25	7.25	7.25	7.25
Rhode Island	7.40	7.40	7.40	7.40	7.40	7.40	7.75
South Carolina	…	…	…	...	...	...	...
South Dakota	5.15	5.85	6.55	7.25	7.25	7.25	7.25
Tennessee	…	…	…	...	...	...	...
Texas	5.15	5.85	6.55	7.25	7.25	7.25	7.25
Utah	5.15	5.85	6.55	7.25	7.25	7.25	7.25
Vermont	7.53(e)	7.68(e)	8.06(e)	8.06(e)	8.15(e)	8.46(e)	8.60(e)
Virginia	5.15[c]	5.85[c]	6.55[c]	7.25[c]	7.25[c]	7.25[c]	7.25[c]
Washington	7.93	8.07	8.55	8.55	8.67	9.04	9.19
West Virginia	5.85	6.55	7.25	7.25	7.25	7.25	7.25
Wisconsin	6.50	6.50	6.50	7.25	7.25	7.25	7.25
Wyoming	5.15	5.15	5.15	5.15	5.15	5.15	5.15
District of Columbia	7.00	7.00	7.55	8.25	8.25	8.25	8.25
Guam	5.15	5.85	5.85	7.25	7.25	7.25	7.25
Puerto Rico	3.61-5.15(i)	3.61-5.15(i)	4.10(i)	5.08 – 7.25 (i2)	5.08 – 7.25 (i2)	5.08 – 7.25 (i2)	5.08 – 7.25 (i2)
U.S. Virgin Islands	4.30-6.15(g,j)	4.30-6.15(j)	4.30-6.15(j)	4.30-7.25(j)	4.30-7.25(j)	4.30-7.25(j)	4.30-7.25(j)

This is not a "blue state - red state" phenomenon either. Using a comparable statistic, people receiving Food Stamps, note that, in 2011, 46 million Americans were receiving Food Stamps.

In 2011, reported by Reuters, the states of Mississippi, Tennessee, New Mexico, and Oregon all had at least 20% of their population on the U.S. Department of Agriculture's "Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)... or Food Stamps . And, topping it off, one-third (more than 30%) of people living in Alabama were receiving Food Stamps.

Republican members of the House overwhelmingly passed an Agriculture Department budget that slashes the SNAP program. Yet, in 8-12% of all Constituents in nearly 1/2 of the Republican Congressional Districts are on Food Stamps.       

Who & How Many 

How many U.S. employees would be affected by a change in minimum wage?

The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that 75.3-million -- or nearly 60% of all -- employees are paid on an hourly basis. Among hourly-paid employees, 4.7% earn at or below the U.S. federal minimum wage, or approximately 3.5-million employees are paid $7.25 per hour or less. 

Only 2.1% of full-time employees earn at or below the U.S. federal minimum wage, or 1.6-million employees. But 11.1% of part-time employees earn at or below the U.S. federal minimum wage. So most of those affected are part-time employees, and that pushes up the overall percentage of hourly wage earners who are paid at or below the minimum wage.

Table 9. Employed wage and salary workers paid hourly rates with earnings at or below the prevailing Federal minimum wage by usual hours worked on primary job, 2011 annual averages

Usual hours worked per week on primary job	Number of workers (in thousands)				Percent distribution				Percent of workers paid hourly rates
	Total paid hourly rates	At or below minimum wage			Total paid hourly rates	At or below minimum wage			At or below minimum wage
		Total	At  Minimum  Wage	Below  Minimum Wage		Total	At  Minimum Wage	Below  Minimum Wage	Total	At  Minimum Wage	Below minimum wage
Total, 16 years and over	73,926	3,829	1,677	2,152	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	5.2	2.3	2.9
Hours vary	4,962	491	198	293	6.7	12.8	11.8	13.6	9.9	4.0	5.9
0 to 34 hours	18,127	2,251	1,029	1,222	24.5	58.8	61.4	56.8	12.4	5.7	6.7
0 to 4 hours	411	59	22	37	0.6	1.5	1.3	1.7	14.4	5.4	9.0
5 to 9 hours	992	146	63	83	1.3	3.8	3.8	3.9	14.7	6.4	8.4
10 to 14 hours	1,550	211	128	83	2.1	5.5	7.6	3.9	13.6	8.3	5.4
15 to 19 hours	2,284	363	184	179	3.1	9.5	11.0	8.3	15.9	8.1	7.8
20 to 24 hours	5,272	673	337	336	7.1	17.6	20.1	15.6	12.8	6.4	6.4
25 to 29 hours	2,610	314	121	193	3.5	8.2	7.2	9.0	12.0	4.6	7.4
30 to 34 hours	5,006	484	173	311	6.8	12.6	10.3	14.5	9.7	3.5	6.2
35 hours or more	50,837	1,087	450	637	68.8	28.4	26.8	29.6	2.1	0.9	1.3
35 to 39 hours	6,050	343	134	209	8.2	9.0	8.0	9.7	5.7	2.2	3.5
40 hours or more	44,787	743	316	427	60.6	19.4	18.8	19.8	1.7	0.7	1.0
40 hours	39,231	653	286	367	53.1	17.1	17.1	17.1	1.7	0.7	0.9
41 hours or more	5,557	90	30	60	7.5	2.4	1.8	2.8	1.6	0.5	1.1
41 to 44 hours	659	12	3	9	0.9	0.3	0.2	0.4	1.8	0.5	1.4
45 to 48 hours	1,885	31	9	22	2.5	0.8	0.5	1.0	1.6	0.5	1.2
49 to 59 hours	2,038	26	6	20	2.8	0.7	0.4	0.9	1.3	0.3	1.0
60 hours or more	975	20	11	9	1.3	0.5	0.7	0.4	2.1	1.1	0.9

NOTE: Data exclude all self-employed persons whether or not their businesses are incorporated. Estimates of usual hours worked presented in this table differ from usual full- or part-time status (as shown in table 1) because of a sizable number of workers whose usual hours vary on the primary job.

Also according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, an estimated 25% of U.S. private sector employees earn less than $10 per hour (as opposed to all employees which would be a much lower percentage, because public employees tend to be full-time and paid above minimum wage). 

Employees in the Services Sector, our fastest growing sector over the past 30 years ... represent most of those earning at or below the $7.25 federal minimum wage. 

Within the Services Sector, the leisure & hospitality industry -- mainly hotels and restaurants -- are the biggest employers paying less than $10 per hour. Retail is next, but not too far behind. 

Fully 19% of all leisure & hospitality employees earn at or less than the federal minimum wage. Leisure & hospitality employees represent nearly 52% of all hourly employees paid at or below minimum wage.

Retail trade employees represents 16.8% of all private sector hourly employees paid at or below minimum wage. Combined retail and wholesale represents 17.5% of all hourly employees paid at or below minimum wage.

Together, the leisure & hospitality and retail & wholesale hourly employees represent 70% -- nearly all -- of employees paid at or below minimum wage. 

Table 4. Employed wage and salary workers paid hourly rates with earnings at or below the prevailing Federal minimum wage by occupation, 2011 annual averages

Occupation	Number of workers (in thousands)				Percent distribution				Percent of workers paid hourly rates
	Total paid hourly rates	At or below minimum wage			Total paid hourly rates	At or below minimum wage			At or below minimum wage
		Total	At minimum wage	Below minimum wage		Total	At minimum wage	Below minimum wage	Total	At minimum wage	Below minimum wage
Total, 16 years and over	73,926	3,829	1,677	2,152	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	5.2	2.3	2.9
Management, professional, and related occupations	15,524	195	89	106	21.0	5.1	5.3	4.9	1.3	0.6	0.7
Management, business, and financial operations occupations	4,300	48	11	37	5.8	1.3	0.7	1.7	1.1	0.3	0.9
Professional and related occupations	11,224	147	78	69	15.2	3.8	4.7	3.2	1.3	0.7	0.6
Service occupations	17,800	2,322	742	1,580	24.1	60.6	44.2	73.4	13.0	4.2	8.9
Healthcare support occupations	2,700	98	52	46	3.7	2.6	3.1	2.1	3.6	1.9	1.7
Protective service occupations	2,028	61	22	39	2.7	1.6	1.3	1.8	3.0	1.1	1.9
Food preparation and serving related occupations	6,710	1,653	422	1,231	9.1	43.2	25.2	57.2	24.6	6.3	18.3
Building and grounds cleaning and maintenance occupations	3,618	211	111	100	4.9	5.5	6.6	4.6	5.8	3.1	2.8
Personal care and service occupations	2,745	299	135	164	3.7	7.8	8.1	7.6	10.9	4.9	6.0
Sales and office occupations	19,987	856	617	239	27.0	22.4	36.8	11.1	4.3	3.1	1.2
Sales and related occupations	7,813	600	441	159	10.6	15.7	26.3	7.4	7.7	5.6	2.0
Office and administrative support occupations	12,174	257	177	80	16.5	6.7	10.6	3.7	2.1	1.5	0.7
Natural resources, construction, and maintenance occupations	8,221	96	48	48	11.1	2.5	2.9	2.2	1.2	0.6	0.6
Farming, fishing, and forestry occupations	675	42	24	18	0.9	1.1	1.4	0.8	6.2	3.6	2.7
Construction and extraction occupations	4,332	28	13	15	5.9	0.7	0.8	0.7	0.6	0.3	0.3
Installation, maintenance, and repair occupations	3,214	26	11	15	4.3	0.7	0.7	0.7	0.8	0.3	0.5
Production, transportation, and material moving occupations	12,394	360	181	179	16.8	9.4	10.8	8.3	2.9	1.5	1.4
Production occupations	6,485	100	53	47	8.8	2.6	3.2	2.2	1.5	0.8	0.7
Transportation and material moving occupations	5,909	260	128	132	8.0	6.8	7.6	6.1	4.4	2.2	2.2

NOTE: Data exclude all self-employed persons whether or not their businesses are incorporated. Effective with January 2011 data, occupations reflect the introduction of the 2010 Census occupational classification system into the Current Population Survey, or household survey. This classification system is derived from the 2010 Standard Occupational Classification (SOC). No historical data have been revised. Data for 2011 are not strictly comparable with earlier years.

Table 5. Employed wage and salary workers paid hourly rates with earnings at or below the prevailing Federal minimum wage by industry, 2011 annual averages

Industry	Number of workers (in thousands)				Percent distribution				Percent of workers paid hourly rates
	Total paid hourly rates	At or below minimum wage			Total paid hourly rates	At or below minimum wage			At or below minimum wage
		Total	At minimum wage	Below minimum wage		Total	At minimum wage	Below minimum wage	Total	At minimum wage	Below minimum wage
Total, 16 years and over	73,926	3,829	1,677	2,152	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	5.2	2.3	2.9
Private sector	64,525	3,625	1,577	2,048	87.3	94.7	94.0	95.2	5.6	2.4	3.2
Agriculture and related industries	775	41	20	21	1.0	1.1	1.2	1.0	5.3	2.6	2.7
Nonagricultural industries	63,750	3,584	1,557	2,027	86.2	93.6	92.8	94.2	5.6	2.4	3.2
Mining	489	3	2	1	0.7	0.1	0.1	0.0	0.6	0.4	0.2
Construction	4,304	41	15	26	5.8	1.1	0.9	1.2	1.0	0.3	0.6
Manufacturing	8,556	91	47	44	11.6	2.4	2.8	2.0	1.1	0.5	0.5
Durable goods	5,264	41	18	23	7.1	1.1	1.1	1.1	0.8	0.3	0.4
Nondurable goods	3,292	50	29	21	4.5	1.3	1.7	1.0	1.5	0.9	0.6
Wholesale and retail trade	12,423	669	463	206	16.8	17.5	27.6	9.6	5.4	3.7	1.7
Wholesale trade	1,689	27	17	10	2.3	0.7	1.0	0.5	1.6	1.0	0.6
Retail trade	10,734	642	446	196	14.5	16.8	26.6	9.1	6.0	4.2	1.8
Transportation and utilities	3,069	46	22	24	4.2	1.2	1.3	1.1	1.5	0.7	0.8
Information	1,273	36	18	18	1.7	0.9	1.1	0.8	2.8	1.4	1.4
Financial activities	3,228	40	25	15	4.4	1.0	1.5	0.7	1.2	0.8	0.5
Professional and business services	5,857	157	85	72	7.9	4.1	5.1	3.3	2.7	1.5	1.2
Education and health services	12,636	355	185	170	17.1	9.3	11.0	7.9	2.8	1.5	1.3
Leisure and hospitality	8,943	1,963	610	1,353	12.1	51.3	36.4	62.9	22.0	6.8	15.1
Other services	2,970	183	86	97	4.0	4.8	5.1	4.5	6.2	2.9	3.3
Public sector	9,401	204	100	104	12.7	5.3	6.0	4.8	2.2	1.1	1.1
Federal	1,770	20	12	8	2.4	0.5	0.7	0.4	1.1	0.7	0.5
State	2,604	65	37	28	3.5	1.7	2.2	1.3	2.5	1.4	1.1
Local	5,026	119	50	69	6.8	3.1	3.0	3.2	2.4	1.0	1.4

NOTE: Data exclude all self-employed persons whether or not their businesses are incorporated.

Minimum Wage "Enabling" Subsidies?                   

Whereas in 1989 more Food Stamps recipient households did not have anyone working, twenty years later, in 2009 the majority of Food Stamps recipient households had jobs, according to a release by Atlantic Newswire.

Couple this Food Stamp recipient job-status information with the fact that job growth throughout the past decade primarily has been low-income jobs: 2002 = 3% ... in 2009 = 4.9% ... and 2011 = 6% of Americans were paid at or below minimum wage. 

And, most of the jobs created since 2008 have been low-paid jobs, according to recent research report by the National Employment Law Project. And, since first quarter 2001, 8.7% of new jobs have been low-paid and 6.6% have been higher-paid jobs.

In 2011, the Food Stamp program cost $68-billion. That's more than one-third of corporate income tax receipts that year. 

Some would suggest, and I agree, that our Food Stamp program has enabled businesses to pay employees at or below minimum wage: The SNAP "Food Stamp" program has become a business subsidy ... especially to the leisure & hospitality and other retail industries.




The growth in the number, and percentage, of Americans without health care insurance -- hence showing up in hospital emergency rooms with late stage illnesses --- is also costing state and federal governments increasing amounts of tax dollars.

State and federal Medicaid spending also might be a minimum wage "enabling" subsidy, as is suggested frequently about Food Stamps.

Facts about Food Stamp program and Medicaid and hospital charity care belong in any serious reporting and debate on Minimum Wage: The lower the wages, the higher the cost to government spending ... government subsidies to business ... that costs us in personal income taxes. It's all related.

The Employers

As the nation's largest private employer and market-influencing player in the retail and wholesale trade, Walmart hourly wage employee pay policy serves as a template for the sector. 

The Walmart - Sam's Club Pay Plan Fiscal Year 2013 states that the Facility Starting Rate (FSR) at the minimum Position Pay Grade (PPG) adjustment stands at $8.00 per hour. 

According to a 2010 ABC News report "Walmart CEO Pay: More in an hour than employees get all year", the Walmart CEO made more than 20% higher in an hour than a entry-level Walmart or Sam's Club store employee made in a whole year.

The ABC News report went on to point out that in the 1970's, CEO's of the S&P 500 were paid 3 times that of the average American employee, and by 2010 the CEO's of the S&P 500 were paid 319 times that of an average American employee: That's from 3-to-1 up to 319-to-1. 

The point of mentioning the pay of CEO's of top companies paying employees minimum wage is to show how successful companies are and the degree to which the CEO's have grown distant from their employees during some of America's biggest boom years and greatest productivity gain years. At 319-to-1 and being paid more in an hour than your basic employee makes in a year, that distance is vast.

Summary

What's the bottom line on raising the U.S. federal minimum wage from to $10 per hour?

A lot of restaurant, hotel, and other retail employees will earn about $20,000 per year instead of less than $15,000: They will be raised above the official U.S. poverty level and they will live with more dignity. The U.S. economy would get a stimulus without costing local, state, or federal governments more. And, the state and federal governments would save some of the money now spent on Medicaid and Food Stamps for these employees and their families.

Let's do it.

by Steve Reichenstein

Historical Cost Considerations in Building New High-tech Infrastructure -- The U.S. Transcontinental Railroad

The new, economy-building high-tech in the mid-1800's was railroads. Connecting the continental U.S. West with East through the Rocky Mountains had been an initiative discussed starting in the early 1840's; but private investors seemed to find the venture too risky or too costly even for their situation.

The U.S. Presidents and Congressional majorities during the 1840-1850's were "small-government" proponents; so the dream of connecting the U.S. East with West through the Rocky Mountains by railway languished as but-a-dream.



In 1862, President Abraham Lincoln and the U.S. Congress passed the Pacific Railroad Act, which funded the completion of our transcontinental railroad. Specifically, it laid the final stretch of connecting Omaha, Nebraska to Sacramento, California in Utah.

The Pacific Railroad Act provided 6,400 (later doubled to 12,800) acres plus funding of $48,000 per mile of laid railroad track to each of the 2 companies building this: Union Pacific Railroad and Western Pacific Railroad. 

That $48,000 per mile awarded in 1862 dollars -- with inflation -- would equal an estimated $1,208,877 in 2012 dollars. 

Interestingly, President Lincoln likely was convinced to fund the Pacific Railroad Act by his strategy for fighting the U.S. Civil War. Lincoln passionately worked the railroads and telegraph lines (that strung with the railroads) to leverage the Union Army's troop and manufactures advantage over the Confederacy. The North had far more people (i.e. soldiers) and the only factories (i.e. munitions). 

Lincoln saw the ability to communicate where troops and supplies were needed and then move them there -- quickly -- as the missing link. Lincoln likely brought that thinking to his decision to sign the Pacific Railroad Act: Making sure to control and leverage the Western land, people, and supplies. Of course, a united nation was also already on his mind.

Well, today's key economy-building -- and security enhancing -- high-tech is communications and electric lines, which we refer to as the "smart grid". 

In 2012, China announced a massive smart grid investment to lay 200,000 km of super high-power UHV DC lines at an estimated cost of $1.05-million per mile.

What a coincidence! If the U.S. were to invest in building a new national smart grid network, the cost would be comparable to the cost we spent 150 year ago to build railroad networks.

President Lincoln and Congress were willing to spend $1.2-million per mile for the latest economy-building, security-enhancing high-tech of that era. President Obama and Congress should spend the $1.2-million per mile for our smart grid.

What's your opinion?

by Steve Reichenstein

A Conservative Argument Against National Voter ID Cards

Concern over U.S. border security -- specifically, U.S.-Mexican border security -- has raised our collective consciousness of who are American citizens and who are not. Some Republican leaders have transferred, or imposed, this awareness onto another issue: Eligible voter identification.








The rush of voter ID laws is being used as a tool by Republican committees for disqualifying or dissuading voters who tend to vote Democratic, such as blacks, Latinos, and students. This may be a winning strategy for some elections around the nation, but only in the short-term. Eventually, the changing composition of the electorate will catch up. 



However there is another, a very conservative, reason for opposing massive voter ID laws. Requiring voter ID cards that meet certain specifications that exclude some very commonly held ID's might -- and likely will -- lead to an official national ID card. 


An official national ID card, once adopted, can start encompassing more private information about our lives than we might want for government to have on-hand. 





After a while, as more and more of our personal information is added to the card, this card will correspond to a "citizen number", a number that could be coded by our genetic profile, purchasing habits, income, auto ownership, weapons ownership, political leanings, ... 

We each become a number, and then we have to wear that number to identify ourselves at all times to those who will treat us differently based on the codes in our number. 


Then we are that future that we don't want.



This is why I oppose voter ID cards.



By Steve Reichenstein

Building a "Rio Grand Canal" along full border with Mexico is a trifecta!

A canal that's wide enough and deep enough for oil tanker, cargo ship, and naval vessel traffic will help solve 3 major issues: US border security, defense mobility-efficiency, and economic-job growth.



Only the Panama Canal prevents all ships from having to go down and around the South American continent, which is a much longer, and much more dangerous ocean route.

US border security can't get much stronger than a wide, deep waterway. That prevents both underground and overland illegal border crossings, and limits border crossings to bridges, airplane, and boats.



With increasing emphasis on Pacific Rim military security, rapid-response, multiple theater, special forces, and terrorism by the US national security community, the concern over sudden blockage of the Panama Canal grows. The national security value becomes as important, if not more important than border security.

    

Loss of access to the Panama Canal would strike a major blow to US commercial shipping as well as military mobility. Such a logistics nightmare scenario would through the U.S. into recession and shock the prices of many goods, given how much travels through the Panama Canal. Isn't that a border security issue too?



Now think about the positive side in economic-jobs issues how many jobs would be created by excavating and dredging a Rio Grand Canal -- both in the U.S. and in Mexico.

    

Imagine how many jobs would be created just by digging the canal. Imagine how many jobs would be created by serving the needs of all of the canal building employees.

Imagine how many jobs would be created by the build-up along the shores -- U.S. and Mexican.

   

Imagine how many people who would have tried to cross the U.S.-Mexican border would instead find jobs related to the new canal. Isn't that a major, and positive, effect on border security?

   

Imagine the economic growth and flexibility from a series of ports built along both U.S. and Mexican shores of a Rio Grand Canal. The land value of what are now mostly dessert acres would soar. Access to water, even if desalination were required for drinking and farming, would greatly help the persistent and growing water shortages in the entire Southwestern region of the U.S. and Northern region of Mexico and support economic growth in both countries.

Building a long canal to connect major bodies of water for economic development as well as national security is not a new idea. It's been done successfully in the past and even being done now.

In the 1800's the Erie Canal was built connected New York City harbor for the Atlantic Ocean with the St. Lawrence Seaway for the Great Lakes Mid-West ... as well as all of the towns that sprang up along the canal. Of course, in the 1800's, Canada was part of England, with whom we'd just fought 2 wars (Revolutionary War and War of 1812) and where the New York waterways and forts played major roles.

   

Even today,  China is building the Grand Canal to connect its inland cities and farms to the Pacific Oceans and coastal centers.

Yes, building the Rio Grand Canal would be very expensive. But the return on that investment would be immediate and much greater.

By Steve Reichenstein

Why does NSA outsource the security and privacy of our nation?

Yes, I'm concerned about the government violating our Constitution Bill of Rights. I never supported those parts of the Patriot Act which impinge on 4th amendment protection from unreasonable search and seizure. 

Better coordination and sharing of information between intelligence and law enforcement agencies makes sense, as do other elements. But our government should -- and must -- competently do its job without violating the 4th amendment. 

Remember the warning by Benjamin Franklin: "Any society that would trade a little liberty for a little security will deserve neither and lose both."

Deciding between privacy and security is a FALSE CHOICE.

I believe, as did our Founding Fathers in writing our Constitution and Bill of Rights, that government CAN fulfill its responsibilities to protect both our security AND privacy within the Constitution Bill of Rights, period. 

Government just needs to be increasingly more competent to do so -- to apply the new technologies, old technologies, and lessons learned with stricter action points.

Competence should be under the microscope. Also, outsourcing should be under the microscope. 

The Edward Snowden incident conveniently has put both of these issues front and center -- in the NSA as well as elsewhere in the government's critical services, such as all military, policing, prisons-judicial, NRC, and IRS.

How much have new technologies and analytics improved government competence in protecting BOTH security and privacy? How has outsourcing impacted capabilities and competence -- improved or detracted? 

Outsourcing our privacy and security concerns me enough to write this blog post at this time.

Outsourcing the privacy and security of We the People is the topic of this post and should concern every taxpayer.

I support the great work of the NSA, CIA, and other brave patriots defending our country. I'm not picking on the NSA or any other agency. I'm concerned about the contracting-outsourcing practice as it relates to our privacy and security.

The under-reported, under-discussed issue is that our government outsources our security ... and privacy ... to companies which then hire away government employees and return them to government jobs at much higher compensation plus profit for the outsourcing company. 

Why doesn't the NSA hire employees, especially to handle such sensitive information? Why didn't the NSA either transfer from CIA to NSA or just hire away Edward Snowden?

If cost of employment is what will attract (away from other prospective employers) the trained, talented, and experienced employees that government needs in order to fulfill its responsibilities, then we should improve the compensation packages. These are not areas of government where we should pinch pennies. We're paying that much ... and more in contractor profits ... now by outsourcing!

Clearly, as we now see, the use of much more expensive private sector employees does not increase NSA competence. Edward Snowden affair being a prime example ... and the one now known to the taxpayers. 

Paying more for private sector employees who left public employment just for the purpose of doing the same jobs for more money is tantamount to corruption or conspiracy to defraud our government. It's also an affront to our public employees doing the right thing. And, it's a blatant waste of taxpayers' dollars.

Further, if these private "middleman" companies are going to suck profits out of the taxpayers for arranging for public employees to go private for higher compensation, then these companies also should bear the burden, culpability, and liability. 

Outsourcing government employee jobs, often in order to pay government employees much more and, perhaps, just to leech from the taxpayers, is epidemic in the U.S. government (and probably at the state, county and local levels too). 

Congress should hold public hearings and elected officials should be held accountable on the campaign trail to justify or condemn it.

What do you think?

Steve Reichenstein

"Governor Christie, why are you spending an extra $12-million of our money on an extra general election day?"

Dear Governor Christie:

Spending $12-million on a special general election to fill Senator Lautenberg's seat when our regularly scheduled and budgeted general election day is only 3 weeks later betrays taxpayers trust.

I thank you for finding an extra $12-million bonanza of unnecessary taxpayers' money being collected ... but ...

But if you can find an extra $12-million for an unnecessary, extra election day to fill Senator Lautenberg's seat, then you should return the money to us, the taxpayers.

Governor Christie, here are a few ideas for returning the extra $12-million to taxpayers without the further expense of issuing and mailing us checks:

(1) Eliminate the $13.5-million Public Utilities Excise Tax

(2) Reduce the $191-million Realty Transfer Tax, which would save the average home purchaser approximately $300 (Aren't we trying to revive the housing market?)

(3) Help out businesses by reducing the $80-million Corporate Energy Tax

(4) Chip away at the $535-million Motor Fuels Tax.

I'm sure you can find other taxes to cut as well.

Governor Christie, if you believe that it's important that our $12-million bonanza be spent -- you know, to boost the economy -- then here are a few items that should be higher on your list than an extra, unnecessary general election:

(1) 200 police officers?

(2) 200 teachers?

(3) Help thousands of New Jersey victims of Hurricane Sandy?  (Hasn't Mary Pat been putting that bug in your ear?)

Governor Christie, why haven't you been speaking up for your decision? Help us out in understanding why it's so important to have an extra general election during election season. 

We've heard the press and politicians argue rather persuasively that you scheduled the Senator Lautenberg replacement election away from the general election day in order to avoid the much heavier voter turnout, especially by Democrats and Democratic-leaning Independents, that a federal election brings.

Frankly, it's been troublesome that you have NOT offered any good reason, nor any reason at all, for deciding to set the special general election to fill Senator Lautenberg's seat on a different day from the regular November general election when they're only 3 weeks apart! 

Perhaps, Governor Christie, you have not offered any reason because there is no reason in the taxpayers' interest. I'd hate to think that you'd waste $12-million of taxpayers' money so blatantly on political self-interest.

Please argue persuasively for your decision to bifurcate a special general election and regular general election that are only 3 weeks apart.

Otherwise, we the taxpayers will have to conclude that you did it for these political reasons.

On a personal note, Governor Christie, I've often disagreed with your policies, though not all, but I've always respected you. This election scheduling thing really hurts!

Respectfully,
Steve Reichenstein