WHAT ARE "CULTURAL TARGETS"

GUGGENHEIM MUSEUM OF ART 

SMITHSONIAN 

DE YOUNG MUSEUM SAN FRANCISCO

Security is ramped up in US cities and top landmarks including Arlington National Cemetery after Iran's chilling threat against 35 American targets

• Security has been beefed up at the national military cemetery in Virginia 
• Comes after Iran's highest ranking general was killed in US drone strike Friday  
• New York City, Boston and Los Angeles also announced larger police presence
• US Park Police, stationed at landmarks like Lincoln and Jefferson memorials, Washington Monument and Statue of Liberty, have also increased patrols

By ROSS IBBETSON FOR MAILONLINE

PUBLISHED: 04:21 EST, 7 January 2020 | UPDATED: 09:37 EST, 7 January 2020

Security has been ramped up in US cities and top landmarks including Arlington National Cemetery after Iran's chilling threat against 35 American targets.

The national military cemetery in Virginia said on Twitter it would be increasing security and intensifying identity checks 'due to current conditions.'

It comes after Iran vowed revenge and 'jihad' for the killing of its highest ranking general, Qassem Soleimani, in a US drone strike on Friday.

New York, Boston and Los Angeles have also announced that they will be tightening security in the wake of Soleimani's death, considered by the Pentagon to be the leader of global terrorist organisation, the Quds Force. 

US Park Police have also announced more boots on the ground at sites across the country. It was unclear which landmarks this would encompass but the agency is responsible for the Lincoln and Jefferson memorials, the Washington Monument and the Statue of Liberty. 

+11

ARLINGTON NATIONAL CEMETERY, VIRGINIA: The national military cemetery said on Twitter it would be increasing security and intensifying identity checks 'due to current conditions'

+11

NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK: Mayor Bill de Blasio said America's deadly airstrike could create 'new and very profound challenges' even in a city long on guard against terror threats

+11

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA: The LAPD tweeted: 'While there is no credible threat to Los Angeles, the LAPD is monitoring the events developing in Iran. We will continue to communicate with state, local, federal and international law enforcement partners regarding any significant intel that may develop'

+11

BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS: Boston Police Department, like authorities in New York, said that while there was no credible threats, they would increase patrols 'to protect the city and the people that live in and visit our great city'

Iran's Revolutionary Guard General says they will 'take revenge'

Loaded: 0%

Progress: 0%

0:00

Previous

Play

Skip

Mute

Current Time0:00

/

Duration Time1:39

Fullscreen

Need Text

Iran has made furious threats to the US after President Donald Trump ordered Soleimani's killing, while its people have raised the red flag of revenge in the streets.

Over the weekend General Gholamali Abuhamzeh, commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards in Soleimani's hometown of Kerman, outlined a number of targets Tehran was weighing. 

'The Strait of Hormuz is a vital point for the West and a large number of American destroyers and warships cross there ... vital American targets in the region have been identified by Iran since long time ago ... some 35 US targets in the region as well as Tel Aviv are within our reach,' Abuhamzeh said, naming Israel's largest city.

New York state and city leaders said there were no direct, credible threats. But Mayor Bill de Blasio said America's deadly airstrike could create 'new and very profound challenges' even in a city long on guard against terror threats.

Gov. Andrew Cuomo sent National Guard personnel to city airports and said the New York Power Authority was checking and patrolling utilities.

+11

Iranians burn US and Israeli flags during an anti-US protest over the killings during a US air stike of Iranian military commander Qassem Soleimani and Iraqi paramilitary chief Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, in the capital Tehran on Saturday

+11

US Park Police have also announced more boots on the ground at sites across the country. It was unclear which landmarks this would encompass but the agency is responsible for the Washington Monument (pictured)

+11

US Park Police are also responsible for the Lincoln Memorial, although it was unclear which sites would be included in its beefed up security

The agency that runs city subways, buses and commuter rails was also enhancing security, Cuomo said.

'Recent international events are understandably causing some anxiety,' said Cuomo, a Democrat. 

President Trump said previously that Soleimani was killed 'to stop a war. We did not take action to start a war.' 

Trump said that the commander was killed to prevent imminent threats to US bases and personnel in the region. A threat to the US homeland was not cited as a motivation.

Boston Police Department, like authorities in New York, said that while there was no credible threats, they would increase patrols 'to protect the city and the people that live in and visit our great city.'

California authorities in Los Angeles told the LA Times that they would be taking special measures in Southern California, home of the largest Iranian community in the US. 

The LAPD tweeted: 'While there is no credible threat to Los Angeles, the LAPD is monitoring the events developing in Iran. We will continue to communicate with state, local, federal and international law enforcement partners regarding any significant intel that may develop.' 

It comes after Iran put an $80million price on Trump's head and an adviser to Iranian president Hassan Rouhani dropped a chilling hint that the President's property empire could be struck. 

Hesameddin Ashena shared a link to a Forbes article Sunday night listing all of Trump's properties in New York, his hotels and resorts across America and golf courses in the US and Britain.

+11

Hesameddin Ashena shared a link to a Forbes article listing all of Trump's properties in New York, including these four Manhattan skyscrapers 

+11

The Mar-a-Lago estate where Trump spent the Christmas holidays is also on the list, along with a winery in Virginia and golf courses in America, Britain and Ireland

Soleimani's replacement vows revenge for US killing

Loaded: 0%

Progress: 0%

0:00

Previous

Play

Skip

Mute

Current Time0:00

/

Duration Time0:44

Fullscreen

Need Text

The list included the Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida, where the president was staying when he ordered the hit on Soleimani, as well as the Trump International Hotels in Washington and Las Vegas and his New York tower with its Fifth Avenue entrance.  

Iran has already threatened the White House and the Rouhani adviser declared yesterday that Tehran's 'sole problem is Trump' rather than the American people - dropping another hint of a direct reprisal against him. 

On Monday, the Iranian state broadcaster claimed 'millions' had taken to the streets of Tehran for the funeral of Soleimani.

Supreme leader Ali Khamenei wept over Soleimani's coffin as hundreds of thousands cried with him for the venerated general. 

Trump has threatened his own retaliation if Iran hits US targets, warning of a 'disproportionate response' including cultural sites. 

Among a series of Iranian threats, Soleimani's daughter Zeinab directly threatened an attack on U.S. forces in the region as she spoke to wailing crowds.  

+11

The tweet by an Iranian presidential adviser made a veiled threat against Trump Organization properties including a series of Trump International hotels (pictured) 

+11

Hesameddin Ashena shared a link to a Forbes article listing nine of Trump's properties in New York as well as hotels and golf courses elsewhere in America

US Air Force launches 52 stealth fighters in 'combat power exercise'

Loaded: 0%

Progress: 0%

0:00

Previous

Play

Skip

Mute

Current Time0:00

/

Duration Time1:43

Fullscreen

Need Text

'The families of U.S. soldiers in the Middle East will spend their days waiting for [the] death of their children,' she said to cheers on Monday. 

Warning of a 'dark day' looming for the United States, she said: 'Crazy Trump, don't think that everything is over with my father's martyrdom.'  

American forces are braced for a real-life retaliation and the US-led coalition against ISIS said in a statement yesterday that it was pausing its fight against the jihadists to shore up its own defences.

There are also fears that Iran will harass shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, which is critical to the world's oil supply. 

The global benchmark for crude oil rose above $70 a barrel on Monday for the first time in over three months.  

In a series of sabre-rattling tweets, Trump has warned that the US will 'quickly and fully strike back, and perhaps in a disproportionate manner' if Iran aims fire at US targets.  

Talking to reporters aboard Air Force One as he returned to Washington last night, Trump stood by his targeting of cultural sites despite claims of potential war crimes.

'They're allowed to kill our people. They're allowed to torture and maim our people. They're allowed to use roadside bombs and blow up our people. And we're not allowed to touch their cultural sites? It doesn't work that way,' Trump said. 

Democratic senator Elizabeth Warren, who is running for her party's presidential nomination, said Trump was 'threatening to commit war crimes'. 

In Britain, a spokesman for prime minister Boris Johnson issued a warning over Trump's plans, saying there were international conventions in place to stop the destruction of cultural heritage.

Meet Ballie: Samsung rolls out mini robot ‘life companion’ at CES 2020Softball-sized robot ‘understands you, supports you and reacts to your needs’
THE ROBOTS ARE COMING, YOU CAN KNOCK THIS ONE OUTTA THE PARK
Published: Jan 7, 2020

Samsung Electronics Samsung unveiled Ballie, a a small, 

rolling robot "life companion" Monday at CES 2020.

By
JON SWARTZ
SENIOR REPORTER

LAS VEGAS — Samsung Electronics has seen the personalized technology of the future — in the shape of a yellow softball-sized robot called Ballie.

In a keynote speech Monday night here at the sprawling CES 2020, company executive H.S. Kim demonstrated what he called the “next evolution of IoT (internet of Things).”

The beeping sphere followed Kim on stage and obeyed his voice commands. An accompanying video showed Ballie running a household through commands to smartphone devices. To underscore the near-future theme, the theme for “2001: A Space Odyssey” played.

Meet #Ballie, Samsung’s human-centric vision of robots that takes personalized care to the next level. The small rolling robot, “understands you, supports you, and reacts to your needs.” #CES2020 #SamsungCES2020 pic.twitter.com/YzwgZN1Lgw— Samsung US Newsroom (@SamsungNewsUS) January 7, 2020

Samsung described Ballie as a “life companion ... a small, rolling robot that understands you, supports you, and reacts to your needs to be actively helpful around the house.”

Of course, in an era where tech companies are being eyed with suspicion by lawmakers and consumers for their insatiable appetite for our personal data, Big Brother was also on the mind while the music played.

One Twitter observer compared Ballie to a spy the size of a tennis ball.

Samsung has invented a yellow tennis ball that spies on you. Its name? Ballie. Tech people are geniuses. pic.twitter.com/4sLAFq1WH8— Gabe Carey @ CES 2020 (@thegabecarey) January 7, 2020

Samsung 005930, +0.54% , which is presenting a keynote speech on the “Age of Experience” in the 2020s, gave no pricing or availability for Ballie.

But Ballie drew applause and plenty of photos from several thousand people packed into a ballroom. They seemed amused by this vision of the near future

Americans over 40 are half as likely to get hired — and it’s worse for workers over 50

Federal law makes it illegal to ask someone’s age in a job interview or to discriminate against anyone based on their age
Published: Jan 7, 2020 

Maddie Meyer/Getty Images Tom Brady, 42, and the New

England Patriots did not reach a deal over his contract. 

The NFL football player is now a free agent.

By
BRETT ARENDS

Tom Brady is a now free agent, but the NFL player doesn’t have the same worries as millions of Americans over 40.

Workers over 40 are only about half as likely, or less, to get a job offer than younger workers if employers know their age, according to research released this week that was conducted by economics professor David Neumark at the University of California, Irvine. The data was adjusted for differences in skills, fit and availability.

Key to the study was a major change that a company made to its hiring systems. Previously all applicants at a national restaurant chain (which wasn’t named in the study) had filled out an initial application form in a face-to-face meeting with a restaurant manager. So their age was apparent from the get-go.

Under the new system, applications began first with a standardized, online, electronic screen. This included over 100 questions designed to find out a candidate’s skills, experience, employability and other attributes related to the job. But it contained no age screen.
When managers could determine an applicant’s age group, those over 40 were between 46% and 65% less likely to get a job offer than those under 40.


When managers could determine an applicant’s age group, those over 40 were between 46% and 65% less likely to get a job offer than those under 40.

Under the new system, older workers were actually more likely to pass the initial, age-blind application process than younger ones, typically because they had more experience.

UC’s Professor Neumark crunched the numbers from a proprietary hiring database maintained by the unnamed national restaurant chain. (The database of 1,600 job applications emerged from an age-discrimination lawsuit). The hiring decisions covered jobs from “front of house,” such as servers, to “back of house,” such as chefs.

“This set of results is strongly consistent with age discrimination,” notes professor Neumark, ‘older applicants are more qualified [than younger ones] in terms of applicant characteristics and evaluations used by the company in their online application system,” he says.

He further found that the discrimination was greater for “front of house” jobs than for “back of house,” though it was significant for both. The implication: Managers are more reluctant to employ older servers, because they think the customers won’t like them.
Researchers found that the discrimination was greater for ‘front of house’ jobs than for ‘back of house,’ though it was significant for both.

Older workers and those over 50 are more likely to work as independent contractors, separate research from the progressive Economic Policy Institute, a labor policy think tank, concluded. The share of people working as independent contractors, freelancers and other categories of on-call workers who were ages 55 to 64 increased to 22.9% in 2017 from 18.8% in 2005. For people aged 65 and older, the figure rose to 14.1% from 8.5%.

“For some older people, independent contracting and on-call positions are attractive ways to ease into retirement or earn income after they have left the full-time workforce,” according to the AARP, a public-interest group focused on older workers. “The contracting option can offer an appealing combination of flexibility and extra money, as long as the worker can get health care coverage or save for retirement in other ways. (The AARP receives funding from private health insurers.)

This is by no means the first study to show age discrimination. Previous research has also shown that managers show bias, unconscious or otherwise, against older workers.

Federal law makes it illegal to ask someone’s age in a job interview, or to discriminate against anyone over 40 based on their age. But as the latest study shows, there are many ways round these rules.

Read: Mid-career? Your job is at risk — here’s what to do now

Meanwhile, data from a recent Gallup nationally representative survey program found that formal employment rates plunge once people enter their 50s, but self-employment and, particularly, “independent contractor” rates skyrocket. That’s based on surveys with 61,000 people conducted between May 2018 and March 2019 as part of the Gallup Education Consumer Pulse Survey. About two-thirds of those surveyed were over 50.

About a quarter of those still working age 55 to 59 are self-employed, most of them independent contractors, according to a separate analysis conducted by researchers Katharine Abraham, an economics professor at the University of Maryland, and Brad Hershbein and Susan Houseman at the W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.

“Roughly one-quarter of independent contractors age 50 and older work for a former employer,” they added. This raises the issue that they have been shuffled out of the door as a result of their age — or simply to get them off the company health plan before they start costing too much money. Among those over 50 working as “independent contractors,” most told Gallup they were doing it mainly because they need the money.

Being self-employed can go both ways, experts agree. Most of those who own their own businesses like being their own boss, the researchers said, and many who work as independent contractors prefer it to full-time employment, especially because of the flexibility it may give them.

Now read: You’re likely to be out of a job in your 50s — 4 ways to prepare and minimize the pain

#P3 PUBLIC PENSIONS FUND PRIVATE CAPITALISM

Public Pensions Throw Their Weight Around in Private Debt

Brian Chappatta
Bloomberg January 6, 2020

View photos

(Bloomberg Opinion) -- Pension funds are the ocean liners of global markets. In the U.S. alone, state and local retirement funds have $4.57 trillion in assets. Across the developed world, the pool of money is close to $30 trillion. That means any change in their investment allocation, no matter how incremental, can create a seismic shift in certain corners of finance.

The hedge-fund industry, for example, swelled over the past two decades in no small part because of eager pension managers. Local officials banked on star investors delivering outsized gains to help the retirement funds meet their lofty annual return benchmarks, which in some cases exceeded 7%. According to data from Pew Charitable Trusts, U.S. state pension funds had a 26% allocation to alternative investments in 2016, up from just 11% in 2006.

Of course, with more hedge funds came fewer ways for them to profit — and pensions took notice. In September 2014, the California Public Employees’ Retirement System rocked Wall Street by announcing that it would divest the entire $4 billion it had across 24 hedge funds and six hedge funds of funds. In 2016, New Jersey’s pension fund cut its $9 billion hedge-fund allocation in half and New York City’s retirement fund for civil employees exited its $1.5 billion portfolio. More than 4,000 hedge funds have been liquidated in the past five years. With even some of the most well-known managers calling it quits, hedge funds are clearly in retreat.

The market for private debt and direct lending is trending in precisely the opposite direction. Managers are raising money hand over fist, as they have in each of the past few years. Assets in private-credit strategies now total more than $800 billion — doubling from 2012 and up from less than $100 billion in 2005. By and large, it’s been simply too hard to pass up yields that sometimes crack double digits when typical junk bonds offer just 5%.

Not surprisingly, public pension funds want in on the action. An overwhelming majority of private-credit investors expect them to pour money into the asset class in the next three years. While that may sound like good news for the industry in the short-term, it could be an early indication that it’s game over for the booming market as we know it.

Bloomberg News’s Fola Akinnibi and Kelsey Butler talked to Al Alaimo, who oversees credit investments for Arizona’s $41 billion State Retirement System. He’s aiming to boost direct lending to 17% of the portfolio from about 13.6%. They also noted that the Ohio Police & Fire Pension Fund and the Teachers’ Retirement System of the State of Illinois are increasing their private-debt exposure. More broadly, 281 U.S. public pensions were involved with private credit in 2019, up from 186 in 2015, according to Preqin data. And they’ve increased their median allocation to 2.9% from 2.1%.

Now, that’s far from a huge stake. And pensions are something of an ideal candidate to invest in illiquid private debt, given that they have long time horizons and aren’t vulnerable to investor withdrawals, in contrast to Neil Woodford’s flagship fund and Natixis SA’s H2O Asset Management.

That doesn’t mean that they can’t get into trouble, though. As I wrote in August, Alabama’s pension funds got caught up in the bankruptcy of luxury movie and dining chain iPic Entertainment Inc. The state’s pensioners now own and operate the theaters, for better or worse. Marc Green, the pension’s chief investment officer, recently told The Wall Street Journal that working through distressed investments has paid off before and iPic may yet be a winner for the Retirement Systems of Alabama.

It’s worth heeding the lesson from the struggles of hedge funds: What worked before might not continue to work in the future, especially if more money is chasing the same strategy. “We wish there were fewer people in the marketplace,” Alaimo said about private debt.

Of course, that’s true for any market. But it’s especially risky for private credit and direct lending because handing all the power to borrowers gives them an opening to lower yields and weaken creditor protections. If that sounds familiar, it’s because that’s also what happened in the leveraged-loan market as investors flocked to the floating-rate securities during the Federal Reserve’s tightening cycle. For now, looser covenants aren’t necessarily deal-breakers, but without some balance, they could lead to steeper losses in an economic slowdown.

A survey of more than 60 private-credit managers by the industry trade group Alternative Credit Council revealed expectations for the market to further expand and deliver strong returns. Curiously, just 23% said they expected recovery rates to be lower than historical averages over the next three years, while 42% predict they’ll be higher. That might be the case if the economy ramps back up, or slows down but avoids an actual recession. But it seems naive to think private debt will fare better than before when managers are fighting one another for deals and sitting on hundreds of billions of dollars, just waiting for a chance to invest.

That dynamic isn’t likely to change soon, especially now that pension-fund behemoths are setting their sights squarely on private debt. For those that have been in the market for years, like the Arizona retirement system, it just means keeping tabs on existing managers to make sure they don’t veer into weaker deals.

For those trying to catch what might be the back end of the wave, it’s not so simple. Without proper caution and foresight, they might find themselves quickly navigating troubled waters.

To contact the author of this story: Brian Chappatta at bchappatta1@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Daniel Niemi at dniemi1@bloomberg.net

This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.

Brian Chappatta is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering debt markets. He previously covered bonds for Bloomberg News. He is also a CFA charterholder.

For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinion

©2020 Bloomberg L.P.

U.S. Pays Bulk of Tariff Costs as Levies Fail to Save Steel Jobs

Reade Pickert

BloombergJanuary 6, 2020

(Bloomberg) -- Terms of Trade is a daily newsletter that untangles a world embroiled in trade wars. Sign up here. 

American companies and consumers are paying almost the full cost of U.S. tariffs, and the impact of those duties on import volume magnifies over time, according to a paper circulated Monday by the National Bureau of Economic Research.

Traditional trade theory would suggest tariffs levied by the U.S. should cause foreign firms to lower prices and thereby force them to shoulder the cost of the duties. However, the study by Federal Reserve Bank of New York researcher Mary Amiti and professors Stephen Redding of Princeton and David Weinstein of Columbia shows the levies haven’t had a major impact on foreign export prices, suggesting American firms and consumers bear almost all the burden in most sectors as companies work to reorganize supply chains.

“Among goods that continue to be imported, a 10% tariff is associated with about a 10% drop in imports for the first three months, but this elasticity doubles in magnitude in subsequent months,” the authors wrote. That suggests “the 2018 tariffs - many of which were applied in October - are only now having their full impact on U.S. import volumes.”

A separate working paper circulated by NBER Monday showed the 2018-19 tariffs also damped U.S. exports.

While Americans bear the cost of tariffs in most sectors, the same doesn’t apply in the politically important steel industry, the study by Amiti, Redding and Weinstein showed.

President Donald Trump fulfilled a campaign promise when his administration put 25% duties on imported steel in March 2018. The decision, meant to protect the industry from dumping practices by countries like China, was widely praised by producers, several of which announced plans to boost output.

The paper finds the European Union and nations including South Korea and Japan are shouldering almost half the cost of U.S. steel tariffs. That’s good news for U.S. companies demanding the metal, “but bad news for workers hoping that steel tariffs will bring back jobs,” the paper said. It also may help explain why American steel production only increased by 2% per year between the third quarter of 2017 and the third quarter of 2019 despite the 25% steel tariffs, according to the authors.

The paper follows U.S. Steel Corp.’s December announcement that it would close its giant plant outside of Detroit and lay off as many as 1,545 workers. Following this, U.S. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross said the closure didn’t mean the import tariffs aren’t working.

The paper’s authors seem to disagree. “These results suggest that the steel tariffs have a much smaller capacity to protect steel workers than other tariffs,” they said.

--With assistance from Joe Deaux and Shawn Donnan.

To contact the reporter on this story: Reade Pickert in Washington at epickert@bloomberg.net

To contact the editors responsible for this story: Scott Lanman at slanman@bloomberg.net, Ana Monteiro, Jeff Kearns

For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com

©2020 Bloomberg L.P.

#FIGHTFOR15

Full-time minimum wage workers cannot afford a 2-bedroom rental anywhere in the US

Published Wed, Jun 26 201

Alicia Adamczyk@ALICIAADAMCZYK


Twenty/20
New York, San Francisco and Washington D.C. are often spotlighted for their astronomical housing prices. But a new report finds that it’s not just the coasts that are facing an affordability crisis: A full-time worker earning the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour cannot rent an affordable two-bedroom apartment anywhere in the country, where affordable is defined as comprising up to 30% of a renter’s budget.

That’s according to the National Low Income Housing Coalition’s 30th annual Out of Reach report, which finds that a nationwide affordable housing shortage, wage stagnation and racial inequities have left a growing number of people unable to find a place to live that’s reasonably within their budget.

NLIHC’s report calculates a “housing wage” that estimates how much a full-time worker must make in order to afford a fair market rental without spending more than 30% of his or her income. For 2019, the housing wage is $22.96 for a two-bedroom rental, and $18.65 for a one-bedroom.

Click to enlarge

The means someone earning the federal minimum wage would have to work more than three full-time jobs — 127 hours per week — to afford a two-bedroom rental, and 103 hours for a one-bedroom.

Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders called the housing situation a “national disgrace.”

A minimum wage increase alone won’t fix the crisis

The report notes that it will take more than just an increase in the minimum wage to rectify the situation. More than 40 cities and states have instituted higher minimum wages than the federal minimum of $7.25, but the highest tops out at $12 per hour — far less than the housing wage calculated by NLIHC.

Even the national average renter’s income of $17.57 per hour, as calculated by NLIHC, is too little to afford a modest two-bedroom. Someone earning $17.57 per hour, in fact, would be able to find an affordable two-bedroom apartment in just 10% of U.S. counties.

Financial experts routinely recommend that people spend no more than 30% of their income on housing, but the report drives home just how hard this is to do for a wide swath of workers in the U.S. today. Not only are many Americans not earning enough to afford a “modest” rental, but a lack of reasonably-priced housing options is another culprit: NLIHC calculates there is a shortage of 7 million affordable rental homes nationally.

The organization expects the situation to get worse in the coming years. Most of the industries forecasted to see the most growth over the next decade, including home health aides and food prep workers, boast median wages that are less than the one-bedroom and two-bedroom housing wage figures detailed above.

Click to enlarge

The report calls for increased funding to certain federal housing programs, such as the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit, and advocates for a renters tax credit based on the difference between 30% of a tenant’s household income and their rental costs.

---30---

#FIGHTFOR15

Two-thirds of Americans favor raising federal minimum wage to $15 an hour

BY LESLIE DAVIS AND HANNAH HARTIG\
NEWS IN THE NUMBERS
JULY 30, 2019

By a wide margin, Americans say they favor raising the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour. But there is a deep partisan divide in views of this proposed policy – a version of which recently passed the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives, though it is unlikely to be taken up by the GOP-controlled Senate.

Two-thirds of Americans (67%) support raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour, including 41% who say they strongly favor such an increase, according to a Pew Research Center survey conducted this spring.

Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents are largely united in backing a $15 an hour federal minimum wage: 86% favor this, including nearly six-in-ten (59%) who say they strongly support it.

Republican opinion on this issue is more divided, but a majority of Republicans and Republican leaners – 57% – oppose raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour, including nearly three-in-ten (29%) who say they are strongly against it.

The current federal minimum wage is $7.25 an hour, though many states have higher minimum wages.

Majorities of women and men, whites, blacks and Hispanics favor increasing the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour, though there are demographic differences in how widespread support for this policy is.

Women are more likely than men to support raising the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour (72% vs. 61%, respectively). About nine-in-ten black Americans (93%) support this increase – including 80% who express strong support – compared with about three-quarters of Hispanics (73%) and six-in-ten whites.

There is a stark ideological gap in support for a $15 federal minimum wage among Republicans. Conservative Republicans oppose an increase by more than two-to-one (69% vs. 30%), but a majority of moderate and liberal Republicans (59%) favor such an increase.

In contrast, there are more modest ideological differences on this issue among Democrats. Overwhelming majorities of both liberal Democrats (91%) and conservative and moderate Democrats (82%) favor raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour, but liberal Democrats are substantially more likely to say they strongly favor this policy (68% vs. 51%).

Majorities across all income levels favor a $15 federal minimum wage. Nearly three-quarters (74%) of those with annual family incomes of less than $40,000 favor this increase, as does a narrower majority of those with family incomes of $75,000 or more (61%).

At least eight-in-ten Democrats across all income levels back this increase. In contrast, lower-income Republicans are more likely than those with higher incomes to support this proposal: 56% of Republicans with annual incomes of less than $40,000 say they favor raising the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour, compared with 34% of Republicans with incomes of $75,000 or more.

Leslie Davis is an intern at Pew Research Center.

Hannah Hartig is a research associate focusing on U.S. politics and policy research at Pew Research Center.

#FIGHTFOR15

A huge majority of Americans want a $15 minimum wage, but they waver after hearing its economic impact

THE REACTIONARY BUSINESS INTERESTS ESPECIALLY FAST FOOD LIE ABOUT ITS ACTUAL IMPACT, HAS MCDONALDS OR WENDY'S GONE OUT OF BUSINESS?

NO THEY HAVE THRIVED UNDER THE MINIMUM WAGE BROUGHT IN IN 1938

Joseph Zeballos-Roig and Walt Hickey
Jul 18, 2019, 11:05 AM

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

An overwhelming majority of respondents in a new INSIDER poll indicated they would support a $15 minimum wage, highlighting how a progressive priority has gained support across the ideological spectrum.

But support declined markedly among self-identified Democrats and self-identified Republicans when they were told of a possible impact on the American economy.

In other words, Americans are largely comfortable with sweeping ideas, like a $15 minimum wage or "Medicare for All," that could improve their lives — but they start to waver when they understand some of its possible trade-offs.

The federal minimum wage stands at $7.25, and it hasn't been raised in a decade. Last month marked the longest period in American history without a wage increase.

An overwhelming majority of respondents in a new INSIDER poll indicated they would support a $15 minimum wage, highlighting how a progressive priority has gained support across the ideological spectrum. But support declined markedly among self-identified Democrats and self-identified Republicans when they were told of its possible impact on the American economy.

The broad support is good news for House Democrats. They voted 231-199 on Thursday to gradually lift the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2025, delivering on a priority that's long been popular among their liberal base. But the bill is not expected to advance in the GOP-led Senate, where Republicans argue it would kill jobs and stymie economic gains made under President Donald Trump's time in office.

The vote follows a report released last week from the Congressional Budget Office projecting that a $15 minimum wage could lift 1.3 million Americans out of poverty but also put an equal number of Americans out of work. It also projected that raising the minimum wage would boost pay for 27 million workers.

Read more: A government report found that if the US raised the minimum wage to $15 an hour it would eliminate 1.3 million jobs — but also lift 1.3 million Americans out of povertyFAKE JOBS VS REAL IMPACT LIFTING PEOPLE OUT OF POVERTY 

The federal minimum wage stands at $7.25, and it hasn't been raised in a decade. Last month marked the longest period in American history without a wage increase, according to the Economic Policy Institute. But with wages stagnant, the $15 minimum wage has become a political priority among Democrats: Nearly all the primary candidates have endorsed it.

In our poll, we asked over 1,100 respondents about their views on raising the minimum wage and its possible impact, per the CBO report. We did this by asking two separate questions.

The first question, "Do you support or oppose increasing the federal minimum wage to $15 per hour?" was intended to determine whether the respondent liked the broad policy change of hiking the minimum wage.

Overall, a total 63% of respondents supported or strongly supported increasing the minimum wage to $15 per hour, with the strongest supporters being on the left, and only 22% opposed. Around 81% of respondents who self-identified as Democratic primary voters supported or strongly supported raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour. Only 10% opposed or strongly opposed it, and 7% neither supported nor opposed it. One percent responded, "I don't know."

The second question asked more about the broader policy implications of the minimum wage hike, per the CBO. Much later in the survey, respondents were asked:

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office found that a proposed policy would have the following impacts: Pay increases for 27 million workers, 1.3 million households lifted out of poverty, however, a median projection of 1.3 million job losses.

Based on those benefits and costs alone, would you support or oppose that policy proposal?

After being told that "a proposed policy" to raise the minimum wage could lead to 1.3 million job losses, people were considerably less enthusiastic. Thirty-seven percent of respondents would support a policy with those implications, considerably down from the 63% who backed a $15 minimum wage.

However, while some were turned off by the policy — 25% opposed it, up from the 22% who opposed the $15 minimum wage — more simply became neutral on the topic or said they didn't know how they'd feel, a group that constitutes 37% of the set compared with just 15% who answered that way in response to the more straightforward $15 per hour question.

Indeed, only half of Democratic respondents still supported or strongly supported the generic measure. Then 16% opposed or strongly opposed it, and 24% neither supported nor opposed it. Nine percent said, "I don't know."

The same trend was visible among self-identified Republicans. Forty-three percent supported or strongly supported a $15 minimum wage, while 40% opposed or strongly opposed the measure. Fifteen percent neither supported nor opposed it, and 1% responded, "I don't know."

Only 24% of Republican respondents supported or strongly supported it after being told that a policy to raise the wage would lead to the job losses. Forty-four percent opposed or strongly opposed it, while 26% neither supported nor opposed it. Six percent said, "I don't know."

Read more: A minimum-wage worker needs 1.5 jobs just to afford half the rent for a 2-bedroom apartment in most of the US

The INSIDER results are reminiscent of other polling conducted on "Medicare for all," a popular idea among progressive Democrats that's gained traction among eight candidates, including Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, two primary front-runners. Many voters back creating a government-run healthcare system. But support plummets when they learn they could pay higher taxes or face longer waiting periods before seeing a doctor.

In other words, Americans are largely comfortable with sweeping ideas, like a $15 minimum wage or Medicare for All, that could improve their lives — but they start to waver when they understand some of its possible trade-offs.

SurveyMonkey Audience polls from a national sample balanced by census data of age and gender. Respondents are incentivized to complete surveys through charitable contributions. Generally speaking, digital polling tends to skew toward people with access to the internet. SurveyMonkey Audience doesn't try to weight its sample based on race or income. Total 1,006 respondents collected July 9 to July 10 with a margin of error plus or minus 3.15 percentage points and a 95% confidence level. See this page for more details about methodology.

SEE ALSO: The minimum wage is set to increase in 21 states and DC in 2019 — here's what it will be in every state

#FIGHTFOR15

Almost half of all Americans work in low-wage jobs

BY AIMEE PICCHI

DECEMBER 2, 2019 / 1:04 PM / MONEYWATCH

• Almost half of U.S. workers between ages 18 to 64 are employed in low-wage jobs, the Brookings Institution found.
• Low-wage jobs are pervasive, representing between one-third to two-thirds of all jobs in the country's almost 400 metropolitan areas.
• Smaller cities in the South and West tend to have the highest share, such as Las Cruces, New Mexico, and Jacksonville, North Carolina, where more than 6 in 10 workers are in low-wage work.

---

America's unemployment rate is at a half-century low, but it also has a job-quality problem that affects nearly half the population, with a study finding 44% of U.S. workers are employed in low-wage jobs that pay median annual wages of $18,000.

Contrary to popular opinion, these workers aren't teenagers or young adults just starting their careers, write Martha Ross and Nicole Bateman of the Brookings Institution's Metropolitan Policy Program, which conducted the analysis. 

Most of the 53 million Americans working in low-wage jobs are adults in their prime working years, or between about 25 to 54, they noted. Their median hourly wage is $10.22 per hour — that's above the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour but well below what's considered the living wage for many regions.

Even though the economy is adding more jobs, there's increasing evidence that many of those new positions don't offer the kind of wages and benefits required to get ahead. A new measure called the Job Quality Index recently found there is now a growing number of low-paying jobs relative to employment with above-average pay. 

For the U.S. overall, median household income is $66,465, according to Sentier Research, with roughly half of families earning less than that amount. 

Workers aren't shy about expressing their frustrations, with about 6 of 10 workers saying their jobs are mediocre to downright bad, according to a recent Gallup job-quality survey. For instance, 1 in 5 workers told Gallup their benefits are worse now than five years ago. 

"Not enough jobs paying decent wages" 

Low-wage jobs represent between one-third to two-thirds of all jobs in the country's almost 400 metropolitan areas, Brookings found. Smaller cities in the South and West tend to have the highest share, such as Las Cruces, New Mexico, and Jacksonville, North Carolina, where more than 60% of workers are low-wage.

But not only small cities in the South and West have a high proportion of low-paid jobs, the Brookings authors noted.

"Places with some of the highest wages and most productive economies are home to large numbers of low-wage workers: nearly one million in the Washington, D.C., region, 700,000 each in Boston and San Francisco, and 560,000 in Seattle," Ross and Bateman wrote. 

But, they added, the issue can't entirely be addressed by improving workers' skills, since low-wage jobs reflect the strength of a local economy. Recent research suggests "there simply are not enough jobs paying decent wages for people without college degrees (who make up the majority of the labor force) to escape low-wage work," they wrote. 

In other words, even if low-wage workers undergo job training and learn new skills, they're not guaranteed to find good-paying jobs anywhere near where they currently live.

So what makes a good job? Simply put, middle-class wages and benefits like health insurance, according to previous research from Brookings. But only about 30 million Americans have good jobs by that definition — and most of those are held by workers with college degrees, it found. 

The reality is that Americans are working but aren't earning enough to gain stable economic footings. As Ross and Bateman noted, "Nearly half of all workers earn wages that are not enough, on their own, to promote economic security."

VIDEO

First published on December 2, 2019 / 1:04 PM

© 2019 CBS Interactive Inc.. All Rights Reserved.