Will Increasing the Minimum Wage Help or Hurt Our Local Economy? 

Yes I am still on Election Issues. Issue 2 would raise the minimum wage in Ohio to $6.85 an hour. Like everything else involving economics, there are conflicting opinions and even conflicting statistical information. The bottom line question for me is, what can we do to get over 1/3 of our population out of the poverty level, and the over 6% unemployed, jobs. I have a feeling we are all in agreement so far. To start, let me give you the link to the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections posting of Issue 2.  The question becomes one of trying to figure out how to vote on this Issue!

Some history on this. Only recently did Ohio raise the minimum wage to meet National standards: $5.15 an hour. Prior to that it was $4.25 an hour. An increase (at that wage) from $8,840 a year to $10,712 a year. Second point we can all agree on? It would be extremely hard to live on $10,712 a year.  I'm going to give you a bit more Census 2000 info: 

 Families with at least 3.3 people (!) make up 58.7% of Cleveland's population

 Cleveland's Median age is 33 years old

Average Family Wage in Cleveland is $30,970  (National Average is just over $60,000)

 Average Family Wage in Cuyahoga County is $46,785 (still under the National Average)

1/3 of Clevelanders and 50% of Cleveland's children were found to be earning below the Federal poverty level of $19,971 per year.   When I do my math (please correct me if I am wrong), if the minimum wage is raised to $6.85 an hour, that would bring the annual wage earned to $14,248. Do you notice this is still below Fed. Poverty Level? What does this mean? 

There are those who argue that raising the minimum wage hurts our economy, lays off more people and slows new job  growth.  Here is a link to Jonathan Adler's article on the National Review website on the potential negative impact of Issue 2.  He states that there is a lot of data to show that increases in minimum wage show a cut back in jobs most importantly in  retail and small business.    The argument in general usually surrounds the idea that if an employer has to pay you more money, they will have to cut back on staff. What do you think?

Cleveland.com has an article with information from supporters of the increase. That is worth reading as well. It's always mind boggling to me that both sides of economic issues can proclaim the same benefits. That is what makes it so hard to figure out how to vote, in my humble opinion (IMHO) :-) 

And lest you think that this is an issue that divides along party lines, think again. Current candidates who support Issue 2 include people like Ted Strickland (Democrat) and Mike DeWine (Repulican).  Thankfully we can think for ourselves on this issue and not have to clutter up the arena thinking lilke a party person!

This is the one ballot issue of which I am still undecided! I  welcome any input, other suggested articles, etc, to help me and maybe all of us formulate an opinion here. I know when I had the opportunity, I did sign a petition to get it on the ballot. 

On the one hand, an additonal $1,228 in someone's pocket each year is better than nothing. On the other hand, it still keeps those same people below the poverty level. And does it really hurt the overall economic growth of Northeast Ohio?  I am going to keep researching this issue and will update my post here if and when I get more interesting data or opinions to share.  Please submit your comments or ideas too!  

Get Ready to Vote on November 7th

How will you vote on Issue 3? The Facts of the Issue as provided by Learn and Earn.org  can be seen by clicking here.  We all got burned when Ohio Lottery money was supposed to be earmarked for educational purposes and then the politicians decided otherwise. Has it made you leery of supporting other types of ballot issues? This current configuration is to put slot machines at every race track in Ohio (there are 7) with two Cleveland locations to be determined (that brings the total to 9, and one of the locations is in the Flats). A 'check and balance' on the system is to be The Ohio Board of Regent's control over the percentage of money from each dollar earned through the slots....NOT the politicians. Students will apply for inclusion into this 'trust' of monies. As long as they are accepted into the program and then accepted into an Ohio school of higher learning, they can utilize this money. 

How do you feel about the argument that creating locations for slot machines will add several thousand jobs to Ohio?  I personally am going to vote for Issue 3; I say we need more jobs and we need to stop the drain of monies from Ohio to other state's gambling arenas. Yes I know some people are addicted to gambling. But they will gamble their monies on our Lottery or go to other states regardless of whether we have slot machines in Ohio. That is how addiction works...I would prefer our money stay here, and I am willing to bet that the Board of Regents portion of the monies earned is in safer hands than they were with our Governor.  Is the system perfect? I doubt it, but it doesn't sound evil or ill-planned. Yes the casino owners who back Learn and Earn will make money. I'd like to think that there are more positives than negatives to Issue 3 so that is why I am supporting it.

Maureen McCabe's Columbus Ohio Blog has a poll on casinos in Columbus which began a few days ago. Please  check out her blog post, the poll itself; you can even vote! Comments about Issue 3  came up even though the blog is about casinos in Columbus, because Issue 3 would have to pass before that was a realistic consideration. You can also get some thoughtful opposing commentary on Issue 3 on her blog.

And as I have posted before regarding election issues, this post is not only about Issue 3, but hopefully it will help encourage you  to vote on November 7th, no matter how you feel about Issue 3.