I will post again...the one that counts. Just because you have been taught to discount and deflect "Huffpo", doesn't mean it is wrong. In the case of minimum wage decreases over the past 40 years, it has been well documented and reported by many credible sources (never Faux) so Huffpo is just another deflect. This is the overall, gross macro vision of what is happening - it is a long term trend that proves the old saw about "to Democrats, low wages are the problem, to Republicans, low wages are the solution..."
Guess who has been winning for the last 40 years? Hint; it ain't the American people!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/25/private-sector-workers_n_1699103.htmlThe problem with referencing Huffpo is the same that you would get referencing Faux.
The Huffpo article relies heavily on the NELP studies (National Employment Law Project funded by a consortium of labor unions). On the surface the initial NELP study, and the previous NELP study it references as reference #3 seem to provide compelling evidence until you read the methodology and attempt to reconcile the data with BLS statistics so that they can arrive at their required conclusions.
1. They are purposefully considering only a very small sample of sectors in the primary reference (they narrow down to 12 specific industries). Their total sample then becomes 13.6 million workers who make $10 or less an hour.
2. They make no differentiation between full-time and part-time work, second jobs, seasonal occupations, nor do they consider total household income for the select occupations they have chosen to measure.
3. They then applied this total 13.6 million employees in a non-sequitor fashion to the industries they were determined to make an example of (even though the total numbers include other members of that sector).
The Huffpo article is actually not too bad, it's just the foundation it is built on that is faulty. NELP research will always show that wages are too low, companies make too much money, and unionization or legislative action (that would lead to unionization) offers the best remedy.
3) Identifying Top 50 Employers in Low‐Wage Industries:
a. Identifying Low‐Wage Sectors: Using BLS/Current Population Survey report on Characteristics of Minimum Wage Workers (
http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2011tbls.htm#5), identified three sectors that together employ 69.9% of workers paid at or below the minimum wage – 2.96 million workers at or below the minimum wage out of 3.8 million nationally. Sectors: Leisure and Hospitality, Retail Trade, Education and Health Services. Using crosswalk of Census Industry Classifications to 2007 NAICS codes (
http://www.bls.gov/cps/cenind.pdf), pulled NAICS sector codes associated with each sector identified. (Retail Trade (44‐45), Leisure and Hospitality (71‐72), Education and Health Services (61‐62).
b. Identifying Lowest‐Wage Industries within Low‐Wage Sectors: Using industry‐specific employment and wage estimates from the BLS Occupational and Employment Statistics (OES) program (
http://www.bls.gov/oes/oes_dl.htm), identified industries that fall within the sectors identified in (a). Filtered these industries to identify those for which the median percentile hourly wage is $10.00 per hour or less. This yielded 12 industries encompassing 13.6 million total employees. Using crosswalks of 2007 NAICS to 2002 NAICS to 1987 SIC, translated Low‐wage NAICS industry codes into SIC codes.
c. Identifying Companies within Low‐Wage Industries: Used Capital IQ Screening tool to generate a list of companies meeting the following criteria: Primary SIC Code matches low‐wage list generated in (b); Incorporated in the US; FY 2011 Total Revenue >$0. Yield: 106 companies (102 after de‐duping by parent company and removing firms without reported employees. Then used Capital IQ Screening tool to generate a second list of global companies that do not report U.S. locations, yet have substantial U.S. segment revenue and meet the following criteria: Primary SIC Code matches low‐wage list generated in (b); NOT Incorporated in the US; Geographic Segment Revenue: United States Segment Revenue >10%. Yield: 5 companies. Then removed companies from list whose primary business is operating franchised locations of brands owned by other companies on the list, removed companies from the list that have starting wages above $10.00 per hour (source: Glassdoor.com employee‐generated reports), and added companies that are large franchisors in low‐wage industries, using the Franchise Times 2011 list of Top 200 Franchisors (link).
d. Determining Companies’ U.S. Workforces: Using available public information, estimated each company’s total U.S. workforce. When possible, pulled the U.S. workforce from public companies’ SEC filings. When SEC filings were unclear or unavailable, calculated estimated U.S. workforce numbers based on a range of sources, including press reports, ratio of U.S. locations to overseas locations, and public estimates of average workers per location. For franchisor companies, attributed all estimated U.S. employment by franchisees to the franchisor itself. This attribution is justified given the widely‐
Endnotes
recognized significant degree of influence that franchisors exercise over the business operations of franchisees.
1 NELP analysis using Consumer Price Index, available at
http://www.raisetheminimumwage.com/facts/entry/amount‐ with‐inflation/
2 David Reilly, “U.S. Tax Haul Trails Profit Surge,” Wall Street Journal, Jan. 4, 2012, available at
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204368104577138891310893150.html3 NELP analysis of Current Population Survey (2009‐2011).
4 U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Occupational Employment Projections to 2020,” published in the Monthly Labor Review, Jan. 2012, available at
http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_table_104.htm5 Executive compensation data unavailable for Doctor’s Associates, Inc. and Seven & I Holdings.
6 Dividend payment and share buyback data unavailable for Doctor’s Associates, Inc. and Seven & I Holdings.