President Obama called for an increase in the minimum wage from $7.25 to $9 per hour during his State of the Union last night, a proposal that was quickly rejected by top Republicans like Sen. Marco Rubio and Rep. Paul Ryan. Today, House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) also came out against the proposal.

“When you raise the price of employment, guess what happens? You get less of it,” Boehner said at a House Republican press conference this morning. “At a time when Americans are still asking the question ‘Where are the jobs?’ why would we want to make it harder for small employers to hire people?”

Contrary to Boehner’s claims, research suggests that minimum wage increases have little or no effect on job creation. One study found “no detectable employment losses,” another found “no impact on hours worker or employment levels,” and another found that the minimum wage actually strengthens employment. Other studies found that raising the minimum wage doesn’t impact job growth even if it is done during periods of high unemployment.

The low-wage job sector accounts for a majority of the jobs created since the recession, but the minimum wage remains historically weak. To match the buying power it had in 1968, today’s wage would need to be raised by $3 per hour. The Economic Policy Institute estimates that raising the minimum wage to $9 per hour would benefit 21 million workers.

In his State of the Union address tonight, President Obama calls for raising the minimum wage to $9 per hour, up from its current $7.25. He also called for raising the tipped minimum wage — made by tipped employees, such as waitresses — and for indexing the minimum wage to inflation so that it grows along with the economy:

We know our economy is stronger when we reward an honest day’s work with honest wages. But today, a full-time worker making the minimum wage earns $14,500 a year. Even with the tax relief we’ve put in place, a family with two kids that earns the minimum wage still lives below the poverty line. That’s wrong. That’s why, since the last time this Congress raised the minimum wage, nineteen states have chosen to bump theirs even higher.

Tonight, let’s declare that in the wealthiest nation on Earth, no one who works full-time should have to live in poverty, and raise the federal minimum wage to $9.00 an hour. This single step would raise the incomes of millions of working families. It could mean the difference between groceries or the food bank; rent or eviction; scraping by or finally getting ahead. For businesses across the country, it would mean customers with more money in their pockets.

In fact, working folks shouldn’t have to wait year after year for the minimum wage to go up while CEO pay has never been higher. So here’s an idea that Governor Romney and I actually agreed on last year: let’s tie the minimum wage to the cost of living, so that it finally becomes a wage you can live on.

According to a fact sheet released by the administration, “Raising the minimum wage to $9 restores the inflation-adjusted value of the minimum wage back to where it was in 1981.” If the minimum wage had simply kept up with inflation since the 1960s, it would be over $10 per hour today.

Currently, the minimum wage does not lift a family of three out of poverty and its covering a much smaller percentage of health care and education costs than it used to. Raising the minimum wage also disproportionately helps women and minorities, since they make up a majority of low-wage workers.

Conservatives usually oppose minimum wage increases on the grounds that they will hurt small businesses and job growth. However, study after study has shown that raising the minimum wage does not have a negative effect on employment. In fact, an analysis of state minimum wage increases showed that those state boosting their wage “had job growth slightly above the national average.” This holds true even when the economy is weak.

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) today vetoed an increase in the minimum wage that was passed by the state’s Democratic senate. Using what’s known as a “conditional veto,” Christie sent the bill back saying he would sign it if certain changes were made, including: shrinking the increase from $8.50 to $8.25 per hour, phasing it in over three years, and eliminating a provision tying the wage to inflation.

New Jersey’s current minimum wage stands at $7.25, so Christie’s veto, in essence, is saying that he believes a $1 increase in the wage over three years is sufficient. As the New Jersey Policy Perspective noted, “the first year increase proposed by the governor of 25 cents will be erased by inflation by the time the third year kicks in its 25 cents.” Here are more benefits that Christie denied to working New Jerseyans:

– Wages would have increased by $439 million in the first year;

– Overall economic activity would increase by $278 million in the first year;

– The equivalent of 2,420 new full time jobs would be created;

– 537,000 people would have received an increase in wages: 307,000 New Jerseyans making between $7.25 and $8.50 per hour would’ve seen an immediate raise, and 230,000 New Jerseyans making between $8.50 and $9.75 per hour would’ve seen a raise as pay scales were adjusted upwards.

Christie vetoed the wage increase, even though the cost of living in the Garden State is about 30 percent higher than the national average, according to a study by the New Jersey Minimum Wage Advisory Commission.

Christie claimed that the minimum wage bill would threaten the slow economic recovery in New Jersey. “The sudden, significant minimum-wage increase in this bill, coupled with automatic raises each year tied to the Unites States consumer price index, will jeopardize the economic recovery we all seek,” Christie said. But as the Center for American Progress’ T. William Lester, David Madland, and Nick Bunker wrote, “We reviewed academic research that examines the effects of minimum wage increases during a recession or stretch of time with high unemployment and found significant evidence that even during hard economic times, raising the minimum wage is likely to have no adverse effect on employment.”

Nearly one million workers will see their pay increase in January due to scheduled increases in the minimum wage, according to a release by the National Employment Law Project. These workers in in Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Missouri, Montana, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington will have their hourly pay rise by between 10 and 35 cents per hour, “resulting in an extra $190 to $510 per year for the average directly-affected worker,” NELP found. This table shows the increases in each state:

If the federal minimum wage had kept up with inflation since the 1960s, it would be over $10 today, a far cry from the current $7.25. And as the Economic Policy Institute noted, “Based on current projections of inflation growth over the next ten years, the federal minimum wage will lose nearly 20 percent of its purchasing power by 2022, equaling $5.99 in today’s dollars.”

Nearly one in four American workers is expected to be in a low-wage job over the next decade (which doesn’t just harm the individual worker, but is detrimental to the workers’ children). Raising the minimum wage would especially benefit women, as “women comprise 54.5 percent of workers who would be affected by a potential minimum-wage increase.”

The recent report by the Pew Research Center that births per every 1000 American women have dropped to historic lows kicked off a flurry of concern amongst conservatives that American culture is beginning to undervalue the future. However, that concern ignores the rather dismal job the country’s economy is doing to care for the children Americans are already having — and the way conservative policy preferences are exacerbating the problem. In particular, Amanda Marcotte flagged a recent round-up of studies at The American Prospect detailing the ways low-wage jobs not only harm the workers who hold them, but can harm the children of those workers as well.

One out of every five children ages 12 to 17 currently live in a low-income family — one making twice the federal poverty level or less. And as the recent round of labor protests against Walmart and the fast food industry highlighted, two out of every three jobs the United States is predicted to produce over the next decade will be low-wage and will not require more than a high school diploma. The proliferation of low-wage work as an ever greater share of America’s job supply can have all sorts of damaging effects on the country’s future generations, as the paper found:

Low-wage work prevents parents from participating in their children’s development. Many low-income parents face longer hours, unusual hours, inflexible schedules, and lack benefits such as paid sick days, paid medical and parental lave, and vacation. This prevents them from providing the same attention and care to their children as higher income parents — often forcing a choice between their family and their income. They’re often less able to involve themselves in their child’s schooling, or to even ensure the child regularly attends class and completes homework. The kinds of jobs to which low-income parents are constrained are even associated with higher levels of depression, which of course effects the emotional health of the family as a whole.

Children of low-wage parents are often forced into the labor market early themselves. Bringing in enough money for the family to make ends meet can often force low-income youth themselves into the labor market prematurely, which can damage their socialization, development, and schoolwork. While studies of the effect of work on youth is mixed — with some positive results in terms of experience, literacy, and positive social influences — multiple investigations have also found a negative correlation between how much young people work at a job and how well they perform in high school. In one investigation of teens who dropped out of high school, 29 percent cited family concerns as a reason for leaving. The demands placed on low-wage parents can force their children into roles caring for other family members at a young age, or to take care of themselves.

Children of low-wage parents are more likely to face educational difficulties. Low-income youth are three times more likely to drop out of high school than middle-class youth, and six times as likely as young people from high-income families. Less than half of low-income youth between the ages of 18 and 24 remain consistently involved in school or connected to the labor market. As for higher education, a 2010 paper found that three quarters of students listed their family as “their top source for college support” and “the place they turn most for help” — precisely the kind of support low-wage work can prevent a parent from providing.

These trade-offs can trap parents in economic or familial hardship. Often times, advancing out of low-wage jobs requires an employee to take on longer or more unusual hours — something parents are less able to do. Thus a feedback loop begins in which low-wage parents must sacrifice the developmental needs of their children to raise the family’s standard of living, or in which parents refuse offers of higher-paying jobs precisely because they do not want to leave their children without the attention they need.

Children of low-wage parents are more at risk for health problems. Children of low-income parents are more likely to suffer from obesity, and female teenagers in low-income families are more likely to become pregnant, again largely because of how the demands of low-wage work can hamper parental involvement in their children’s lives.

All these effects are particualrly pronounced for minority, immigrant, and single-parent families. The paper — by Lisa Dodson at Boston College and Randy Albelda at the University of Massachusetts, along with Diana Salas Coronado and Marya Mtshali — recommends policy responses including more paid sick and parental leave for workers, more vacation time, more schedule flexibility for workers, and efforts to increase hourly wages.

The New Jersey State Senate voted yesterday to increase the Garden State’s minimum wage to $8.50 per hour, a $1.50 raise that would be effective March 1st. Gov. Chris Christie (R-NJ) has threatened to veto the bill, due to a provision that would automatically increase the minimum wage according to inflation.

Several New Jersey Republicans tried to use the recent Hurricane Sandy — which decimated Jersey’s shoreline — as justification for opposing the increase:

The aftermath of Sandy, which changed so much about the state, was ever-present in Thursday’s two-hour debate on the Senate floor, giving another wrinkle to a debate that’s largely a moral and philosophical battle. It was still that on the Senate floor Thursday, with Republicans saying a minimum wage increase would hurt businesses and could force layoffs, and Democrats asserting that it’s wrong for New Jerseyans to be paid so little in a place where it’s expensive to live.

Republican Sen. Jennifer Beck, R-Red Bank, said she supports raising minimum wage but said the storm made this the wrong time to do it. She told of small shore business owners “still sweeping up glass” and wondering if their businesses would survive the winter. “Our Legislature’s first response following a hurricane that devastated thousands is not a helping hand but a greater burden,” she said.

Christie also used that line of reasoning:

The Republican governor said Wednesday that he was “willing to consider a responsible minimum-wage package.” But with many businesses struggling to rebuild after Hurricane Sandy, Christie said, he has concerns about the bill, which would increase the hourly rate to $8.50 from $7.25 by March 1.

“We’ve got thousands of businesses wiped out,” he said at a news conference Wednesday in Trenton. “Is this really now the moment to say to those folks, ‘We’re going to hit you with a $1.25 increase on March 1 and [cost-of-living increases] beyond that?’”

Study after study has shown that minimum wage hikes do not, in fact, hurt business and force layoffs (even during rough economic times). And New Jersey was a premier test case: “University of California, Berkeley, economist David Card and Princeton economist Alan Krueger’s seminal study of the effect of the New Jersey 1992 minimum wage increase comparing fast food industry employment in New Jersey and Pennsylvania found no negative employment effect. In fact, it found stronger employment growth in New Jersey.”

“Let’s not hide behind the storm,” said state Sen. Stephen Sweeney (D). “This bill was opposed by many prior to that.” Sen. Richard Codey (D) added, “Can you live on $8.50 an hour? How about these people during the storm, you think they could go to the few diners that were open? They can’t do that.”

Fast food workers in New York City are launching a strike today, ahead of the largest unionization drive to ever hit the industry. The walkouts began at 6:30 this morning at a McDonald’s, as workers “protest what they said were low wages and retaliation against several workers who have backed the unionization campaign.”

Workers in the fast food industry have every reason to be upset. As the National Employment Law Project detailed in a report earlier this year, some of the largest fast food chains — including McDonald’s, Kentucky Fried Chicken, Pizza Hut, and Taco Bell — are some of the largest employers of low-wage workers, but are making huge profits as the nation emerges from the Great Recession:

The three largest low‐wage employers in the United States – Wal‐Mart, Yum! Brands (the operator of fast food chains Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, and KFC), and McDonald’s – offer a revealing look at the resiliency of low‐wage employers in the post‐recession economy.

Each of these corporations was profitable during all of the last three fiscal years, and each of them now earns profits that are substantially higher than their pre‐recession levels.

One in four workers is expected to be in low-wage industries over the next decade, and a majority of the jobs added since the recession have been low-wage jobs. Also, as Sarah Jaffe noted in the Atlantic, “these jobs are not being done by teenagers.” “Across the country, the median age of fast-food workers is over 28, and women — who make up two-thirds of the industry — are over 32,” she wrote. If these workers are going to make a living, a strike and unionizing may be the only way to make it happen.

America’s domestic home help workers, most of them female minorities, earn low wages and often receive no retirement or health benefits because they lack basic labor protections, according to a first-of-its-kind survey of more than 2,000 domestic workers in 14 American cities. The report from the National Domestic Workers Alliance and affiliated groups found that nearly a quarter of nannies, caregivers, and home health workers make less than the minimum wage in the states in which they work, and nearly half — 48 percent — are paid less than needed to adequately support a family.

Ninety-five percent of domestic workers are female, according to the survey, and the wage gaps that persist throughout the American economy are especially prevalent in the industry. More than half of domestic workers are minority, with 54 percent identifying as Latina, African-American, or Asian. The median hourly wage of white domestic workers is $2.13 an hour higher than it is for Latinas and Asians and $1.14 an hour higher than it is for blacks. But across the industry, wages are incredibly low:

Live-in workers have especially low wages. The median wage for that group is just $6.15 an hour, and 67 percent are paid below their state’s minimum wage. Overall, 70 percent of domestic workers are paid less than $13 an hour, and less than 9 percent make more than $18 an hour. Just 4 percent of live-in workers make more than $18 an hour.

For undocumented workers, who make up a significant portion of the domestic workforce, the wage situation is even worse:

It isn’t just wages, though. Less than 2 percent of all domestic workers receive retirement or pension benefits, and only 9 percent work for employers who pay into Social Security, according to the report. Nearly two-thirds live without health insurance, and only 4 percent receive employer-provided health care. Just 8 percent work for employers who provide a contractual agreement, while two-thirds work under verbal agreements that offer few protections.

The reason the situation is so dire for domestic workers is because they are excluded from standard labor protections. The National Labor Relations Act does not cover domestic workers, meaning they have no guaranteed right to organize or form unions to bargain for wages and benefits. Federal workplace discrimination laws also largely exclude domestic workers because they apply to businesses with multiple employees. As a result, domestic workers are often subject to wage theft and rarely paid for overtime.

States and localities have undertaken efforts in recent years to expand such rights to domestic workers, but many have failed. In 2010, New York passed a law granting basic rights to domestic workers, and Montgomery County, Maryland enacted a similar law in 2008. The most recent high-profile attempt to enshrine domestic worker rights failed in October, when California Gov. Jerry Brown (D) vetoed the Domestic Workers Bill of Rights because he said it left “a number of unanswered questions.” The California law would have covered more than 200,000 of the state’s domestic workers and was opposed by the California Chamber of Commerce and other business groups.

The world’s richest woman has equated Australia’s minimum wage to “class warfare,” following her controversial article last week where she called poor workers coddled, lazy drunks. Australian billionaire Gina Rinehart, who inherited her $30 billion fortune and mining empire, pointed to workers who make less than $2 as a model for economic competitiveness in mining:

We must be realistic, not just promote class warfare. Indeed, if we competed at the Olympic games as sluggishly as we compete economically, there would be an outcry.

The evidence is unarguable that Australia is indeed becoming too expensive and too uncompetitive to do export- orientated business. Africans want to work. Its workers are willing to work for less than $2 per day. Such statistics make me worry for this country’s future.

Australia Prime Minister Julia Gillard responded harshly to Rinehart. “It’s not the Australian way to toss people $2, to toss them a gold coin, and then ask them to work for a day,” Gillard said. “We support proper Australian wages and decent working conditions.”

Rinehart’s flawed logic draws on a popular myth among U.S. conservatives, that increasing the minimum wage would impact job and economic growth. But a significant body of research shows that higher minimum wages have no effect on employment levels.

A century ago, Massachusetts became the first state in the country to pass a minimum wage law. Now, the state legislature is considering legislation to increase its minimum wage — currently at $8.00 an hour, $0.75 above the federal minimum — to $10.00 an hour. If the legislation becomes law, it will give more than a half-million low-wage workers a pay increase and could generate 4,500 new jobs because of increased economic activity, according to a study from the Economic Policy Institute:

Increasing Massachusetts’s minimum wage to $10.00 on January 1, 2013, would give a raise to more than 581,000 of the state’s lowest-paid workers. It would provide nearly $824 million in additional wages to directly and indirectly affected families, who would, in turn, spend those extra earnings. Indirectly affected workers—those earning close to, but still above, the proposed new minimum wage—would likely receive a boost in earnings due to the “spillover” effect (Shierholz 2009), giving them more to spend on necessities. [...]

Using these same standard fiscal multipliers to analyze the jobs impact of an increase in compensation of low-wage workers and decrease in corporate profits that result from a minimum-wage increase, we find that increasing the Massachusetts minimum wage from $8.00 to $10.00 per hour would result in a net increase in economic activity of approximately $522 million and would generate roughly 4,500 net new jobs.

Though Republican lawmakers across the country consistently oppose minimum wage increases on grounds that they hurt job growth, small businesses, and overall economic growth, multiple studies, including EPI’s, contradict those claims. An analysis by the Center for American Progress found that “a significant body of academic research has found that raising the minimum wage does not result in job losses even during hard economic times.”

At the beginning of 2012, scheduled minimum wage increases were set to benefit 1.4 million workers, and such policies tend to benefit women and minorities, workers who typically face pay gaps and other disadvantages in the workplace.