Can I afford it?

     A question on many of our minds as we first step out into the "real world" and get that first job as a teenager in food or retail, or maybe as a child mowing lawns or babysitting. Another biting question would be: is it worth it? Too late do we come to realize our minimum wage job makes the dream of being independent and living on our own just that, a dream.

     President Obama and congressional democrats have proposed to raise the minimum wage to $10.10/hour by 2016, a substantial difference to the current $7.25/hour. The editorial board of The New York Times have posted an editorial in favor of the increase despite the lack of support from Republicans. It is clear they intend to garner support mainly from U.S. workers currently earning low wages. Despite many negative opinions floating around the proposal (due to a theoretical loss of 500,000 jobs), the editorial board writes why the proposal would be an overall good by bringing 900,000 workers out of poverty, also by increasing wages for those earning above the minimum wage ("ripple effect"). The fear of job loss may not have any substance behind it as the number 500,000 is a median chosen from the predicted range of zero to one million. These figures coming from a report by the Congressional Budget Office, a report that in itself speaks highly of the increase. In respect to the job loss, we cannot be completely sure as to how companies would react to such an increase; would they fire current workers? Or simply find another way to cut costs and make ends meet? While it is true that many jobs may be lost with an increase in minimum wage, it is also true more jobs may be created as a result of people having more spending power and being able to declare yes, I can afford it.

     I agree with the editorial board in saying that an increase in minimum wage would be an overall good. As written in the article most of the workers benefiting from the increase wouldn't be teenagers (maybe saving up for a new phone or a car) but adults 20 or older, possibly living paycheck-to-paycheck, struggling to afford rent and keep up with the rising cost of living and more than half of them employed full-time.

"Against Their Conscience"

     Conestoga Wood and Hobby Lobby have both filed cases wanting an exemption from including contraceptive services in their employee's health plan based on religious grounds. The New York Times posted an editorial anticipating the "showdown" on March 25.

     The editorial states the Supreme Court will have to decide whether or not this contraceptive condition breaks an act passed in 1993 granting more religious freedom. Both companies argue that including cost-free contraceptive services infringes on their religious liberty by forcing them to act against their conscience (beliefs). However the Obama administration argues the condition does not go as far as to violate the act as it does not rise "to a 'substantial burden' on religious expression." Another argument being whether corporations can be considered the "persons" protected by the act. Though a separation between church and state may prove a decisive factor in the case (as it would argue religious freedom for employees) it appears as though this argument has taken a backseat among the back and forth between the parties.

     I am personally for the use of contraceptives even though it goes against my religious beliefs. I feel we need to take interest in this case as it could spell out how much power religion may gain over government again. I understand the religious stance against birth control but in a world ruled by sex and its consequences (disease and overpopulation) I honestly consider birth control as a valid service needing to be fully covered by health plans. We are granted religious freedom by the Constitution and these companies are infringing on this right by trying to invalidate the coverage of contraceptive use from their health plans thus forcing [the companies] religious views onto [its] employees.