A new study by the Missouri Budget Project calls out some opposing views to the ballot measure known as Proposition A and included data to debunk them as "myths."

If it passes next month, Proposition A would raise Missouri's minimum wage from $12.30 an hour to $15 by 2026. Opponents said the increase would mostly affect young adults and teenagers.

Lindsey Baker, director of research for the Missouri Budget Project, disagreed. She said debunking the myth of whom the minimum wage increase affects is one of her organization's top priorities.

"One thing that people are often unaware of is just how many kids and families would benefit from this," Baker pointed out. "Often people have a stereotypical image of who 'minimum wage workers' are and really, they are all kinds of people."

The report shows one in four Missouri children lives in a household that would see its income rise with an increase in the minimum wage. Proposition A would also guarantee paid sick leave for more 700,000 Missouri workers who currently do not have it.

Opponents have said increasing the minimum wage would be bad for businesses and the economy, with the potential for job loss. Baker stressed it is also a myth.

"Consistently, when you look at before and after Missouri's own minimum wage increase that was implemented in 2019, we see that all of those things that were predicted by opponents that would happen -- job loss, all of those things -- really didn't happen," Baker outlined. "In fact, we did very well as a state after that."

The study indicates Missouri's unemployment rate went down faster than the national average and faster than each of the neighboring states not increasing their minimum wage. Baker added it is consistent with prior data suggesting a hike in the minimum wage increases employment, in part by reducing turnover among workers.


get more stories like this via email

New data show fewer than half of rural Gen Z'ers believe they can find a good job in their community, compared to nearly 70% of their urban peers.

Oregon is following the national trend along with a growing rural-urban income gap.

Megan Tuck, program coordinator for the Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council, grew up in St. Paul, a small town in the Willamette Valley and now lives in Bend. She said she would have liked to stay in her hometown, but there are few opportunities there for work.

"That was the options, I feel like, growing up for me and a lot of my peers was you either move away, live in St. Paul and commute somewhere, or you work on farms, which is still an amazing profession," Tuck explained.

In 1980, the average rural Oregon household earned about 10% less than an urban family. Today, the gap has widened to 25%. Trump administration cuts to the federal workforce would only worsen the situation, as federal jobs make up a larger share of employment in rural Oregon counties and tend to pay more.

Data show rural youth, like Tuck, are more likely to want to stay closer to home than city-dwellers. Tuck pointed out she and a lot of her peers found city life challenging and missed their hometown community, though many initially wanted to leave after high school.

"Then at the same time, I see a lot of my peers and I as we get older, reflecting and realizing we actually want to come back and we actually want to live here," Tuck emphasized.

Tuck noted employment is not the only challenge to come with living rurally. She stressed rental housing options are also limited. Research shows rural Oregonian incomes are on par with rural American incomes, but rents are 16% higher.

Tuck added people in rural communities are afraid of losing their young people but many have no choice but to leave to find living-wage jobs. Regardless of the challenges she and her generation face, Tuck is determined to find a solution.

"How do you transition some rural economies to still keep the character of the community but also create opportunities for young people?" Tuck asked.


get more stories like this via email

The Iowa Legislature has advanced a bill to provide a $1 billion tax cut to companies covering unemployment benefits for out-of-work Iowans.

Iowa lawmakers reduced the maximum number of weeks Iowans could file for unemployment benefits in 2022 from 26 weeks to 16. The money the state has saved by not paying the additional benefits went into a trust fund, which has reached nearly $2 billion. Now, lawmakers are giving half the money back to business in the form of a tax cut.

Peter Hird, secretary-treasurer of the Iowa Federation of Labor, said Senate File 504 is a blow to people who are looking for work and now have a lot less time to find it while watching companies get a tax cut.

"If you take a benefit, a protection for workers, and then turn that into a tax savings for employers, it's a totally man-made tax cut," Hird pointed out. "This isn't just because of good luck."

The bill is through committee and awaits action on the Senate floor. Gov. Kim Reynolds said she is following through on a campaign pledge to lower taxes for Iowa companies, making the state more attractive to those considering locating in the state.

Hird noted labor groups also worry about what happens in the event of an unexpected economic downturn and added the fears are prominent in rural Iowa.

"Especially if you're working in the ag sector where your job is at stake, and you're talking about giving more benefits to rich people?," Hird emphasized. "I feel like that's just something that's resonating across the country right now."

Reynolds has proposed cutting the highest unemployment tax rate companies pay from 7% to 5.4%, which would save them nearly a billion dollars over five years.

Kentucky lawmakers are considering a bill that would ban the state from enforcing existing worker safety laws that are above and beyond federal standards. Critics say it would weaken worker's rights and put employees in manufacturing, construction, mining, and other dangerous jobs at higher risk. According to state data from 2022, Kentucky's workplace injury and death rates are higher than the national average.

Dustin Reinstedler, Kentucky AFL-CIO president, said Kentucky needs state laws that match industry-specific needs and challenges.

"There's so many things like coal mining, the bourbon industry, some of the heavy metals, aluminum and steel manufacturing that we have here that really aren't in other states," he explained.

If passed, House Bill 398 would eliminate the right of a worker's family, clergy, or attorney to request a safety inspection - a right that exists in all other states. It would also shorten the time for an employee to file a worker safety complaint and for the state to issue employer citations.

Supporters of the measure say matching worker safety regulations to the standards set by the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration will spur economic development. But Reinstedler added that the Commonwealth is already experiencing record economic growth, jobs and capital investment.

"There's this kind of like false information flying around that somehow there are companies out there saying, "Oh gosh, I wish Kentucky would relax their rules against worker safety so we could come there and do business,"', when we know the facts, the data is there," he continued.

Jason Bailey, executive director of the Kentucky Center for Economic Policy explained that the bill would also threaten the state with financial penalties for enforcing safety laws.

"Making the state pay court costs, and that really will intimidate the state from issuing citations and incentivize employers to contest them," he said.

Kentucky's maximum penalty for workplace safety violations is $7,000 and can hit $70,000 for willful or repeated violations, while OSHA's is more than $16,000 per violation and $161,000 for willful or repeated violations.