activescott's Notes

A 2019 study in the Quarterly Journal of Economics found that minimum wage increases did not affect the overall number of low-wage jobs in the five years following the wage increase. However, it did find disemployment in 'tradable' sectors, defined as those sectors most reliant on entry-level or low-skilled labor.[78]

A 2018 study published by the University of California agrees with the study in the Quarterly Journal of Economics; it finds that minimum wages actually lead to fewer jobs for low-skilled workers. The article discusses a trade-off for low- to high-skilled workers: when the minimum wage is increased, GDP is more heavily redistributed toward high-academia jobs.[79]

In another study, which shared authors with the above, published in the American Economic Review, found that a large and persistent increase in the minimum wage in Hungary produced some disemployment, with the large majority of additional cost being passed on to consumers. The authors also found that firms began substituting capital for labor over time.[80]

Card and Krueger expanded on this initial article in their 1995 book Myth and Measurement: The New Economics of the Minimum Wage.[82] They argued that the negative employment effects of minimum wage laws are minimal if not non-existent. For example, they look at the 1992 increase in New Jersey's minimum wage, the 1988 rise in California's minimum wage, and the 1990–91 increases in the federal minimum wage. In addition to their own findings, they reanalyzed earlier studies using updated data, generally finding that the earlier negative employment effects did not hold up in the larger datasets.[83] This had major implications on policy, challenging long-held economic views that increasing minimum wage led to deadweight loss.

A 2011 paper reconciled differences between datasets, showing positive employment effects for small restaurants but negative effects for large fast-food chains.[87] A 2014 analysis found that minimum wage reduces employment among teenagers.[88]

A 2017 study in Seattle found that raising the minimum wage to $13 per hour reduced the incomes of low-wage workers because they worked fewer hours as businesses adjusted to higher labor costs.[94] A 2019 study in Arizona suggested that smaller minimum wage increases might lead to slight economic growth without significantly distorting labor markets.[95]

For free-market types, including The Economist, fiddling with wages by fiat sets off alarm bells. In a competitive market anything that artificially raises the price of labour will curb demand for it, and the first to lose their jobs will be the least skilled—the people intervention is supposed to help. That is why Milton Friedman called minimum wages a form of discrimination against the low-skilled; and it is why he saw topping up the incomes of the working poor with public subsidies as a far more sensible means of alleviating poverty.

Scepticism about the merits of minimum wages remains this newspaper’s starting-point. But as income inequality widens and workers’ share of national income shrinks, the case for action to help the low-paid grows. Addressing the problem through subsidies for the working poor is harder in an era of austerity, when there are many other pressing claims on national coffers. Other policy options, such as confiscatory taxes, are unattractive.

Nor is a moderate minimum wage as undesirable as neoclassical purists suggest. Unlike those in textbooks, real labour markets are not perfectly competitive. Since workers who want to change jobs face costs and risks, employers may be able to set pay below its market-clearing rate. A minimum wage, providing it is not set too high, could thus boost pay with no ill effects on jobs.

Empirical evidence supports that argument. In flexible economies a low minimum wage seems to have little, if any, depressing effect on employment. America’s federal minimum wage, at 38% of median income, is one of the rich world’s lowest. Some studies find no harm to employment from federal or state minimum wages, others see a small one, but none finds any serious damage. Britain’s minimum wage, at around 47% of median income, with a lower rate for young people, also does not seem to have pushed many people out of work.

High minimum wages, however, particularly in rigid labour markets, do appear to hit employment. France has the rich world’s highest wage floor, at more than 60% of the median for adults and a far bigger fraction of the typical wage for the young. This helps explain why France also has shockingly high rates of youth unemployment: 26% for 15- to 24-year-olds.

A second lesson is that politicians should give the power to set minimum wages to technocrats. In Britain, the floor is adjusted annually on the advice of economists and statisticians in the Low Pay Commission; it has generally advanced gradually. In America, the federal floor is set by politicians and adjusted irregularly in huge increments. That does no favours to American workers or their employers.

Finally, governments should remember that minimum wages are a palliative. They should not distract attention from more fundamental causes of low wages—such as a lack of education and skills—and the efforts to address them.

There is a long and sorry history of political operatives trying to trick Americans out of voting. In 2008, these tactics were focused on voters in battleground states. In Philadelphia, fliers distributed and posted in a West Philadelphia neighborhood claimed that any violation as simple as an unpaid parking ticket would render people ineligible to vote and subject to arrest at the polls. In southern Virginia and at George Mason University in the northern part of the state, official-looking fliers “informed” voters that, because of projected high turnout, Democrats should wait and vote on November 5, the day after the election.

The U.S. has a long history of mail voting. Large-scale use of mail ballots originated during the U.S. Civil War, when some soldiers were allowed to vote remotely after absentee voting laws were passed in their home states. Today, mail voting is widely used around the world, with more than 30 countries—including Switzerland, Germany, and South Korea—allowing voters to cast ballots by mail.

Mail ballots are widespread across the United States. For example, in 2024 alone, the U.S. Postal Service processed over 99.2 million mail ballots.

Several studies indicate that certain forms of mail voting can increase voter turnout. A 2009 study for the Pew Charitable Trusts found that no-excuse absentee voting increased voter participation by about 3 percentage points in comparison to states with excuse absentee voting, when controlling for other factors that may impact turnout.

First, we find that cases of fraud involving any form of mail ballots were very rare. Across the entire country, and utilizing a maximally inclusive estimate, between six and 46 cases of mail voting fraud were identified in each general election. To calculate the percentage of mail voting fraud in a given year, we divided the total number of mail voting fraud cases by the total number of mail votes cast for each general election. We find an average total mail voting fraud percentage across the 2016, 2018, 2020, and 2022 general elections of only 0.000043%, or about four cases of mail voting fraud out of every 10 million mail votes.

Although the database we utilized self-identified as “not…comprehensive,” we have reason to believe that this limited scope did not meaningfully distort our overall findings. The News21 database, which is among the most extensive databases of its kind currently publicly available, includes over 2,000 cases, of which we found 1,605 related to alleged voting fraud between 2000 and 2012. That averages to roughly 134 cases per year. Even if we assume this same case rate persisted for the four general elections examined, and assume the 134 cases of voting fraud were all mail voting fraud,8 that would still translate to only about 2.5 cases of mail voting fraud per 1,000,000 mail votes. This indicates that, even under assumptions that greatly inflate the frequency of mail voting fraud, the resulting probability of fraud remains negligible.

President Trump told a conservative podcaster this week that he wants Republicans to "take over the voting" in 15 states in order to "nationalize" the 2026 midterm elections, raising concerns that he may try to defy the Constitution and interfere in ways that would benefit his party.

"The Republicans should say, 'We want to take over,'" Trump declared in an interview with Dan Bongino, his former deputy F.B.I. director, on Monday. "We should take over the voting, the voting in at least many — 15 places. The Republicans ought to nationalize the voting."

The president did not explain what he meant by 'nationalizing the voting," nor did he say which states he had in mind. But he went on to claim that it was necessary for the GOP to seize control because "people were brought to our country to vote, and they vote illegally."

"We have states that are so crooked," he said. "We have states that I won that show I didn't win."

All of Trump's allegations of widespread, result-altering election fraud — claims he has been making since he lost the popular vote to Hillary Clinton in 2016 — have been conclusively debunked, both in court and by GOP election officials. A 2024 audit by Georgia's Republican secretary of state, for instance, found that just 20 of the 8.2 million people registered to vote there were not citizens. Only nine of them had ever cast ballots.

Even an ongoing review of the 2024 election by Trump's Department of Homeland Security has so far "found little evidence of widespread voting fraud by noncitizens," according to the New York Times.

Yet a series of recent moves — including last week's FBI raid on an election center in Fulton County, Ga. — suggest that Trump's call to nationalize the 2026 midterms may be more than mere rhetoric.

"I don't know why the federal government doesn't do [elections] anyway," Trump added at an Oval Office event on Tuesday. "The federal government should get involved."

Trump then vowed to sign "an EXECUTIVE ORDER" to that effect. (For the record, only about four out of every 10 million mail votes is found to be fraudulent; the vast majority of Americans use paper ballots already; and voting machines are a faster, cheaper and more accurate way of tabulating those ballots than counting by hand.)

Donald Trump set off alarm bells earlier this week with comments that his administration should “take over the voting” in some states in the run-up to the 2026 midterms, which followed an unprecedented FBI raid on an election office in Georgia. Although election experts say it’s clear the president doesn’t have authority over elections, they warn the president’s corrosive rhetoric leaves little doubt about his intent.

For months, the Trump administration has stoked doubts about the integrity of American elections largely through lawsuits designed to create the impression states aren’t doing enough to keep ineligible voters off the rolls. That effort escalated significantly last week when the FBI raided the election office in Fulton county, Georgia and seized ballots, along with other materials, related to the 2020 election. Shortly after the raid, Trump escalated his attack even further, saying the federal government should take over elections.

“The Republicans should say, ‘We want to take over,’” he said during a recent interview with Dan Bongino, the former deputy FBI director who has returned to hosting a podcast. “We should take over the voting, the voting in at least many – 15 places. The Republicans ought to nationalize the voting.”

This latest version of the SAVE Act would effectively require every American to produce a passport or birth certificate each time they register or re-register to vote. More than 21 million American citizens do not have those documents readily available. Roughly half of Americans do not even have a passport. Millions lack easy access to a paper copy of their birth certificate. Millions more women whose married names are not on their birth certificates or passports would face extra steps just to make their voices heard.

In addition, the SAVE America Act would eliminate or upend most methods of registering to vote. Mail and online registration would be essentially abolished, as would voter registration drives that add hundreds of thousands of citizens to the rolls every election cycle.

It would also direct states to send their voter rolls to the Department of Homeland Security for inspection via the agency’s flawed citizenship verification tool. For months, Democratic and Republican states alike have been refusing similar requests from the Trump administration because of well-founded concerns about misuse of sensitive, private voter data.

The bill would also impose an unfunded mandate on election officials, saddling them with the responsibility of hashing out the practical details, leaving them to cover the costs, and threatening them with criminal and civil penalties if they get things wrong. It would also go into effect immediately, wreaking havoc on election administration.

There are already checks in place to ensure that only eligible citizens can vote. All available evidence, including from the Trump administration itself, indicates that only American citizens vote and the exceptions are vanishingly rare. States that have combed through their voter rolls looking for illegally cast votes – as Louisiana and Utah just did – have repeatedly confirmed that fact.

The outer wall is estimated to have required over 100,000 cubic metres (3.5 million cubic feet) of travertine stone which were set without mortar; they were held together by 300 tons of iron clamps.

However, it has suffered extensive damage over the centuries, with large segments having collapsed following earthquakes. The north side of the perimeter wall is still standing; the distinctive triangular brick wedges at each end are modern additions, having been constructed in the early 19th century to shore up the wall. The remainder of the present-day exterior of the Colosseum is in fact the original interior wall.

This is not a normal statement from a normal cabinet member of a major nation. 

This statement from Israeli National Security Minister Ben-Gvir is the statement of a war criminal. 

The racist, extremist Israeli government does not deserve one nickel of U.S. support.

The best way to determine when trees need water is to check the soil. What you’re aiming for is moist — not soggy — soil. In the absence of rain or moisture, check the soil with a garden trowel to a depth of two inches. If the soil is dry to the touch, your tree needs water.

The rule of thumb for established trees is 10 gallons of water for each inch of the tree’s diameter.

Slow and deep is your best bet, which is why drip lines are the preferred method of watering (although spray from a garden hose will certainly work). Drip irrigation also loses less water to evaporation compared with overhead watering or sprinkler systems.

Allowing the soil to completely dry out — or allowing it to stay soggy — will result in a tree that is stressed and therefore more prone to disease and infestation.

Don’t forget to water your trees in the winter during dry spells. Just because they are dormant doesn’t mean your trees aren’t growing. Water when air and soil temperatures are above 40 degrees F and when there is no snow cover.

Cutting costs by cutting benefits is difficult, but the program can also achieve substantial economies of scale in the prices it pays for health care and administrative expenses—and, as a result, private insurers' costs have grown almost 60% more than Medicare's since 1970.[citation needed][106][original research?][107] Medicare's cost growth is now the same as GDP growth and expected to stay well below private insurance's for the next decade.

Health care spending in the United States, as a proportion of gross domestic product, is significantly higher than in other high-income countries, yet health outcomes are far worse. For example, average life expectancy is lower than in peer countries, while avoidable death rates are higher.

Systemic inequities lead to pronounced disparities in care and outcomes for many racial and ethnic minority groups, low-income families, and rural populations.

Health system challenges include rapidly rising costs caused in part by market consolidation, inconsistent access to primary and specialty care, and administrative complexity.

We support independent research on health care issues and make grants to promote better access, improved quality, and greater efficiency in health care.

Healthcare in the United States is largely provided by private sector healthcare facilities, and paid for by a combination of public programs, county indigent health care programs, private insurance, and out-of-pocket payments.

The U.S. is the only developed country without a system of universal healthcare, with around 92% of the population covered under some kind of health insurance for some, or all of the year.

The United States spends more on healthcare than any other country, both in absolute terms and as a percentage of GDP;

In 2022, the United States spent approximately 17.8% of its Gross Domestic Product (GDP) on healthcare, significantly higher than the average of 11.5% among other high-income countries.[

The asylum where Van Gogh lived in 1889-90 is set among some of the most beautiful scenery of Provence, just beneath Les Alpilles (the little Alps). Only three kilometres away is a soaring limestone crest, known as Le Rocher des Deux Trous (The Rock of the Two Holes). It has a skull-like appearance, pierced with eye sockets. The larger hole is nearly 3m high, the smaller one around half that.

Van Gogh included the Deux Trous in a pair of his landscapes, but because it is such an unexpected feature it has often been seized upon as evidence of the artist’s fragile mental state—the product of an overblown imagination.

The Senate on Tuesday approved a House-passed resolution directing President Trump to withdraw U.S. armed forces from hostilities against Iran after four GOP senators broke ranks and voted to undercut Trump’s authority as commander-in-chief. The Senate voted 50 to 48 to approve the resolution, which passed the House 215-208 earlier this month.

It does not need Trump’s signature because it is a concurrent resolution. But it does not have the force of law, even though it’s been approved by both chambers. It directs Trump under the 1973 War Powers Act to remove U.S. troops from hostilities against Iran except for elements of the armed forces that would be necessary to protect U.S. assets or allies from imminent attack.

Four Republicans voted for the measure: Sens. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), Susan Collins (R-Maine), Lisa Murkowsi (R-Alaska) and Bill Cassidy (R-La.).

Today, it must be said that the State of Israel is conducting an organized, systematic, state-funded campaign of ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. Not in the Gaza Strip, not in southern Lebanon, not in Syria, but in areas of the West Bank that are under the exclusive security control of the state and its security and law enforcement apparatus.

At the forefront of this campaign are the prime minister, Defense Minister Israel Katz and the rest of the cabinet, of course. The drive behind these acts is reflected in the statements and actions of senior ministers who seek the full annexation of the West Bank without their Palestinian inhabitants remaining there. I am referring specifically to Itamar Ben-Gvir, Bezalel Smotrich and the other ministers who support, through word and deed, policies that amount to the expulsion of Palestinian residents.

Nothing can justify turning a blind eye to what is happening daily in Palestinian villages across the West Bank: pogroms, children and adults injured in and outside their homes, fields and property set ablaze, and large-scale theft – especially of cattle and sheep, the primary source of livelihood for many residents. Faced with all this, it is impossible to remain calm, forgiving or unwilling to confront the perpetrators, their supporters and their leaders.

The thousands of settlers involved in these crimes could not act without the assistance, protection, backing and funding provided by government agencies at both the local and national levels. Crimes of this scale – including serious sexual abuse, even if not exactly as described by Nicholas Kristof in The New York Times – would not be possible without support at every stage. The Israel Police are, in practice, partners in what is taking place in the West Bank. They do not attempt to prevent these acts, despite their duty to do so. In many cases, security forces actively assist Jewish terrorists – and, remarkably, it is almost always the Palestinian victims who are arrested, rather than the perpetrators.

The memorandum is a 14-point "framework agreement"[12][13] and provides for an end to military strikes, the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz to commercial shipping toll-free for 60 days,[14] an end to the U.S. naval blockade of Iranian ports, and a 60-day extension of the ceasefire.[12] Iran indicated that it intended to charge fees for unspecified services to ships transiting through the Strait of Hormuz, though analysts questioned whether this would be legal.[15] Subject to a final deal, the Islamabad Memorandum would also include an at least $300 billion private fund designed to trigger investment in Iran in addition to the release of frozen Iranian assets.[16][17]

The Islamabad Memorandum also immediately waives, but does not eliminate, sanctions that Trump imposed on Iran's oil exports, allowing Iran once again to sell its crude on the world market and restoring a revenue stream worth hundreds of billions of dollars.[18] Major issues, however, were not settled in the framework agreement, which contains no accord on Iran's nuclear program or uranium stockpiles, although it does call for the downgrading of Iranian uranium from weapons-grade to reactor-grade following a final agreement.[12][19] These issues are deferred to future talks to take place over the 60-day ceasefire extension.[12] The framework agreement also does not mention the Iranian ballistic missile program or its network of non-state allies in the Middle East.[20]

Israel was not part of the U.S.-Iran negotiations over the MOU, and Israeli officials indicated that military operations will continue in Lebanon regardless of the MOU wording.[58] Israel bombed Beirut twice during the U.S.-Iran negotiations, nearly derailing the negotiations each time.[59][60]

After the preliminary MOU was signed, Pakistan and Iran said that the ceasefire halts "military operations on all fronts, including Lebanon, effective immediately" but Israel rejected this contention.[4][20] Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the rest of his government said that Israel was not bound by the agreement, with Netanyahu saying that the country would "preserve its freedom of action" against threats from Hezbollah in Lebanon.[20] While combat between Israel and Hezbollah was dialed back in the immediate aftermath of the memorandum's signing, the Hezbollah–Israel conflict continued.[20] Israel conducted a strike south of Beirut on June 14.[61] Israeli defense minister Israel Katz said that Israeli forces would remain in the territory in southern Lebanon seized since the start of the war,[62][63] adding that the 200,000 displaced Lebanese residents from the security zone would never be allowed to return.[64] Israeli national security minister Itamar Ben-Gvir rejected the memorandum, stating that Israel was "not subordinate to the United States" and that its security was "not up for bargaining".[64][65] Following the deaths of four Israeli soldiers in southern Lebanon, Ben-Gvir called for Lebanon to be "obliterated" and posted on X that "all of Lebanon must burn."[66][64][65] Finance minister Bezalel Smotrich similarly called for "opening the gates of hell" in Lebanon, repeating rhetoric he had previously used in March 2025 regarding the Gaza Strip.[64] A report by the Israeli outlet Channel 14 reported that Netanyahu refused a request by Vance to scale back the IDF's presence in Lebanon.[67]

On 14 June, the US and Iran announced the Islamabad Memorandum to end the war and the dual blockade of the Strait of Hormuz.[124] On 15 June, the US military clarified its blockade will continue until the agreement is signed on 19 June.[125] On 17 June, Trump signed the memorandum at the Palace of Versailles following the G7 summit, and Iran's President Masoud Pezeshkian signed it in Tehran.[1][126] On 18 June, the US military announced the removal of the naval blockade of Iranian ports.[127] Shipping was stalled in the Strait of Hormuz following Iran's claimed closure of the strait.