With many states and cities around the country passing legislation to increase the minimum wage to $15, most recently in California and New York, it is easy to be really excited. It has become a hot topic in the election and #Fightfor15 has been gaining traction among many groups around the country.

However, there are some issues that we need to keep in mind as we consider going from $7.25 to $15 an hour. Here are some of the most pressing:

Not all states are created equal

Obviously in many places in the U.S., it is almost necessary for lower skilled workers to earn a livable wage, especially if that is the only money their family is bringing in. However, not all states have the same cost of living, so a federal minimum wage may not be the best idea. According to Reihan Salam of Slate:

This makes poor consumers worse off [in Mississippi] in a direct sense, in that they can purchase less with their earnings. And if consumers are at all sensitive to prices, at least some of them will choose to spend less on labor-intensive goods and services now that they are more expensive. That could reduce the number of minimum wage jobs available.

Not every state needs to pay their workers as much in order to live comfortably, especially for jobs that pay minimum wage. In addition, a salary (or any earned money) in one state isn’t equal to another state when it comes to what you can get with it.

This discrepancy, though, could also pose issues because while raising minimum wage in some places to $15 and not other places could cause businesses to move across state lines to be able to spend less money.

It could cost people their jobs

It is estimated that under a $15 minimum wage, around half a million jobs will be cut by employers. Obviously, this is dependent on the area as well because in certain states or cities companies can afford to pay more or fewer workers.

In economic terms, human labor is considered a good or service, which means that when the price increases, the demand drops. The more we ask companies to pay their lower-level employees, the fewer they will be able to pay with the funds they have allocated to go to payroll, thus, they will either hire fewer people or nix some jobs.

If a firm has $500 an hour to go toward employees and they pay at $7.25/hr, they can pay 68 employees (68.9). If they pay them $10.10/hr, which is what the proposed federal minimum wage is, they can pay 49 employees. This is only a drop of 19 employees. However, if a firm is forced to pay $15/hr, they will only be able to pay 33 employees with $500; a loss of 35 employees. These numbers are obviously different depending on context, but the core economic principle still stands. If something costs more, demand will go down. People could be out of jobs.

Companies may look for cheaper options

There are places in the U.S. that have already begun looking at robots and machines to replace the work of humans because the price of human labor has been increasing too much for some places. This is no surprise, though, this has been happening for years.

According to a recent study by Oxford University, automation may claim as many as 47 percent of current jobs by 2033.

In addition, they are becoming more cost-effective. According to The Boston Consulting Group (BCG), robots in auto manufacturing have been operating at a cost barely over federal $7.25/hr minimum wage. The rise of machine work is expected to speed up as the wages across the nation increase rapidly.

The idea of a proposed $15/hr minimum wage is an amazing thought–but it is just that–a thought. A livable minimum wage is ideal, especially for those who only have one source of income, but the wider consequences could cause issues for the very people that the raise is intended to help, and we need to keep those issues in mind moving forward.

Julia Bryant

Julia Bryant is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street from Howard County, Maryland. She is a junior at the University of Maryland, College Park, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Journalism and Economics. You can contact Julia at JBryant@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Is a $15 Minimum Wage Really What is Best for the Country? appeared first on Law Street.

You’re being tracked.

Surprise!

Well maybe that’s not a surprise since  Americans are pretty cynical on issues of spying. It may surprise people, however, that the things they enjoy, such as digital news articles, videos, wearable technologies, and wireless appliances are all tracking their behavior. Depending on the technology used, data detailing frequency of maintenance, a person’s interests or vital signs, and metadata like location and time is also collected. This information analyzes everything from potential consumer needs, to uncovering relationships and patterns that weren’t previously known. The benefits of big data are enormous but we must consider how else this information could be used? At what point could this become a privacy concern?  Also, what steps are being taken to prevent possible manipulation?

Click here to find out everything you need to know about the big business of Big Data.

The increased use of technology to record defense capabilities, healthcare needs, government practices, as well as maintenance and safety needs are all positive ways big data has affected society. One positive effect translates into saving lives of premature babies after sensors record an uptick in body temperature, which could be a sign of an impending infection. Watching the Centers of Medicare and Medicaid Services prevent and stop more than $100 million worth of fraud after implementing the Fraud Prevention System, is another example of the advantages of Big Data. These two incredible examples of how Big Data is used as a  positive resource don’t even begin to highlight the many significant contributions it makes to society.

From a business perspective, companies can use the information from data profiling to identify similar or related products, social issues, and events of interest to consumers. How products and events are marketed to consumers is directly related to an advertiser’s ability to collect data and complete a practice known as behavioral targeting. An example of online use that constantly collects data is the social media platform, Facebook.  Most people are unaware that on top of the information provided by their profile, something as simple as posting a picture on Facebook provides more data and other related metadata, such as time and location, to the platform. This information as outlined in the company’s Data Use Policy can be used as stated below.

Sometimes we get data from our affiliates or our advertising partners, customers and other .third parties that helps us (or them) deliver ads, understand online activity, and generally make Facebook better. For example, an advertiser may tell us information about you (like how you responded to an ad on Facebook or on another site) in order to measure the effectiveness of – and improve the quality of – ads.

I want to note the first line of the data use policy section provided above, which says, “sometimes we get data from our affiliates or our advertising partners.”  Now wait a second, how do their ad partners and affiliates have data that can be linked to specific people and why are they able to pass it on to others?  The data use policy explicitly tells us that those affiliates and partners have collected data through responses consumers have provided for other ads on other sites, which is then used to create a behaviorally targeted ad for Facebook and vice versa. In addition, cookies, web beacons, and IP addresses are all used to create an online profile able to frame our digital identities. At that point there’s no real need to have a name that identifies individuals. So when companies like Google, Facebook, Yahoo and others declare that the information they share is passed anonymously, they’re technically telling the truth.

But these capabilities, most of which are not visible or available to the average consumer, also create an asymmetry of power between those who hold the data and those who intentionally or inadvertently supply it. – May 2014 Big Data Report

The outlined intent as stated by the terms above is to improve the Facebook experience by making sure Facebook knows what is important to its users. By identifying what’s important to each individual, Facebook can ensure that users see more of the same information they’re most likely to be interested in on either their newsfeeds or in advertisements. This sounds great right? Modifications made to the information seen on the newsfeed and in advertisements are based on:

1. Interests
2. Location
3. How often you use Facebook
4. Books you like and/or have read
5. Movies you like and/or have seen
6. TV shows you like and/or watch
7. Gender
8. Online purchasing habits
9. Other information provided by Facebook affiliates/partners/third parties
10. Topics you post about
11. Your friends list
12. Clubs/social groups/schools you’re associated with

WAIT ONE MINUTE!

Oh my goodness, they know you in a way that has just gotten uncomfortably scary right?

Not only can your timeline be manipulated, but so can your perception of what is going on around you. Facebook received criticism after admitting that for one week, it intentionally tried to make 155,000 of its users sad for no other reason than just to see if they could do it.  Another example can be seen in how conversations concerning the social upheaval in Ferguson, Missouri was somehow missing from many Facebook newsfeeds while Ice Bucket Challenges were commonly seen. People wanted to know how life on this social media outlet could seem so out of the loop. That was until techies realized that a Facebook algorithm used to filter out posts Facebook feels users wouldn’t be interested in, figured its users were much more interested in Ice Bucket Challenges than discussions on social inequities, policing, race relations, civil liberties and so forth.

For all we know, Facebook may have gotten it right.  After being bombarded by 24-hour news cycles and other  social media outlets like Twitter, which were jammed with Ferguson discussions, it may have been nice for users to escape to a place where Ferguson wasn’t the only thing discussed.

Make no mistake, Facebook is not the only outlet that uses, collects, and has the ability to manipulate Big Data. Beyond Facebook is the general use of the internet and digital technology, all of which can collect big data. What must be done now, is to determine the proper use for this information and identify ways to protect the privacy of users. Several government agencies, departments, and branches of government are interested in discussing these topics. This can be noted by the FTC’s call to identify how data is categorized, used, and the applicable laws to protect consumers. Additionally, organizations like the Open Internet Institute, Common Cause, Free Press, and Public Knowledge have submitted comments to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) on the importance of protecting telecommunications metadata.

With more people, governments, and organizations identifying concerns, changes can be made and applicable laws can be clarified to protect consumers and avoid impositions of privacy.

Teerah Goodrum

Teerah Goodrum is a Graduate of Howard University with a Masters degree in Public Administration and Public Policy. Her time on Capitol Hill as a Science and Technology Legislative Assistant has given her insight into the tech community. In her spare time she enjoys visiting her favorite city, Seattle, and playing fantasy football. Contact Teerah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Big Data, Little Privacy appeared first on Law Street.

When it comes to marketing, they say that sex sells. That may have been true ten years ago when retailers like Abercrombie & Fitch, Calvin Klein, and United States of Benetton ruled the fashion scene. But lately the industry seems to be erring on the safe side in advertising. Maybe this is why controversial photographers like Dov Charney and Terry Richardson have recently gotten the boot. Maybe it’s a movement in feminism. But maybe it’s just censorship.

The sexualized female figure has shocked the public since the Impressionist Era. The censorship of the female nipple is nothing new; however, as in art, it’s this same kind of scandal that often gives companies the most attention, which is basically the point of advertising. The more people are talking about a company, the more money they make. There is no such thing as bad press. So why are so many ads playing it safe these days?

One reason for this could be that companies just don’t want to bother with all the hassle. If an ad is too controversial, it risks getting banned in some countries. For example, back in 2011 the U. K.’s Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) seemed to read a little too much into Dakota Fanning’s ad for Marc Jacobs’ perfume Lola, resulting in a ban throughout Great Britain. The ad features Fanning with the perfume bottle, which includes a large rubber rose on the cap, between her legs. At the time the ad ran, Fanning was only 17 so it upset people to see a minor, whom the ASA claimed looked under the age of 16, staring in such a “provocative” ad.

Marc Jacobs, however, seems hardly controversial compared to other retailers such as Benetton and Italian label Sisley. These companies are notorious for making cheap shots when it comes to advertising. For these two, the more scandalous, the better: from a kissing nun and priest to a man dying of AIDS to “fashion junkies” snorting a dress. Despite their tendencies to upset the public, these ads have been successful in garnering attention. In such cases, these companies value shock factor over just putting out a pretty ad.

Benetton has become tamer since photographer Oliver Toscani stopped working with the company in 2000. Their recent Unhate campaign featuring feuding world leaders kissing, like President Obama, Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez, Pope Benedict XVI , and Egyptian leader Grand Sheikh Ahmed el Tayeb, led to the Vatican suing back in 2011.

Another reason ads may have tamed down is that companies now do most of their marketing through social media. Sites like Facebook and Instagram are heavily regulated when it comes to what they determine is appropriate for such a large and diverse audience. Most pictures featuring the female nipple are promptly removed from these sites within hours of posting. Therefore, if an ad is considered too inappropriate, the company risks losing a large amount of consumers.

Although sometimes they make more than one version of an ad through strategic cropping, companies, especially smaller ones that can’t afford it, may not want to bother paying for multiple versions of the same campaign. Social media also allows for free advertising for all kinds of companies and can be shared to reach consumers who may not normally pay attention to a specific brand. While Benetton’s ads certainly have a tendency to go viral, they risk running into potential legal troubles on the web. If an ad ends up on a site with certain regulations, the company could be held accountable.

Online advertising has presented endless opportunities for giving companies exposure but at the same time, advertising has also never been more censored. There are few laws to regulate what is appropriate and what is not online, so it is often up to the websites themselves to make the regulations. Many sites do not want to face the legal complications involved with featuring controversial images, which in turn has led advertisers to not even bother with anything controversial in the first place.

While Benetton may not offer anything groundbreaking or artistically ingenious in its ads, the company is known for opening up a conversation about greater issues such as HIV/AIDS, homophobia, and racism. Lately however, there is not much conversation going on regarding these kinds of ads, just a bunch of pretty models in pretty clothes. While the point of fashion advertising is to sell clothes, sometimes the less clothing a model wears, the more intrigued a consumer may be to find out what kind of product the ad is selling. The use of accessories in fashion ads also creates a more timeless image, which is bound to be remembered and used for decades.

Perhaps advertisers should start taking cues from the Impressionists again, instead of playing it safe. The Impressionists lucked out though, because there was no ASA or Facebook back then to stop them from creating anything interesting.

Of course full-on nudity isn’t the only way to intrigue an audience with sex appeal. Let us not forget the classic Brooke Shields for Calvin Klein ads, who was just 15 at the time.

Nothing, not even the ASA could get between her and her Calvins.

—

Katherine Fabian (@kafernn) is a recent graduate of Fordham University’s College at Lincoln Center and is currently applying to law schools, freelance writing, and teaching yoga. She hopes to one day practice fashion law and defend the intellectual property rights of designers.

Featured image courtesy of [Buzzfeed]

Katherine Fabian

Katherine Fabian is a recent graduate of Fordham University’s College at Lincoln Center. She is a freelance writer and yoga teacher who hopes to one day practice fashion law and defend the intellectual property rights of designers. Contact Katherine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Censorship in Fashion: Where Did All the Controversial Ads Go? appeared first on Law Street.

The FCC is on the verge of allowing internet fast lanes that would allow content providers to pay for faster access for their customers. Read on to learn why this proposal has generated so much controversy.

What is an internet  fast lane?

When commentators say “fast lane,” they are usually referring to paid prioritization. This is when an Internet Service Provider (ISP), such as Comcast or Time Warner, charges a content provider, such as Google or Facebook, an extra fee for faster “lanes” of bandwidth. Effectively, the ISPs would be allowing content providers to pay for easier access to customers.

Netflix recently agreed to pay Comcast for faster access to its customers. This is the first deal of its kind.

Netflix is not happy about the deal at all. In a blog post, CEO Reed Hastings referred to the fee as an “arbitrary tax” and expressed concerns that escalating fees could continue to be charged to Netflix and other content providers. Netflix may have agreed to pay this fee not to gain an advantage but to gain download speeds they once had. This graphic from the Washington Post shows that Netflix’s download speeds on Comcast tanked during the negotiations and then suddenly spiked once Netflix agreed to pay the fee:

Why are ISPs allowed to create fast lanes?

ISPs like Comcast are allowed to charge content providers for faster access because of a recent court decision that struck down the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) rules regarding net neutrality. The FCC is the federal agency in charge of regulating communications over mediums such as radio and television.

Net neutrality is the concept that all data on the Internet should be treated equally. You should be able to load a Netflix page just as fast as you can load a YouTube page. This video from Mashable provides a clear visualization of the concept.

The FCC created regulatory rules in 2010 that would enforce net neutrality. Cable companies and other ISPs immediately cried foul and filed lawsuits.

On January 14, 2014, a U.S. appeals court overruled the new rules. The reason? Broadband Internet is classified by the government as an information service. The FCC does not have the authority to regulate information services. The Internet used to be classified as a telecommunications service until a 2005 Supreme Court ruling. The FCC is allowed to strictly regulate telecommunications services.

What is the FCC doing about fast lanes?

In the wake of the court ruling, the FCC is in the process of writing a new set of Internet rules that allow for fast lanes. For the past few months, the FCC has allowed public comment on its website on one main question: should the new rules allow fast lanes?

There is a possibility that these rules would permit only some heavily regulated fast lanes to exist. The FCC says that the rules would require these lanes be “commercially reasonable,” but that’s a vague requirement that could be exploited.

There’s also a possibility that the FCC could go in the opposite direction and ban prioritization. The FCC would do this by reclassifying broadband Internet as a telecommunications service, giving it the power to strictly regulate ISPs. This reclassification would almost certainly face a legal challenge by ISPs, as well as a challenge from Congress.

How have people reacted to this proposal?

The FCC received more than one million online comments about the proposed rule change in the span of five months. That is the most comments the agency has ever received, and almost topped the number of complaints the Commission received after Janet Jackson’s “wardrobe malfunction” at the Super Bowl.

Activists and content providers alike are not happy that the FCC is even considering legalizing fast lanes.

The Internet Association, an industry group that represents companies like Amazon, Google, and Uber, submitted a lengthy comment to the FCC’s website arguing, in part, that “charging for enhanced or prioritized access […] undermines the Internet’s level playing field.”

The association also expressed concern that ISPs might provide prioritization to their own content. For example, Comcast owns NBC Universal. A fast lane rule would allow Comcast to prioritize access to NBC television streaming over the quality of other network streaming services.

John Oliver, host of HBO’s Last Week Tonight With John Oliver, took a more cynical view in this widely shared segment. Oliver accused the FCC and Chairman Tom Wheeler, who used to be a lobbyist for cable companies, of corruption. He also called on Internet trolls to flood the FCC with comments.

MoveOn, the liberal activism website, released this television ad encouraging viewers to call the FCC in support of network neutrality.

MoveOn’s lead campaign director Victoria Kaplan also released a statement saying that “MoveOn members strongly support Net Neutrality and are calling on the FCC to scrap proposed rules that would undermine an open Internet.”

ISPs, for the most part, are issuing vague statements about how they support an “open Internet.” For example, Comcast released a statement saying that “we support the FCC putting in place legally enforceable rules to ensure that there is a free and open Internet, including transparency, no blocking, and anti-discrimination rules.” This doesn’t really say anything specific. Comcast argued later in the statement against a reclassification of broadband Internet, but never argued why they should be allowed to charge for fast lanes.

In stunning contrast, AT&T provided a robust defense of fast lanes in its FCC comment. The whole document is definitely worth a read, but here’s the most important quote:

“In no other area of the economy does the government ban voluntary market transactions (here, for example, quality-of-service enhancements) specifically in order to prevent those with superior resources from offering better services to their own customers.”

The line AT&T concluded the paragraph with is equally important to understanding the company’s argument:

“In short, the theoretical basis of this rationale for a strict nondiscrimination rule is thoroughly unsound and anathema to a market economy.”

AT&T’s argument is pretty unique. It is essentially saying that not allowing content providers to pay for a fast lane or not allowing ISPs to offer such an “upgrade” goes against the very foundation of a capitalist economy.

What’s important about this argument is the claim by AT&T that the fast lane would only amount to an “enhancement” in service for some companies and not a downgrade in service for companies that do not pay the fee.

Many activists doubt this will be the case. Instead, the “free” lane would be significantly slower. As John Oliver put it in the previously embedded segment, “if we let cable companies offer two speeds of service, it won’t be Usain Bolt and Usain Bolt on a motor bike. They’ll be Usain Bolt and Usain Bolted To An Anchor.”

Conclusion

Soon, the FCC will create a new set of rules governing the Internet. It will either allow fast lanes to exist and face harsh public criticism or it will fight for net neutrality and face a barrage of lawsuits and challenges from ISPs and Congress. This is an issue you will want to keep an eye on if you use the Internet regularly.

Resources

Primary

FCC: FCC Launches Rulemaking On How To Protect The Open Internet

FCC: Comment: AT&T

FCC: Internet Association: Comment

Additional

Netflix CEO: The Case for Net Neutrality

Wall Street Journal: Court Tosses Out Open Internet Rules

CNET: 2005: FCC Changes Internet Classification

Hill: Former FCC Chairman on Net Neutrality

NPR: One Million FCC Comments Filed

Comcast: Comment

Guardian: Welcome to the Age of Digital Discrimination

MoveOn: Keep Internet Open

NextGov: The FCC is Getting Serious

Geeksided: MLB Speaks Out Against Fast Lanes

Eric Essagof

Eric Essagof attended The George Washington University majoring in Political Science. He writes about how decisions made in DC impact the rest of the country. He is a Twitter addict, hip-hop fan, and intramural sports referee in his spare time. Contact Eric at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Internet Fast Lanes Will Change How You Use the Web appeared first on Law Street.