DiscussionsPADM

Minimum Wage:

A city has set the minimum wage for all businesses operating within its limits at $15 per hour.

Hello Everyone,

Plenty of reasons why I beg to differ with having all businesses operate with the minimum wage of $15 per hour. If we could, we'd realize that $15 an hour amounts to only $31,200 a year, assuming full-time work—about half of the U.S. median income and a painfully small amount for living and raising children in most American cities.” It can be painfully small outside of cities, too. The minimum wage is once again generating contentious political debates. Virtually all the arguments involve economics, however. Questions pertain to the effects of increases in the minimum wage on poverty, unemployment, automation, job quality, income of low-wage workers, work hours, and income inequality. Rarely, if ever, do debates mention public health. But all these factors- poverty through income inequality-are widely researched in the Social Determinants of Health literature. Omission of public health from the debates, I believe, results from a paucity of research.

The Living Wage for US, a nonprofit organization, has determined the minimum wage that would allow an individual to maintain a typical-sized working family. This benchmark is in line with both worldwide norms and the demand for "family-sustaining wages" made by the Biden administration. Its calculation factors in the price of housing, food, transportation, health insurance, taxes, out-of-pocket medical expenses, retirement savings, childcare, and other essentials, plus a 5% buffer for unforeseen circumstances. According to this metric, 90% of the US population lives in counties where a minimum salary of $20 per hour is required to support a family. The $20 mark is still too high for over 36% of American workers. High inflation has made already difficult trade-offs, such as having to choose between paying rent, buying food, and receiving medical treatment, much more so for tens of millions of workers. This disparity helps to understand why. An increase to $20 per hour would need cautious execution. It makes the most sense to phase it in gradually, particularly for smaller firms. However, if we procrastinate any longer, we will be perpetually behind. The cost of living will always rise, thus once $20 is set up, it should be automatically increased upwards. (Departmental leaders in several major cities should immediately raise the minimum wage to much above $20.)

References:

Leigh, J. P. (2016). Could Raising the Minimum Wage Improve the Public’s Health? American Journal of Public Health (1971), 106(8), 1355–1356. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2016.303288

Fight for $15? that’s no longer a living wage. let’s go for $20. (n.d.). https://www.fastcompany.com/90872566/fight-for-15-hour-not-living-wage-time-20

Jerry

It is undeniable that the topic of mandatory COVID-19 vaccination has sparked intense debates and discussions worldwide. As the world continues to grapple with the impact of the pandemic, the question of whether COVID-19 vaccination should be made mandatory for specific settings and situations has become a point of contention.

The introduction of mandatory vaccination policies is a topic of interest, with public health ethics principles emphasizing that such measures should be the ''last resort.'' However, the ongoing concerns about freedom of choice among vaccine-hesitant individuals have added complexity to this issue.

In light of the availability and plentiful supply of COVID-19 immunizations for individuals aged 12 and older, enacting a law requiring proof of complete COVID-19 vaccination to be indoors in any business is a necessary policy. This policy is grounded in facts and logic, aiming to protect public health and prevent the further spread of the virus. The primary goal of mandatory COVID-19 vaccination in indoor businesses is to safeguard public health. By requiring proof of complete COVID-19 vaccination, the policy ensures that individuals entering indoor businesses are less likely to contract or spread the illness. Experimental evidence suggests that individuals are more willing to support mandatory vaccination policies under specific conditions, especially when considering adverse events. Moreover, considering the externalities that arise from infectious diseases like COVID-19, it is crucial to implement measures that prevent harm to others.

Mandatory vaccination policies have been implemented for other public health measures, such as prohibiting smoking in public areas and driving under the influence of alcohol (Gur‐Arie et al., 2021). These policies were enacted based on clear evidence of significant harm to others and are in the public's best interest. Implementing mandatory COVID-19 vaccination for individuals aged 12 and older in indoor businesses follows the same principle. Furthermore, the policy includes exceptions for medical or religious reasons to ensure that individuals with valid concerns or beliefs receive fair treatment.

Similarly, the COVID-19 pandemic presents a significant threat to public health, with millions of lives at stake. Therefore, mandating COVID-19 vaccinations for individuals aged 12 and older in indoor businesses is necessary to protect the community's collective well-being. Additionally, the availability of exceptions for medical or religious reasons ensures that individual autonomy and personal beliefs are respected within the framework of this policy. Furthermore, it is crucial to acknowledge that this policy has been successfully implemented in other contexts. For example, numerous colleges in the United States require COVID-19 vaccination as a mandatory requirement for campus entry. This policy has also been employed on a larger scale in many countries, where unvaccinated individuals are prohibited from dining indoors at restaurants or accessing clubs or public events (Bardus et al., 2023). By adopting a mandatory vaccination policy, the city can effectively enhance the vaccine uptake rate and reduce the risk of COVID-19 transmission. Moreover, studies have shown that vaccination is a crucial public health strategy for controlling the spread of COVID-19.

Vaccination not only protects individuals from severe illness and hospitalization but also plays a vital role in curbing the transmission of the virus within the community (Source: "Clearly, mandatory vaccination is effective in increasing uptake of the mandatory vaccine.") By requiring complete COVID vaccination for individuals aged 12 and older to be indoors in any business, the city is promoting public health and protecting the community from the potential harm of COVID-19. Additionally, mandatory vaccination policies have effectively increased vaccine uptake rates (Takamatsu et al., 2021). Therefore, by implementing this policy, the city is proactively safeguarding its residents and preventing the further spread of COVID-19.

The mandatory vaccination policy for individuals aged 12 and older to be indoors in any business is necessary to protect public health. It ensures a high vaccine uptake rate and reduces the risk of COVID-19 transmission in indoor settings. Moreover, the availability of exceptions for medical or religious reasons addresses concerns about individual autonomy and personal beliefs. This policy is also supported by the principles of public health ethics, which suggest that mandatory vaccination should be considered as a last resort but can be justified when there is clear evidence of significant harm to others (Source: "Public health ethics principles suggest that mandatory vaccination policies...should usually be the ''last resort'' (Gur‐Arie et al., 2021). Overall, the mandatory vaccination policy for individuals aged 12 and older to be indoors in any business is a logical and evidence-based approach to promoting public health and protecting the community from the ongoing threat of COVID-19.

References:

Bardus, M., Assaf, S A., & Sakr, C J. (2023, February 2023). Using Social Marketing to Promote COVID-19 Vaccination Uptake: A Case Study from the “AUBe Vaccinated” Campaign. https://scite.ai/reports/10.3390/vaccines11020459

Gur‐Arie, R., Jamrozik, E., & Kingori, P. (2021, February 1). No Jab, No Job? Ethical Issues in Mandatory COVID-19 Vaccination of Healthcare Personnel. https://scite.ai/reports/10.1136/bmjgh-2020-004877

Takamatsu, A., Honda, H., Kojima, T., Murata, K., & Babcock, H M. (2021, July 21). Promoting coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination among healthcare personnel: A multifaceted intervention at a tertiary-care center in Japan. https://scite.ai/reports/10.1017/ice.2021.325

Plastic Straws

A state has forbidden restaurants from providing plastic straws to their customers.

It is estimated that the United States used 500 million straws in a single day before straw bans started taking affect ( Gibbens) Not only are plastic straws an eyesore when left on the sidewalk and added to the waste in our landfills that take significant time to decompose, they are significantly detrimental to the environment. A plastic straw can take up to 200 years to decompose per straw ( The lifecycle). This is 200 years where the straw will remain in the environment and can cause detrimental effects to the environment in multiple ways. In the environment, straws have the potential to clog waterways. For wildlife, straws have the potential to injure, sicken, or kill multiple types of animals and sea life including birds, fish, and dolphins ( Fox). After the straw has started to decompose, this results in microplastics being released into the environment, and microplastics are harmful to wildlife and humans. The full extent of the harm that microplastics can do is not yet known, but the list keeps growing both for environmental effects and human health effects ( Fox). Some straw materials are potentially made from carcinogenic materials as well.

Straws are not recyclable in most recycling streams like plastic bottles and other types of plastic packaging is, thus resulting in no way to reduce the waste stream of plastic straws while still using them. The options are to make a straw out of a plastic that is biodegradable or a straw out of some other material that will decompose quicker than traditional plastic straws.

Local bans on plastic straws come in several shapes and forms but all of them have the same result of reducing the amount of plastic waste in the environment. The simplest ban with the least pushback from the side of restaurants and manufacturers is a policy that makes you request a straw and them not just being automatically handed out. This type of policy has the least impact on reduction but is one of the easier ones to pass. Another type of policy is banning plastic straws and mandating that all single use disposable straws are made from biodegradable substances such as a paper substrate or a biodegradable plastic that will dispose significantly quicker than a traditional plastic straw. This is one of the more common types of policies in the United States and is similar to the plastic bag bans that taking affect within the United States, one add on to this is to charge a small fee for normal straw, this makes it an inconvenience for people and less likely for people to want to use it (Yamashita). Much like plastic bags, if there is a charge or an inconvenience to the people, they are more likely to play ball with the new policies. This will reinforce good behavior (not getting the straw) and have a negative effect for bad behavior (getting the straw). This has been shown to work in multiple areas for the plastic bags including Japan, Singapore, and the UK ( Plastic bags). The last and most challenging option is to ban the use of single use plastic straws entirely. This will have the most push back from people and be the hardest to pass but will have the most beneficial effect for the environment, animal health, and human health. Once a consumer gets used to not having a straw, then this will just become the norm ( Bhathal). We just have to get to the point where this is the norm. Think about all the seatbelt campaigns in elementary school to get the students and parents to wear their seatbelts; it is not common pace to wear them. We just need to get the not having a plastic straw to this point. The paper straws and other ecofriendly straws are slightly more expensive at this time( Gibbens), that will come down as more manufacturing is done. The argument is that we also only have one planet, so we need to do what we can to protect it.

-Rebecca

References:

Bhathal, H. (2023, August 3). Did plastic straw bans work? Yes, but not in the way you’d think. Grist.  https://grist.org/culture/plastic-straw-bans-single-use-plastic-pollution-impact/  

Fox, E. (2022, February 15). Plastic straws - why they suck & what you can do. Beyond Plastics - Working to End Single-Use Plastic Pollution. https://www.beyondplastics.org/fact-sheets/plastic-straws#:~:text=These%20straws%20are%20not%20recyclable,for%20more%20than%20200%20years. 

Gibbens, S. (2021, May 3). Plastic straw bans are spreading: Here’s how they took over the world. National Geographic.  https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/news-plastic-drinking-straw-history-ban 

Plastic bags at shops and supermarkets should be charged per bag rather than per customer. Nanyang Business School. (2022, January 22).  https://www.ntu.edu.sg/business/news-events/news/story-detail/plastic-bags-at-shops-and-supermarkets-should-be-charged-per-bag-rather-than-per-customer 

The lifecycle of plastics: WWF-Australia: The Lifecycle of Plastics. WWF Australia. (n.d.).  https://wwf.org.au/blogs/the-lifecycle-of-plastics/ 

Yamashita, T. (2023, July 4). Plastic bag use plummets, but Japan still 2nd for plastic waste. The Japan News by The Yomiuri Shimbun.  https://japannews.yomiuri.co.jp/society/general-news/20230704-120199/