Hasn't Neumark discredited himself enough working with Berman? Max Sawicky wrote:
> In related news, today Hell froze over. > > PPIC aspires to be the Brookings of the West. > At this rate they'll never make it. > > -mbs > > -----Original Message----- > From: Industrial Relations Research Association > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Daniel J.B. Mitchell > Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 1:27 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: living wage laws > > The report described below is available at: > www.ppic.org. > > ===================================================== > 'Living Wage' Laws Reducing Poverty Levels, Study Shows > > Labor: Battle between advocates and business opponents over > the issue has intensified in recent years. > > By NANCY CLEELAND > TIMES STAFF WRITER > > Los Angeles Times, March 14 2002 > > "Living wage" laws, adopted in dozens of cities and > counties in recent years, reduce overall poverty levels > despite causing some job loss, according to a > cautiously worded study from a conservative economist. > > David Neumark, a Michigan State University economist known > for his opposition to minimum-wage hikes, said the > findings--to be released today by the nonpartisan Public > Policy Institute of California--surprised him. > > "Going into this, I would have been pretty negative," > Neumark said. "But I come away saying these things work > reasonably well, and there's no reason to condemn them on > empirical grounds." The electoral fight between advocates > and business opponents has intensified in recent years over > living wage laws. The laws raise hourly wages beyond the > minimums for select workers, generally those with some > connection to government. About 80 such laws have been > enacted since the first was adopted in Baltimore in 1994, > and dozens more are pending. The city and county of Los > Angeles have adopted living wage laws, as have at least 10 > other California cities and counties. > > Neumark is still no fan of an increase in the minimum wage, > which he maintains won't reduce poverty and could even > exacerbate it. Living wage laws have the opposite effect, > he said, because they are more targeted. Beneficiaries are > more likely to be adults heading poor households rather > than those in middle-class homes, such as suburban > teenagers in part-time jobs. "It's a distributional > question," he said. > > The Public Policy Institute said the 145-page study is the > first comprehensive look at the outcomes of living wage > legislation. Neumark collected income data from 40 cities > that have living wage laws and compared trends with other > cities where no such laws exist. > > He cautioned that his study should not be taken as a > prescription for the living wage approach. "There are two > themes that come out of this," he said. "One is if > you simply ask the question, 'Do these things tend to help > the poor?' It looks like they do, at least the broader > ones. The more subtle question is, 'Is this the best way > [to reduce poverty]?' That's not so clear-cut." > > The findings were questioned by the Employment Policies > Institute in Washington, which is an organization of > restaurants and other employers of low-wage workers and a > prominent voice against living wage laws. > > Chief economist Richard Toikka said it may be too early to > reach conclusions about costs and benefits. And because the > laws vary greatly, it is difficult to generalize about > them. More significantly, Toikka said, there are more > efficient ways to reduce poverty, such as with earned > income tax credits. > > On the other hand, living wage proponents said the study > backs up what they've maintained all along. > > "These laws are running straight at some of the most dire > economic realities that poor people face," said Jen Kern, > director of the Living Wage Resource Center at ACORN, a > national coalition of anti-poverty community groups that > has been a leading voice for the living wage movement. > "It's fundamental: If you work, you shouldn't be poor. > People in America believe that." > > The living wage campaigns have been championed by groups > ranging from labor unions to affordable-housing advocates. > > The laws vary widely as well. Nearly all set wage floors > for employees of government contractors, such as janitors, > food service workers and security guards. Many also cover > employers that receive any government subsidies or > benefits, or who lease space from the government, such as > airport concessionaires. > > Emboldened by success, proponents have been raising the > living wage floor--from an average of $9 an hour in the > late 1990s to about $12 now--and broadening the definition > of covered employees. > > And private employers are increasingly being targeted. One > example is Santa Monica's recently adopted coastal zone > living wage of $10.50 an hour, which covers private > employers near the beach and is being challenged by a > hotel-sponsored ballot initiative. > > Just last month, voters in New Orleans approved a landmark > living wage that covers all workers in the city. It > immediately was met with a business-sponsored > legal challenge, and even proponents concede that it may > not survive. > > Employer groups have fought each new wrinkle with lawsuits, > rival ballot initiatives and lobbying in state capitals. In > response, seven states have adopted preemptive laws > prohibiting local living wages, and more are considering > them. > > Opposition to the Santa Monica ordinance has been > particularly fierce. As the City Council was considering > it, major hotels and restaurant chains funded a > rival ordinance that offered a "traditional" living wage > law but prohibited the city from raising wages paid by > private employers. > > That failed and the council adopted the law, but the same > coalition is now backing an initiative to kill it. If that > fails, they have pledged to fight it in court. > > The Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy, which proposed > the ordinance, estimates that opponents have spent more > than $1 million so far, and may end up more than doubling > that. > > "It's been intimidating and overwhelming, the amount of > opposition and money in particular," said Madeline > Janis-Aparicio, alliance director. "But it's not > unanticipated. In some ways, it's validating that we're > asking for real change." > > ---------------------- > Daniel J.B. Mitchell > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Ho-su Wu Professor at UCLA > Anderson Graduate School of Management and > School of Public Policy & Social Research > > Office Mailing Address/phone: > Anderson Graduate School of Management > U.C.L.A. > Los Angeles, California 90095-1481 USA > Office phone: 310-825-1504 > > Personal (Home) Mailing Address: > P.O. Box 492391 > Los Angeles, California 90049-8391 USA > > Fax: 310-829-1042 -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
