Re: Michigan Gov vetoes anti-living wage law
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 05/12/04 3:24 PM MICHIGAN REPORT REPORT NO. 89, VOLUME 43-- MONDAY, MAY 10 2004 ASSOCIATION DEMANDS VETO OVERRIDE ON 'LIVING WAGE' The Small Business Association of Michigan on Monday called for an override of Governor Jennifer Granholm's veto of a bill supporters say would help attract businesses to the state. The bill (HB 4160 http://www.gongwer.com/index.html?link=legislation_billdetail.cfmcode=HB%2 04160billid=2003HB416001locid=1 ) introduced by Rep. Fulton Sheen (R-Plainwell) would have somewhat banned local governments from authorizing so-called living wage regulations on companies. Under the legislation, municipalities would have been prohibited from setting minimum wage limits higher than that of the state. charles, thanks much for above... wisconsin gov. (doyle?) vetoed similar bill several months ago opening way for madison to follow santa fe, n.m. and san fransisco in adopting comprehensive living wage ordinances... in contrast, florida gov. (prez' brother) signed such legislation into law last year - surprise, surprise...such policies reveal hypocrisy of 'returning gov't to the people' claims of so-called conservatives... moreover, fla's bush made big deal of his 'rapid response' to post-9/11 security concerns, anti-living wage legislation he signed invalidates portion of miami-dade ordinance including employers at miami-dade airport on grounds that workers are governed by 'federal' rules/regulations... miami-dade's living wage policy requires employers doing business with local gov't to pay wages twice those of federal minimum wagethis indicates hypocrisy of 'decentralized federalism' claims... this stuff is all about keeping wages low (i realize pen-lers already know this)... michael hoover so-called conservatives
Re: Michigan Gov vetoes anti-living wage law
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 05/12/04 3:24 PM MICHIGAN REPORT REPORT NO. 89, VOLUME 43-- MONDAY, MAY 10 2004 ASSOCIATION DEMANDS VETO OVERRIDE ON 'LIVING WAGE' The Small Business Association of Michigan on Monday called for an override of Governor Jennifer Granholm's veto of a bill supporters say would help attract businesses to the state. The bill (HB 4160 http://www.gongwer.com/index.html?link=legislation_billdetail.cfmcode=HB%2 04160billid=2003HB416001locid=1 ) introduced by Rep. Fulton Sheen (R-Plainwell) would have somewhat banned local governments from authorizing so-called living wage regulations on companies. Under the legislation, municipalities would have been prohibited from setting minimum wage limits higher than that of the state. charles, thanks much for above... wisconsin gov. (doyle?) vetoed similar bill several months ago opening way for madison to follow santa fe, n.m. and san fransisco in adopting comprehensive living wage ordinances... in contrast, florida gov. (prez' brother) signed such legislation into law last year - surprise, surprise...such policies reveal hypocrisy of 'returning gov't to the people' claims of so-called conservatives... moreover, fla's bush made big deal of his 'rapid response' to post-9/11 security concerns, anti-living wage legislation he signed invalidates portion of miami-dade ordinance including employers at miami-dade airport on grounds that workers are governed by 'federal' rules/regulations... miami-dade's living wage policy requires employers doing business with local gov't to pay wages twice those of federal minimum wagethis indicates hypocrisy of 'decentralized federalism' claims (miami-dade airport authority operates airport, security workers are federal employees who, if memory serves, were denied right to unionize by legislation that federalized them) ... this stuff is all about keeping wages low (i realize pen-lers already know this)... michael hoover
Michigan Gov vetoes anti-living wage law
MICHIGAN REPORT REPORT NO. 89, VOLUME 43-- MONDAY, MAY 10 2004 ASSOCIATION DEMANDS VETO OVERRIDE ON 'LIVING WAGE' The Small Business Association of Michigan on Monday called for an override of Governor Jennifer Granholm's veto of a bill supporters say would help attract businesses to the state. The bill (HB 4160 http://www.gongwer.com/index.html?link=legislation_billdetail.cfmcode=HB%2 04160billid=2003HB416001locid=1 ) introduced by Rep. Fulton Sheen (R-Plainwell) would have somewhat banned local governments from authorizing so-called living wage regulations on companies. Under the legislation, municipalities would have been prohibited from setting minimum wage limits higher than that of the state. We're disappointed the governor has chosen to follow through with the veto, said Barry Cargill, vice president of government relations for the association. We think Michigan has a long ways to go to implement an effective economic strategy. The state's minimum wage is $5.15 per hour, whereas the living wage is calculated at $8.20 per hour (based on a the federal poverty level for a family of four in 2000). Ms. Granholm said she vetoed the bill because local governments should have the ability to enact such laws if they choose. Allowing different regulations between local governments makes it difficult for businesses to operate in multiple areas across the state, Mr. Cargill said. About 15 local governments already have enacted living wage laws. If municipalities continue to make regulations that differ from the state then Michigan will be overlooked by out-of-state businesses, Mr. Cargill said. We would like to strengthen our core urban areas and part of that strategy is to create streamlined regulations, Mr. Cargill said. Businesses that pay good wages are those that are going to locate where red tape is the lowest. But Mr. Sheen said no override is planned at this time, although he will speak with legislative leaders regarding the future of the bill. However, he also said, I think we'll just have to keep delivering a bill to her. With an override requiring two-thirds majorities in both the House and Senate, Mr. Sheen said the numbers aren't there. The bill passed the House 58-51 (73 votes required to override) and the Senate 22-16 (26 votes required to override). Mr. Cargill said although the veto override is unlikely, lawmakers still should push for one anyway. This issue will come up again, Mr. Cargill said. I think it's time that the business community hold the Legislature accountable for the votes. C 2004, Gongwer News Service, Inc. REPORT NO. 89, VOLUME 43-- MONDAY, MAY 10 20
support for living wage in San Diego
Dear Friend: This fall, San Diego City Council will decide the fate of the citys living wage ordinance. The outcome of this decision will not only lift thousands of families out of poverty, but will also have a significant impact on the national movement, as San Diego is extremely conservative and extraordinarily expensive city. In order to provide San Diego City Councilmembers with further assurance about the living wage law, we have drafted a letter and are seeking endorsements from economists and other academics. This letter will be released to the media and to the general public. We ask you to consider offering your endorsement and sign onto the letter below. To review the San Diego living wage ordinance, go to http://www.sdlivingwage.org/publications/SDLivingWageProposal.pdf To review impact studies of other living wage policies, please visit our website at http://www.sdlivingwage.org/Research/Research.htm We are asking for endorsements to be submitted by October 1. Please respond to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with your name, university, department, and title. Thank you for considering this request. Sincerely, Donald Cohen President Center on Policy Initiatives LETTER FROM ECONOMISTS IN SUPPORT OF LIVING WAGE The San Diego City Council is currently reviewing a living wage ordinance for city employees, employees under city contract, and employees of businesses that receive economic development subsidies. More than 109 jurisdictions throughout the country have passed similar living wage legislation. These laws are a response to the widespread reality of stagnant or declining wages, which have left millions of Americans even those working full-time unable to afford basic necessities for themselves and their families. As economists, we believe that living wage legislation is an important tool for improving the living standards of working Americans. Research has consistently shown that these laws provide tangible benefits to the low-wage workers they cover as well as their families. Recent work has also demonstrated that living wage laws provide additional benefits at the workplace itself, such as reduced turnover, lower rates of absenteeism, as well as improved employee morale and performance. The evidence also shows that living wage laws have minimal adverse effects on local employment and city expenditures. It is our belief that a living wage ordinance would improve the living standards for affected workers in San Diego. We also believe that the ordinance strives to minimize any negative economic impact, limiting its application and including a hardship exemption process for non-profits. We support San Diego's diligent attempt to address the problem of working poverty, and offer our endorsement of the San Diego Responsible Wage and Health Care Benefits Ordinance. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University michael at ecst.csuchico.edu Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901
Re: RE: 'Living Wage' Laws Reducing Poverty Levels, Stu dy Shows
David Neumark, a economist from Michigan State university, was hired by the Public Policy Institue to conduct the study. I called him up last week and asked him about prevailing wage laws, which is an issue of local concern I've been following. (Prevailing Wage laws mandate that any construction project paid for with tax money use workers paid at prevailing union rates.) It seemed pretty clear cut to me that the same logic would apply to Living Wage laws as Prevailing Wage laws, but Neumark wasn't willing to go there. I don't have the data, he said. tim --- Devine, James [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 'Living Wage' Laws Reducing Poverty Levels, Study Shows by Max B. Sawicky 27 March 2002 04:05 UTC too bad advocates of LW think this study is trash (on technical grounds). mbs CB: Who are said advocates ? What are the technical failings ? ^^^ 'Living Wage' Laws Reducing Poverty Levels, Study Shows I don't know about the methodology of this specific study, but it's always a good sign when someone who opposes some hypothesis does a study that backs it. It's as if Milton F. did a study which showed that the connection between the growth of the money supply and inflation was insignificant. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine = Check out the Chico Examiner listserves at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DisorderlyConduct http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ChicoLeft Subscribe to the Chico Examiner for only $40 annually or $25 for six months. Mail cash or check payabe to Tim Bousquet to POBox 4627, Chico CA 95927 __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Movies - coverage of the 74th Academy Awards® http://movies.yahoo.com/
'Living Wage' Laws Reducing Poverty Levels, Study Shows
'Living Wage' Laws Reducing Poverty Levels, Study Shows by Max B. Sawicky 27 March 2002 04:05 UTC too bad advocates of LW think this study is trash (on technical grounds). mbs CB: Who are said advocates ? What are the technical failings ? ^^^ 'Living Wage' Laws Reducing Poverty Levels, Study Shows
RE: 'Living Wage' Laws Reducing Poverty Levels, Study Shows
'Living Wage' Laws Reducing Poverty Levels, Study Shows by Max B. Sawicky 27 March 2002 04:05 UTC too bad advocates of LW think this study is trash (on technical grounds). mbs CB: Who are said advocates ? What are the technical failings ? ^^^ 'Living Wage' Laws Reducing Poverty Levels, Study Shows I don't know about the methodology of this specific study, but it's always a good sign when someone who opposes some hypothesis does a study that backs it. It's as if Milton F. did a study which showed that the connection between the growth of the money supply and inflation was insignificant. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
RE: RE: 'Living Wage' Laws Reducing Poverty Levels, Study Shows
No doubt it is a politically useful 'man-bites-dog' story. I would expect advocates to milk the study for all they can. But as a word to those interested in the substance on an intellectual level, my advice is there are much better things to read. mbs 'Living Wage' Laws Reducing Poverty Levels, Study Shows I don't know about the methodology of this specific study, but it's always a good sign when someone who opposes some hypothesis does a study that backs it. It's as if Milton F. did a study which showed that the connection between the growth of the money supply and inflation was insignificant. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
'Living Wage' Laws Reducing Poverty Levels, Study Shows
'Living Wage' Laws Reducing Poverty Levels, Study Shows LABOR: BATTLE BETWEEN ADVOCATES AND BUSINESS OPPONENTS OVER THE ISSUE HAS INTENSIFIED IN RECENT YEARS. http://www.latimes.com/business/la-18670mar14.story March 14 2002 By NANCY CLEELAND TIMES STAFF WRITER 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
RE: 'Living Wage' Laws Reducing Poverty Levels, Study Shows
too bad advocates of LW think this study is trash (on technical grounds). mbs 'Living Wage' Laws Reducing Poverty Levels, Study Shows
Living Wage
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
Re: Living Wage
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
RE: Re: Living Wage
Well some people would say he didn't need any help. I'm not into that literature, so I couldn't say. But you know people who are, who could. mbs Hasn't Neumark discredited himself enough working with Berman?
Harvard living wage campaign
Harvard Alumni Want Hourly Workers Paid More BOSTON (Reuters) - Harvard University, one of the world's richest universities, is stingy when it comes to paying hourly workers, according to a report released on Monday by an alumni group that has campaigned for increased wages. ``Some of the members of the nonprofessional staff are paid so little they're eligible for food stamps,'' said Ira Arlook, a spokesman for Harvard Alumni for a Living Wage. His group supported students who last May staged a 21-day sit-in at the Cambridge, Massachusetts, campus that sought a minimum wage of $10.25 an hour for janitors and other workers, some of whom earned less than $7 an hour. The report shows Harvard, with an $18 billion endowment, paid some workers a starting hourly wage of $9.65. About 1,000 workers, including contract workers and those directly employed by Harvard, earned less than $10.68 an hour, qualifying most for the federal food stamp program. That is far less than the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, a cross-town rival which pays its workers $14.39 an hour; or Boston University which pays $14.97 an hour; or Wellesley College which pays $15.26 an hour. MIT's endowment stands at $6.5 billion, while Boston University has $662 million and Wellesley College has about $780 million. Harvard administrators have remained mum about the issue pending recommendations due later this week from a commission appointed after the May protests. A preliminary report released in October showed the number of Harvard direct employees paid below the so-called ``living wage'' increased from 170 in September 1994 to 424 in March 2001. The ``Harvard Living Wage Campaign,'' supported by the alumni group, has urged school officials to pay employees at least $12 an hour and subsidize health insurance and child care. The Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit group, Wider Opportunities for Women, estimates that parents must each earn at least $11.97 an hour at full-time jobs, generating an annual income of about $43,000, to support a family of four in the Boston area. The U.S. minimum wage is $5.15 an hour, compared with $6.75 in Massachusetts.
federal Living Wage legislation
Hi Penners: Does anybody know the current status of the federal Living Wage legislation? If so, please reply to me off-list. Thanks, Seth Sandronsky _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
[PEN-L:12817] Re: economist attacks living wage
John, The argument mounted by Thomas Palley in a chapter of an edited book, (sorry I don't know the title, I read it in a bookshop in London) is that macro-policy in many european countries has been geared to keeping inflation down, whereas the USA ran budget deficits for years and a much looser monetary policy. Martin John Exdell wrote: An economist at Kansas State University wrote an op-ed column in today's paper here attacking a local labor coalition that is pushing for a living wage economic development policy. He included the conventional wisdom that high minimum wages in Europe have caused high unemployment rates. I recall a posting on PEN in the late summer from someone who disputed this claim. That message contained some figures on unemployment rates in several European countries that were not much higher than ours, despite much higher minimum wages in those countries. If someone has reliable figures on this, please post them. We will make use of them here in our response. This economist of course also represented his view as the universal wisdom of his profession. Are there other cogent explanations economists offer for the higher unemployment rates in some European countries? --- Department of PhilosophyOffice/voicemail: 785-532-0359 Kedzie Hall 203 Philosophy Office: 785-532-6758 Kansas State University Home: 785-539-6076 Manhattan KS 66506 Fax: 785-532-7004 -- Centre of Full Employment and Equity Department of Economics Phone (61)2 4921-5069 (Work) University of Newcastle Fax (61)2 4921-6919 (Work) NSW 2308 Phone (61)2 4982-9158 (Home) Australia Fax (61)2 4981-8124 (Home)
[PEN-L:12821] Re: economist attacks living wage
This was precisely one of the main points of the economists' letter to the SPD; that higher unemployment rates in Europe are largely the result of contractionary monetary policy. Scroll back in your email... or we can send you another copy of the statement. -Robert Naiman, Preamble At 11:35 PM 10/19/99 -0500, you wrote: An economist at Kansas State University wrote an op-ed column in today's paper here attacking a local labor coalition that is pushing for a living wage economic development policy. He included the conventional wisdom that high minimum wages in Europe have caused high unemployment rates. I recall a posting on PEN in the late summer from someone who disputed this claim. That message contained some figures on unemployment rates in several European countries that were not much higher than ours, despite much higher minimum wages in those countries. If someone has reliable figures on this, please post them. We will make use of them here in our response. This economist of course also represented his view as the universal wisdom of his profession. Are there other cogent explanations economists offer for the higher unemployment rates in some European countries? --- Department of Philosophy Office/voicemail: 785-532-0359 Kedzie Hall 203Philosophy Office: 785-532-6758 Kansas State UniversityHome: 785-539-6076 Manhattan KS 66506 Fax: 785-532-7004 --- Robert Naiman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Preamble Center 1737 21st NW Washington, DC 20009 phone: 202-265-3263 x277 fax: 202-265-3647 http://www.preamble.org/ ---
[PEN-L:12819] Re: economist attacks living wage
See "Beware the U.S. Model" by Mishel, Schmitt and Bernstein, an EPI book, for the US/Euro comparison. See Robert Pollin's book on the living wage. Also tell the coalition to contact John Schmitt at EPI ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) for help on the issue. mbs -Original Message- From: John Exdell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wednesday, October 20, 1999 12:45 AM Subject: [PEN-L:12816] economist attacks living wage An economist at Kansas State University wrote an op-ed column in today's paper here attacking a local labor coalition that is pushing for a living wage economic development policy. He included the conventional wisdom that high minimum wages in Europe have caused high unemployment rates. I recall a posting on PEN in the late summer from someone who disputed this claim. That message contained some figures on unemployment rates in several European countries that were not much higher than ours, despite much higher minimum wages in those countries. If someone has reliable figures on this, please post them. We will make use of them here in our response. This economist of course also represented his view as the universal wisdom of his profession. Are there other cogent explanations economists offer for the higher unemployment rates in some European countries? --- Department of Philosophy Office/voicemail: 785-532-0359 Kedzie Hall 203 Philosophy Office: 785-532-6758 Kansas State University Home: 785-539-6076 Manhattan KS 66506 Fax: 785-532-7004
[PEN-L:1137] Nation's Highest Living Wage Passed in San Jose
Published Wednesday, November 18, 1998, in the San Jose Mercury News Council passes living-wage, labor-organizing package BY BARRY WITT Mercury News Staff Writer San Jose Mayor Susan Hammer and local labor leaders scored a historic victory late Tuesday as the city council adopted the highest new minimum wage rates in the country for employees of city contractors and an apparently unprecedented requirement to help unions organize those companies' employees. Before a joyous, overflow crowd of union, church and community activists, the council voted 7-3 to require various city contractors to pay a ``living wage'' of at least $9.50 an hour if the company provides health benefits or $10.75 an hour if benefits aren't provided. There was a narrow 6-5 council majority favoring the living wage, but a vote had not been expected until next week when supporter Margie Fernandes returned from a conference in Portugal. Passage became possible Tuesday night when Councilmen David Pandori and John Diquisto reversed their positions and said they would support it. The labor peace proposal seemed threatened with defeat, but Councilwoman Alice Woody reversed her position of a day earlier and said she would support it. In the end, the only council members to oppose the package were Pat Dando, Frank Fiscalini and George Shirakawa. ``Tonight is our opportunity to feature the other side of Silicon Valley,'' Amy Dean, chief executive of the South Bay AFL-CIO Labor Council told a rally outside City Hall before the meeting. ``Tonight is to talk about the faces and complexions that are not published in the business pages.'' Hammer described the living wage as ``a step toward addressing the plight of those struggling to provide for their families in a high-cost region such as Silicon Valley.'' She called it a ``first step'' and urged her successors to expand it. Hammer leaves office next month. The living wage rates are $3 an hour less than what supporters had been seeking but are still the highest among any of 17 other cities nationwide -- including Los Angeles and Oakland -- that have adopted similar requirements. The related ``labor peace'' measure will require companies seeking city service contracts to provide ``assurances of protection against labor discord'' over the life of the contract. The assurances have not been spelled out, but the options officials have outlined would make it easier for unions to organize workers. City Attorney Joan Gallo has said such assurances could include not only a signed union contract but also allowing unions to attempt to organize under a ``card check'' procedure -- which unions prefer over the traditional secret ballots. Under a card check, the union would be recognized if a majority of workers sign cards approving union representation. City officials could point to no other city in the nation that has a similar requirement for bidders on city contracts, and its inclusion in the living-wage proposal was fought bitterly by city business interests. Radio station owner Bob Kieve, a board member with the San Jose Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce, said the labor peace provision would send a message to contractors that ``you can be assured you're going to hold on to your (city) business only if you give labor anything that it demands.'' He suggested the council had become ``an auxiliary of the Central Labor Council.'' More than 500 living-wage supporters turned out at the council meeting. Only two business leaders spoke against it. The wage requirements would apply to contractors providing services ranging from auto repair to security. Contracts valued at less than $20,000 and contracts issued by the city's Redevelopment Agency would be exempt. The policy also leaves out low-wage workers at San Jose International Airport. In total, City Manager Regina V.K. Williams estimated that 500 employees of city contractors would get raises over the next 18 months at a cost to those companies of about $2 million, with an unknown portion of that amount being passed back to the city. Another 200 or so part-time city employees, mostly summer recreation workers, also would get raises because their pay now falls below the new living-wage standard. City officials have said the largest group of workers who will be affected are those employed by Volume Services America under its food service contract at the San Jose McEnery Convention Center. Volume's contract expires at the end of this year -- although it may be extended through 1999. Companies proposing to take on the contract after that time will have to comply
[PEN-L:1066] Re: Re: Re: Re: Living Wage book and debate with
Bob Pollin wrote: Without having done careful research on this particular factor, four things seem most pertinent for understanding why minimum wages do not correlate inversely--or at least not in a straightforward way--with changes in employment. Thinking about a simple labor market with a downward sloping demand curve and upward sloping supply curve, these things are: 1. Rightward shift in the demand curve, depending on macro factors, which in my less than rigorous study of this, seems to swamp the minimum wage effect. Indeed, one could say that the rise in minimum wages almost always follows business cycle upswings with a lag. Gil Skillman comments: Possibly true but beside the point, since if the neoclassicals are right about the _ceteris paribus_ effects of minimum wage, they could legitimately argue that employment would be *even higher* if the minimum wage weren't raised. Conversely, are you suggesting that a living wage policy should only be implemented in times of strong upswings, to ensure that any specific disemployment effect would be "swamped" by macro effects? Doubtful. I think what Bob is talking about is that the effective demand curve for less-skilled labor is price inelastic, so that even if a higher minimum wage hurts employment, it would raise wages even more (to a greater percent). The rise in the overall wage bill would then boost consumer spending, which would shift the labor-demand curve to the right. (The "sales constraint" on labor demand would become less binding, so that the technologically-determined marginal product curve would become more relevant.) This raises employment, cancelling out the initial fall in employment. (BTW, all of this is standard neoclassical economics, though most microeconomists never studied macroeconomics and so don't know about sales-constrained (or quantity-constrained) markets and simply assume that what Clower calls "notional" demand curves apply (i.e, that Say's Law rules).) This demand-side effect seems weaker when we talk about a living wage initiative, because such an initiative (unlike the minimum wage) covers a relatively small fragment of the labor force. But perhaps a living wage initiative could start a domino effect, raising the wages of all folks at the bottom of the wage hierarchy. In that case, it is more like the minimum wage, which affects the entire economy or at least a big area such as Pennsylvania or New Jersey. The living wage initative might also have this effect if it isn't the _only_ initiative that we push for. For example, we might push for unionization of the janitors and maids... Enough such initiatives and the effects could be general. (Obviously, I am not calling for Bob to do all this himself. He's doing enough for one person.) 2. Efficiency wage effects, in particular, declines in turnover and absenteeism, which by raising productivity, allow us to move up the supply curve without hiring more people. Doesn't help this argument. First,if profit-seeking employers cared about these effects, minimum wages would be beside the point, since they would willingly raise the wage above existing minimums now. But apparently they don't, so increased minimums will still increase effective labor costs at the margin and reduce employment I think Gil's point shows the problems with the efficiency wage hypothesis (EWH) as usually interpreted. I think that hypothesis has some insights to offer, but it's inadequate if it's the only deviation from the received neoclassical wisdom that we bring in. It's a mistake to engage in micro-reductionism, trying to explain all of the many deviations of the real-world "labor market" from the Walrasian utopia using the EWH (and it's even worse if you follow Bowles/Gintis to use only the shirking (principle/agent) version of the EWH, ignoring all the other effects of high wages). The real world of the "labor market" not only involves the EWH, but a lot more (frictions, monopsony, bilateral monopoly, monopoly rents to share, sales constraint, etc. etc.) These "imperfections" interact with each other and reinforce each other, so that post Keynesians like Jamie Galbraith reject the whole idea of describing the buying and selling of labor-power as being like a standardly-defined market. Perhaps we should use the Foley-type story of universal bilateral monopoly instead. (BTW, one well-known result of either monopsony or bilateral monopoly is that a minimum wage hike can increase employment.) One theory that the EWH is confused with is that of labor-market dualism. That theory (cf. Rick Edwards' CONTESTED TERRAIN, Andrew Friedman's INDUSTRY AND LABOUR: CLASS STRUGGLES AT WORK AND MONOPOLY CAPITALISM, and a lot of books by other authors) rejects the idea of technologically-determined labor-demand even in the absense of sales constraints and gets us beyond the simple emphasis on bargaining power that results from a Foley-
Re: [PEN-L:1003] Re: Re: Re: Living Wage book and debate withKrugman
Thanks Gil. One way to contextualize your result is to think of it in response to the argument that increases in the minimum wage only hurt the people they are intended to help. As I understand it, the debate takes this form: Supporter of living wage: Perhaps there will be some decline in the demand for labor, but since this demand is highly inelastic (no empirical debate there), the income collectively received by low-income people, employed and unemployed, will go up. Opponent: Yes, but the ill-effects are concentrated on a specific, vulnerable group. If 5% lose their jobs, they will probably be new entrants who will suffer permanent damage. So you are making other low-wage workers a little better off so that these will be devastated. Supporter: Not so fast. You are assuming that those whose wages go up are not the same as those who lose their jobs. On the contrary, these jobs have very high turnover, and therefore the job losses, such as they might be, will be temporary and spread out over the whole population. Thus most low-wage workers, with a living wage law, will find themselves working (perhaps) a little less (slightly longer spells of unemployment between jobs) but making considerably more per hour, thereby coming out ahead. It is a false assumption that unemployment will be demographically concentrated. Gil: Yes, and not only that, but the decline in labor demand (such as it is) will express itself in the form of fewer hours, which many or all experience, and not reduced jobs that could potentially affect a few people intensively. Since no one denies that the demand for labor is highly inelastic, my result, combined with the turnover argument, shows that a living wage law is unambiguously a good thing for virtually the entirely low-income population. To me, this is now the minimum position that living wage supporters can take, buttressed by theory and evidence. I would like to take a maximal position, however, that through a macro process, the redistribution of income entailed in a living wage law can stimulate the economy as a whole and thereby potentially offset the substitution effects of wage change. We have a modest argument from differences in the marginal propensity to consume, but I have to admit I'm not happy with this for a variety of reasons, among which is its apparent inappropriateness in the drastically low-savings U.S. economy at present. A better theory would be one that showed that system-wide change in the income stream could have stimulative effects apart from the aggregate savings rate. I would imagine some sort of dynamic out-of-equilibrium adjustment story employing incomplete information, etc. This is not my area, but I have a hunch that a process of this sort really does take place sometimes, if not always, and that formalizing it would be an enormous contribution to progressive economics. If I ran a foundation I would eagerly throw money at anyone interested in taking this up. Peter Dorman Gil Skillman wrote: At 01:33 PM 11/11/98 -0500, you wrote: Gil's comments are very interesting, though I'm not exactly clear what is going on in this model. Could you please explain it a bit further Gil and/or send me a copy of the paper? Bob, I will send you the paper, but for the sake of present discussion, let me also respond to your comments below, after which I'll talk about the intuition behind my result. You write: Without having done careful research on this particular factor, four things seem most pertinent for understanding why minimum wages do not correlate inversely--or at least not in a straightforward way--with changes in employment. Thinking about a simple labor market with a downward sloping demand curve and upward sloping supply curve, these things are: 1. Rightward shift in the demand curve, depending on macro factors, which in my less than rigorous study of this, seems to swamp the minimum wage effect. Indeed, one could say that the rise in minimum wages almost always follows business cycle upswings with a lag. Possibly true but beside the point, since if the neoclassicals are right about the _ceteris paribus_ effects of minimum wage, they could legitimately argue that employment would be *even higher* if the minimum wage weren't raised. Conversely, are you suggesting that a living wage policy should only be implemented in times of strong upswings, to ensure that any specific disemployment effect would be "swamped" by macro effects? Doubtful. 2. Efficiency wage effects, in particular, declines in turnover and absenteeism, which by raising productivity, allow us to move up the supply curve without hiring more people. Doesn't help this argument. First,if profit-seeking employers cared about these effects, minimum wages would be beside the point, since they would willingly raise the wage above existing minimums now. But apparently they don't, so increase
[PEN-L:998] Re: Re: Living Wage book and debate with Krugman
Gil's comments are very interesting, though I'm not exactly clear what is going on in this model. Could you please explain it a bit further Gil and/or send me a copy of the paper? Without having done careful research on this particular factor, four things seem most pertinent for understanding why minimum wages do not correlate inversely--or at least not in a straightforward way--with changes in employment. Thinking about a simple labor market with a downward sloping demand curve and upward sloping supply curve, these things are: 1. Rightward shift in the demand curve, depending on macro factors, which in my less than rigorous study of this, seems to swamp the minimum wage effect. Indeed, one could say that the rise in minimum wages almost always follows business cycle upswings with a lag. 2. Efficiency wage effects, in particular, declines in turnover and absenteeism, which by raising productivity, allow us to move up the supply curve without hiring more people. 3. There may be some declines in hours worked, if not number of people hired; but, as I recall, this doesn't come through so clearly in the work of Card and Kreugar, for example, since the total hours were not measured that carefully. 4. Firms absorb the costs, since, in many cases, low-wage labor costs are a relatively small proportion of total fixed and variable costs (is this similar to Gil's point?); but then they try to pass on costs by raising prices, and are partially successful in doing so, especially in the service sector, which is not competing with imports from low-wage countries. These are just some thoughts. I wish I could have had time by now to develop them further. Regards, Bob Pollin effectively shift the supply curve to the rightAt 01:06 PM 11/8/98 -0500, you wrote: Concerning this passage from Krugman on Pollin and Luce's book on living wages: So what are the effects of increasing minimum wages? Any Econ 101 student can tell you the answer: The higher wage reduces the quantity of labor demanded, and hence leads to unemployment. This theoretical prediction has, however, been hard to confirm with actual data. Indeed, much-cited studies by two well-regarded labor economists, David Card and Alan Krueger, find that where there have been more or less controlled experiments, for example when New Jersey raised minimum wages but Pennsylvania did not, the effects of the increase on employment have been negligible or even positive. Exactly what to make of this result is a source of great dispute. Card and Krueger offered some complex theoretical rationales, but most of their colleagues are unconvinced; the centrist view is probably that minimum wages "do," in fact, reduce employment, but that the effects are small and swamped by other forces. To Bob and others interested-- The impact of imposing or raising a minimum wage is not as clearcut as Krugman suggests, even under essentially neoclassical conditions; nor is the theoretical rationale for this ambiguity isn't particularly "complex." I've written a paper showing that under otherwise competitive exchange conditions, the presence of "quasi-fixed labor costs"--labor costs that vary with the number of employees rather than the total number of hours worked, like health insurance or lockers or office space--creates a setting in which raising a minimum wage may increase the number of *workers* employed, even as it reduces the total number of *hours* worked by these employees.In this light, results such as those by Card and Krueger are not so paradoxical. Gil Skillman Robert Pollin Department of Economics Univesity of Massachusetts-Amherst Amherst, MA 01002 (413) 577-0126 (office); (413) 545-2921 (fax) [EMAIL PROTECTED]; (413) 549-8796 (home)
[PEN-L:1003] Re: Re: Re: Living Wage book and debate withKrugman
At 01:33 PM 11/11/98 -0500, you wrote: Gil's comments are very interesting, though I'm not exactly clear what is going on in this model. Could you please explain it a bit further Gil and/or send me a copy of the paper? Bob, I will send you the paper, but for the sake of present discussion, let me also respond to your comments below, after which I'll talk about the intuition behind my result. You write: Without having done careful research on this particular factor, four things seem most pertinent for understanding why minimum wages do not correlate inversely--or at least not in a straightforward way--with changes in employment. Thinking about a simple labor market with a downward sloping demand curve and upward sloping supply curve, these things are: 1. Rightward shift in the demand curve, depending on macro factors, which in my less than rigorous study of this, seems to swamp the minimum wage effect. Indeed, one could say that the rise in minimum wages almost always follows business cycle upswings with a lag. Possibly true but beside the point, since if the neoclassicals are right about the _ceteris paribus_ effects of minimum wage, they could legitimately argue that employment would be *even higher* if the minimum wage weren't raised. Conversely, are you suggesting that a living wage policy should only be implemented in times of strong upswings, to ensure that any specific disemployment effect would be "swamped" by macro effects? Doubtful. 2. Efficiency wage effects, in particular, declines in turnover and absenteeism, which by raising productivity, allow us to move up the supply curve without hiring more people. Doesn't help this argument. First,if profit-seeking employers cared about these effects, minimum wages would be beside the point, since they would willingly raise the wage above existing minimums now. But apparently they don't, so increased minimums will still increase effective labor costs at the margin and reduce employment. Second, turnover rates have no direct effect on employment flows, only on the identities of those employed by the firm at any one time. Quite possibly the indirect effects could work in the *opposite* direction that you suggest, if employers "hoard" labor in order to cover absentees and departures. If you're right about the efficiency wage effect, hoarding--and thus net employment--might go down as a result. 3. There may be some declines in hours worked, if not number of people hired; but, as I recall, this doesn't come through so clearly in the work of Card and Kreugar, for example, since the total hours were not measured that carefully. Yes, that's my point; see below. But making it requires invoking quasi-fixed labor costs, as explained below. In a perfectly competitive world without quasi-fixed costs, given that individual labor supply is upward-sloping, an increase in the minimum wage leads to an *increase* in hours per worker and thus a *decrease* in number of workers employed. To put it another way, if you want to advance this argument seriously, my paper gives you the theoretical ammunition. 4. Firms absorb the costs, since, in many cases, low-wage labor costs are a relatively small proportion of total fixed and variable costs (is this similar to Gil's point?); but then they try to pass on costs by raising prices, and are partially successful in doing so, especially in the service sector, which is not competing with imports from low-wage countries. That doesn't work either. Labor demand curves are still downward sloping (though less elastic) even if firms have product market price-setting power, as this point suggests. Other things equal, an increase in the wage rate would still reduce employment. This brings us to the point of my paper. Suppose we're otherwise in a neoclassical world (for the sake of argument), but there are quasi-fixed labor costs, i.e. those which vary with the number of workers hired rather than with the number of hours worked. Compared to a world without such costs, the effect of quasi-fixed labor costs is to induce employers to conserve on number of workers hired and use more hours per worker. However, *at the margin*, the imposition or increase of a minimum wage increases the cost of hours relative to the cost of people (that's not obvious, I know, which is why the paper makes a contribution), leading to a substitution of people for hours, increasing employment. Of course, against this "labor substitution" effect is the standard, negative "quantity demanded" effect from increasing the total cost of labor, but nothing guarantees that this effect on *workers employed* offsets the labor substitution effect. Consequently, there is no *a priori* basis for concluding that increasing the minimum wage must reduce worker employment (although hours per worker must go down), **even in this neoclassical environment.** Gil
[PEN-L:950] Re: Re: Living Wage book and debate with Krugman
At 13:06 8/11/98 -0500, you wrote: Concerning this passage from Krugman on Pollin and Luce's book on living wages: So what are the effects of increasing minimum wages? Any Econ 101 student can tell you the answer: The higher wage reduces the quantity of labor demanded, and hence leads to unemployment. This theoretical prediction has, however, been hard to confirm with actual data. Indeed, much-cited studies by two well-regarded labor economists, David Card and Alan Krueger, find that where there have been more or less controlled experiments, for example when New Jersey raised minimum wages but Pennsylvania did not, the effects of the increase on employment have been negligible or even positive. Exactly what to make of this result is a source of great dispute. Card and Krueger offered some complex theoretical rationales, but most of their colleagues are unconvinced; the centrist view is probably that minimum wages "do," in fact, reduce employment, but that the effects are small and swamped by other forces. To Bob and others interested-- The impact of imposing or raising a minimum wage is not as clearcut as Krugman suggests, even under essentially neoclassical conditions; nor is the theoretical rationale for this ambiguity isn't particularly "complex." I've written a paper showing that under otherwise competitive exchange conditions, the presence of "quasi-fixed labor costs"--labor costs that vary with the number of employees rather than the total number of hours worked, like health insurance or lockers or office space--creates a setting in which raising a minimum wage may increase the number of *workers* employed, even as it reduces the total number of *hours* worked by these employees.In this light, results such as those by Card and Krueger are not so paradoxical. Gil Skillman In a course work paper for labor-economics at my graduate school, I had developed a very simple model by taking account of skilled and unskilled labor markets and linking the two markets by establishing the wages prevailing in unskilled market (say the minimum wage) as the floor for the wage structure in the skilled market. In a completely neo-classical framework, I found that a rise in minimum wage has an ambiguous effect on the demand for skilled labor, i.e. there could be an increase in the demand for skilled labor due to the rise in the minimum wage. But more importantly, I find it strange that such an intellegent man as Krugman would think that labor (power) and milk stand on the same footing in the market. The point that, within the capitalist framework itself, labor (power) is not a commodity as milk is a theoretical issue and not just a moral question--even though morality, of course, is more important than any economic question. Moreover, a rise in wages would most likely reduce the rate of profit and change all the prices. But this does not have to be necessarily inflationary as krugman suggests. Cheers, ajit sinha
Re: [PEN-L:944] Living Wage book and debate with Krugman
Bravo to Bob Pollin for his solid rejoinder to Krugman. Bob's point about slave labor is not merely rhetorical. The legal prohibition against selling oneself into slavery is arguably the most market-distorting of all our labor laws. It prevents workers from capitalizing or colateralizing the value of their ability to work, with profound implications for credit markets, the financing of education, income-smoothing, etc. By conventional economic standards labor markets would operate much more efficiently without this prohibition. Against this one must weigh the utter immorality of slavery and the political horror of a society divided between slaves and slave-owners. Peter Dorman
[PEN-L:948] Re: Living Wage book and debate with Krugman
Concerning this passage from Krugman on Pollin and Luce's book on living wages: So what are the effects of increasing minimum wages? Any Econ 101 student can tell you the answer: The higher wage reduces the quantity of labor demanded, and hence leads to unemployment. This theoretical prediction has, however, been hard to confirm with actual data. Indeed, much-cited studies by two well-regarded labor economists, David Card and Alan Krueger, find that where there have been more or less controlled experiments, for example when New Jersey raised minimum wages but Pennsylvania did not, the effects of the increase on employment have been negligible or even positive. Exactly what to make of this result is a source of great dispute. Card and Krueger offered some complex theoretical rationales, but most of their colleagues are unconvinced; the centrist view is probably that minimum wages "do," in fact, reduce employment, but that the effects are small and swamped by other forces. To Bob and others interested-- The impact of imposing or raising a minimum wage is not as clearcut as Krugman suggests, even under essentially neoclassical conditions; nor is the theoretical rationale for this ambiguity isn't particularly "complex." I've written a paper showing that under otherwise competitive exchange conditions, the presence of "quasi-fixed labor costs"--labor costs that vary with the number of employees rather than the total number of hours worked, like health insurance or lockers or office space--creates a setting in which raising a minimum wage may increase the number of *workers* employed, even as it reduces the total number of *hours* worked by these employees.In this light, results such as those by Card and Krueger are not so paradoxical. Gil Skillman
[PEN-L:945] Detroit Living Wage
From World Socialist Web Site WSWS : News Analysis : North America The political issues raised by the Detroit Living Wage Ordinance Comment by Jerry White 7 November 1998 Detroit voters overwhelmingly passed a ballot initiative Tuesday called the Living Wage Ordinance. The measure requires that all companies doing $50,000 or more worth of business with the city, or receiving city subsidies, pay a minimum wage of $7.70 per hour, the official poverty level for a family of four, and provide health care benefits. Companies that do not provide benefits would be required to pay $9.63 per hour. The ballot measure was initiated by a coalition headed by the Detroit Metropolitan AFL-CIO. The provisions of the ordinance are very limited. A wage increase of one or two dollars an hour would hardly lift tens of thousands of Detroit's working poor out of real poverty. Moreover, most city contractors currently pay wages at or above the proposed minimum, and many private employers have been forced to raise wages to attract workers. In several cities where similar measures were passed, including Los Angeles and Baltimore, many employers have simply ignored it. However, in the weeks before Election Day a concerted effort was launched by the so-called Coalition for Full Employment to defeat the ordinance. The Detroit Regional Chamber of Commerce, whose members include the Big Three auto companies; the American Society of Employers; the Detroit Free Press and Detroit News; Detroit Renaissance and the Booker T. Washington Association, an organization of black businessmen, all publicly opposed the measure. Chamber president and CEO Richard E. Blouse Jr. denounced it, saying it would lead to a "ripple effect" causing all wages to increase, and that this would "result in business relocations, layoffs and business closings." He added that "a living wage" would hamper companies from hiring entry-level workers and make it less likely that they would invest in Detroit. Mayor Dennis Archer originally endorsed the measure, but then reversed himself saying the ordinance would do "damage" to small and minority-owned businesses and particularly nonprofit organizations. Despite the extremely limited character of the proposal it has brought to the fore the antagonism of class interests in Detroit. On the one side, workers overwhelmingly supported the measure. On the other, virtually all of Detroit's economic and political establishment opposed it, including the black politicians and wealthy businessmen who claim to speak for minority workers and youth. Workers for the most part ignored the pro-business arguments and affirmed their feelings that they have the right to jobs with decent wages. However, those who are counting on the measure to significantly improve their economic standing are going to be disappointed. The employers will likely challenge the ordinance in the courts and tie up its implementation for years. Even if it were to take effect, past experience shows that the ordinance will likely become a dead letter. A study in May done by the coalition that won passage of a similar measure in Los Angeles said the city fails to monitor and implement the measure. The Metro Detroit AFL-CIO cannot be counted on to enforce it. The union officials have already indicated that they will accept exemptions to accommodate the employers. As a spokesperson for the Detroit Metro AFL-CIO told the World Socialist Web Site, "The guidelines will be no different than any other city that has a living wage ordinance. All of those cities have exceptions and
[PEN-L:944] Living Wage book and debate with Krugman
--Boundary_(ID_PIuqmUc+sNarSplKTUOiKA) In the category of shameless self-promotion, I am sending along news of my new New Press book with Stephanie Luce, The Living Wage: Building A Fair Economy. This includes a bit of advertising blurb, and Paul Krugman's trashing of the book in the September Washington Monthly, and my response to Krugman, part of which is in the November Washington Monthly. My debate with Krugman is in this message and a Word attachment. Regards, Bob Pollin ** THE LIVING WAGE: BUILDING A FAIR ECONOMY BY ROBERT POLLIN AND STEPHANIE LUCE THE NEW PRESS, 1998. "Of all the books I've read on making this country what it ought to be, this is the best." -- Robert Heilbroner, Norman Thomas Professor Emeritus of Economics, New School for Social Research A Fight for Economic Justice Living standard and working conditions for U.S. workers have been under attack for a generation. To challenge this, the living wage movement has spread rapidly throughout the country over the past four years. The Living Wage is the first book to lay out the economic and political background for the movement, and to analyze the effects of implementing living wage laws--for businesses, governments, and working people. "An excellent, informative, and highly readable analysis of the living wage campaigns." -- Senator Edward M. Kennedy "This insightful study seeks out and exposes every clay foot in the standard economic arguments against legislating a decent and livable wage for workers." -- John Sweeney, President, AFL-CIO "This book does a terrific job of explaining how the living wage would work--and how it is already working in the public sector of some of our major cities." -- Nancy Folbre, Professor of Economics, University of Massachusetts-Amherst * Moral Economics: What the Campaign For a Living Wage is Really About Review of Living Wage: Building a Fair Economy by Robert Pollin and Stephanie Luce New Press, 1998 Review by Paul Krugman for Washington Monthly, September 1998 Economics textbooks enthuse about virtues of a price system. In a market economy, nobody needs to order people to economize on a scarce commodity or make extra efforts to produce it: Scarcity leads to a high price, and sheer self-interest does the rest. Conversely, nobody needs special persuasion to take advantage of an underemployed resource: Abundance will make it cheap, and again self-interest will take it from there. And yet there is a problem with markets: They are absolutely and relentlessly amoral. Labor, in a market system, is just another commodity; the wage a man or woman can command has nothing to do with how much he or she needs to make to support a family or to feel part of the broader society. Some conservatives have managed to convince themselves that this poses no moral dilemma, that whatever is, is just. And one supposes that there are still unrepentant socialists who believe that one can do away with market determination of incomes altogether. But after a century marked by both the Great Depression -- which basically ended unalloyed faith in markets -- and the fall of communism, most people support some version of the welfare state: a system that is based on markets, but in which the government tries to prevent too unequal a distribution of income. But how is that to be accomplished? The standard economist's solution, which is also the main way the U.S. welfare state operates, involves "after-market" intervention: Let the markets rip, but then use progressive taxes and redistributive transfers to make the end result fairer. However, many liberals have always felt that this solution is unsatisfactory. Instead, they want to increase "market" wages, notably through support of collective bargaining, and through the imposition of minimum wage standards. The "living wage" movement, which has attracted considerable support in several major U.S. cities, is a variant on this tradition. As described in Robert Pollin and Stephanie Luce's new book The Living Wage, it essentially involves putting a floor on wages not through a conventional minimum wage law, but by requiring minimum wage standards of firms that do business with a local government. Aside from novel enforcement issues (I know this lawyer who will explain to you about creating dummy companies for the contract work, leaving the rest of the business unregulated), this is basically a distinction without a difference: The living wage movement is simply a move to raise minimum wages through local action. So what are the effects of increasing minimum wages? Any Econ 101 student can tell you the answer: T
[PEN-L:78] REVIEW: A Living Wage (fwd)
forwarded by Michael Hoover Forwarded message: H-NET BOOK REVIEW Published by [EMAIL PROTECTED] (April, 1998) Lawrence B. Glickman. _A Living Wage: American Workers and the Making of Consumer Society_. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 1997. xvi + 220 pp. Notes, bibliographical references, and index. $35.00 (cloth), ISBN 0-8014-3357-6. Reviewed for H-SHGAPE by Richard Schneirov, Indiana State University This book has enormous implications for historians of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era. To understand precisely how first requires a capsule summary of nineteenth century labor historiography. From the 1960s through the early 1980s, U.S. labor historians sought to write a history of the making of the American working class much in the manner done so masterfully for the English working class by Edward P. Thompson. New labor historians located a nascent socialist critique of the wage labor system in a working class version of artisan republicanism grounded in the classical labor theory of value. Most of the new generation of labor historians found that the career of labor republicanism came to a halt in the late nineteenth century with the defeat of the Knights of Labor and rise of the pure and simple or business unionism, commonly associated with the American Federation of Labor. Other historians pushed back the "fall" of labor into the twentieth century, but in most cases a working class that was "made" throughout most of the nineteenth century was "unmade" at some point in the twentieth.[1] For nonlabor historians of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era, the conclusions of the new labor historians tended to reinforce a much older view of American history as exceptionalist--that is, lacking sharp class divisions and a viable socialist or labor political presence as existed in Europe and Britain. In the newest version of the old story, exceptionalism was not inherent in American history but emerged historically out of working class failure. _A Living Wage_ is so important because it provides us with some of the conceptual tools required for resolving labor history's impasse. Glickman grounds the fin de siecle crisis, whose resolution created the foundation for modern America, in the dissolution of a producers' understanding of how value was constructed. With the sundering of the labor theory of value from the calculus determining prices and wages--the premise for neoclassical economic theory--the producers' critique of the wage labor system lost its intellectual and ultimately its cultural force. One outcome which Glickman does not discuss is the marginalist revolution, which facilitated the acceptance of corporate administered prices and wages. Glickman's book tells of a different outcome, one that emerged out of the late nineteenth century labor movement. Accepting the modern premise that wages no longer were determined by the cost of labor, trade union activists, inspired by the writings of eight-hour theorist Ira Steward, began to promote a needs theory of value, according to which human needs would have priority over market forces in determining wages. In the terms of the day, labor advocated a "living wage" whose value would be determined by the ever-expanding needs and wants of workers in their capacity as consumers. As Samuel Gompers' associate Frank Foster put it, "It is not the value of what is produced which determines the wages rate, but the nature and degree of the wants of the workers" (p. 70). Whether labor leaders knew it or not, the new regulative principle was quite in accord with the thinking of Marx whose maxim of socialism was "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." The significance of this development has been largely ignored by labor historians because the doctrine of the living wage and its corollary, the need for a constantly rising (American) standard of living, necessarily entailed the acceptance of what was then called "wage slavery." Many historians have viewed the abandonment of the goal of self-employment through producers' cooperation and the acceptance of a consumerist consciousness as equivalent to a passive and narrowly apolitical acquiescence in the inevitability of capitalism. But, as Glickman shows, the living wage doctrine was actively constructed by workers themselves, partly out of the producers' ideal of a moral economy as an alternative to the commodification of toil, but also out of an acceptance of those very relations. In Glickman's view acceptance, rather than being equivalent to acquiescence, was the necessary condition for actively reshaping and regulating market relations according to an ethical standard external to those relations, viz. workers' self-perceived needs. Glickman traces the development of living wage thinking
[PEN-L:11573] Living Wage Victory in Boston!
This is for list members interested in the national movement for living wages and corporate accountability. Boston City Council Passes Strongest Living Wage Ordinance In USA Boston gets a Living Wage! The Boston Jobs and Living Wage Coalition, a consortium of labor, religious and community leaders led by Boston ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) and the Massachusetts AFL-CIO scored a huge victory Wednesday night, July 30, as the Boston City Council passed the living wage ordinance 11-1. Mayor Menino has lent his support to the bill and has indicated that he will sign it. The new ordinance is arguably the strongest such measure in the country, requiring companies getting sizable city contracts or subsidies to pay their employees a wage that is sufficient to keep a family of four above poverty, currently about $7.70 an hour. The measure also includes resident hiring provisions, requires companies seeking city assistance to report on jobs and wages, and creates an advisory board on city assistance with labor and ACORN seats. Before the vote, Boston City Councilors lined up to praise the work of ACORN and the AFL in building a strong coalition to pass this important ordinance. "There is no reason we should be paying out our tax dollars to subsidize companies that pay poverty wages," said Maude Hurd, National President of ACORN. "We'll continue to push these measures all over the country to insure that our neighborhoods don't continue to suffer while public money is spent unaccountably." "The Living Wage ordinance puts city tax dollars to work for working families in Boston," added Joseph Faherty, president of the Massachusetts AFL-CIO. The Boston ordinance is the latest to pass in a slew of such ordinances being proposed all over the country in what appears to be a growing movement to hold businesses accountable for the public tax dollars they receive. The living wage victory came after months of petitioning, street visibility, demonstrations, public hearings, and intense negotiations with City Councilors and Mayor Menino. Similar campaigns are currrently underway in Philadelphia, Denver, St. Louis, Albuquerque, Reading, PA and several other cities. Living wage ordinances are on the books in Los Angeles, Milwaukee, Baltimore, New York City, Jersey City, Minneapolis, St. Paul, Portland, Santa Clara County, CA, and New Haven, CT. For further information on the Boston ordinance contact Lisa Clauson at 617-436-7100. _ Nathan Henderson-James, Research Coordinator ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) [EMAIL PROTECTED] 202-547-2500 voice 202-546-2483 fax http://www.acorn.org/community ** "After World War II, the nation's tax bill was roughly split between corporations and individuals. But after years of changes in the federal tax code and international economy, the corporate share of taxes has declined to a fourth the amount individuals pay, according to the US Office of Management and Budget." --Boston Globe series on Corporate Welfare 7/7/96 ** This Week in History: 7/28/1868-14th Amendment to the US Constitution gives citizenship to Blacks, in the wake of the decidedly un-Civil War.
[PEN-L:9333] Re: LA Living Wage Passes!
Bob, This is great news! Its been dead in committee forever in Chicago where they're afraid to bring it up to vote for fear of embarresment as most Alderman supported it - but a Daley a.k.a. the Dictator opposes it they will not let it out of committee. I will pass this on. In Solidarity, Ron Baiman Roosevelt U., Chicago On Tue, 18 Mar 1997, Robert Pollin wrote: Finally, some very good news for the left and labor movement. After a long, bitter struggle, the LA Living Wage ordinance passed 12 - 0, with three abstensions. Mayor Richard Riordan had promised to veto the ordinance, but with a 12-vote majority, the ordinance is now veto proof! Though the coverage is still very small--directly probably about 5,000 workers--it should help unions to fight for new wage norms throughout the city. This victory was the result of an extremely well organized and effective labor/progressive coalition. Several people at UC-Riverside, including me, worked with the coalition in producing research, including a full scale study, "The Economics of the Los Angeles Living Wage Ordinance." There are great lessons here about what it takes to win something worthwhile. One thing is that well-supported appeals to social justice really can be effective at the local level, where the dominance of big money corporate politics is far less pervasive--even in a big city like LA. -- Bob Pollin Robert Pollin Department of Economics Univesity of California-Riverside Riverside, CA 92521-0427 (909) 787-5037, ext 1579 (office); (909) 788-8106 (home) (909) 787-5685 (fax); [EMAIL PROTECTED] (e-mail)
[PEN-L:9334] Re: LA Living Wage Passes!
Yes Ron and Others, The LA Living Wage has now gotten passed the veto by Mayor Riordan. As of Tuesday, it became law, despite Riordan's veto last Friday. Tell them in Chicago to get serious. --Bob Pollin At 07:45 PM 4/3/97 -0800, you wrote: Bob, This is great news! Its been dead in committee forever in Chicago where they're afraid to bring it up to vote for fear of embarresment as most Alderman supported it - but a Daley a.k.a. the Dictator opposes it they will not let it out of committee. I will pass this on. In Solidarity, Ron Baiman Roosevelt U., Chicago On Tue, 18 Mar 1997, Robert Pollin wrote: Finally, some very good news for the left and labor movement. After a long, bitter struggle, the LA Living Wage ordinance passed 12 - 0, with three abstensions. Mayor Richard Riordan had promised to veto the ordinance, but with a 12-vote majority, the ordinance is now veto proof! Though the coverage is still very small--directly probably about 5,000 workers--it should help unions to fight for new wage norms throughout the city. This victory was the result of an extremely well organized and effective labor/progressive coalition. Several people at UC-Riverside, including me, worked with the coalition in producing research, including a full scale study, "The Economics of the Los Angeles Living Wage Ordinance." There are great lessons here about what it takes to win something worthwhile. One thing is that well-supported appeals to social justice really can be effective at the local level, where the dominance of big money corporate politics is far less pervasive--even in a big city like LA. -- Bob Pollin Robert Pollin Department of Economics Univesity of California-Riverside Riverside, CA 92521-0427 (909) 787-5037, ext 1579 (office); (909) 788-8106 (home) (909) 787-5685 (fax); [EMAIL PROTECTED] (e-mail) *** Robert Pollin Department of Economics U. of California-Riverside Riverside, CA 92521-0427, USA (909) 787-5037 ext. 1579 (office); (909) 788-8106 (home) (909) 787-5685 (fax); [EMAIL PROTECTED] (e-mail)
[PEN-L:9035] Re: LA Living Wage Passes!
Bob, congratulations on the living wage victory! We are working away on the study for one in Boston. Marc Breslow.
[PEN-L:9010] Re: LA Living Wage Passes!
Bob wrote: Finally, some very good news for the left and labor movement. After a long, bitter struggle, the LA Living Wage ordinance passed 12 - 0, with three abstensions. Mayor Richard Riordan had promised to veto the ordinance, but with a 12-vote majority, the ordinance is now veto proof! That's great! Congratulations! This victory was the result of an extremely well organized and effective labor/progressive coalition. Several people at UC-Riverside, including me, worked with the coalition in producing research, including a full scale study, "The Economics of the Los Angeles Living Wage Ordinance." Is the report, or a summary of it, online yet? Thanks, Anders P.S. If you can't easily put it on the web, I'd be happy to do it for you, along w/ other Living Wage materials you've got.
[PEN-L:9017] Re: LA Living Wage Passes!
Bob, Can you give us more information about this. What does the ordinance do? What is in the report you refer to? Thanks. Posted on 18 Mar 1997 at 20:15:49 by TELEC List Distributor (011802) [PEN-L:9004] LA Living Wage Passes! Date: Tue, 18 Mar 1997 17:14:23 -0800 (PST) Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Robert Pollin [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Multiple recipients of list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Finally, some very good news for the left and labor movement. After a long, bitter struggle, the LA Living Wage ordinance passed 12 - 0, with three abstensions. Mayor Richard Riordan had promised to veto the ordinance, but with a 12-vote majority, the ordinance is now veto proof! Though the coverage is still very small--directly probably about 5,000 workers--it should help unions to fight for new wage norms throughout the city. This victory was the result of an extremely well organized and effective labor/progressive coalition. Several people at UC-Riverside, including me, worked with the coalition in producing research, including a full scale study, "The Economics of the Los Angeles Living Wage Ordinance." There are great lessons here about what it takes to win something worthwhile. One thing is that well-supported appeals to social justice really can be effective at the local level, where the dominance of big money corporate politics is far less pervasive--even in a big city like LA. -- Bob Pollin Robert Pollin Department of Economics Univesity of California-Riverside Riverside, CA 92521-0427 (909) 787-5037, ext 1579 (office); (909) 788-8106 (home) (909) 787-5685 (fax); [EMAIL PROTECTED] (e-mail) Marsh Feldman Phone: 401/874-5953 Community Planning, 204 Rodman Hall FAX: 401/874-5511 The University of Rhode Island Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Kingston, RI 02881-0815
[PEN-L:9019] Re: LA Living Wage Passes!
Here are the basics on the LA Living Wage ordinance. It sets a minimum wage of $7.25 for employees of three types: 1. Those working on city contracts. Only the workers on the contract itself are affected. The initial provision--and the one we estimated--included all workers at firms with city contracts. Obviously, this was a big concession to scale back coverage that way. It also makes it much more difficult and expensive to monitor the provision. 2. Workers at firms receiving city subsidies of over $100,000 per year or over $1 million total. 3. Workers at firms having city concessions, like at the airport, or harbour. In addition, if any workers below $8.50 an hour do not have health coverage, the companies will have to either get them coverage or pay them a wage of $8.50. Finally, there are a significant number of vacation/sick days included, I think something like 11 in the final version. As I mentioned, the direct impact is small, i.e. about 5,000 workers. But it should also push wage norms up, as we stated openly in our study. Certainly within the affected firms, you will now have some workers getting $7.25 for doing the same work as someone getting $5.75. The $5.75 workers will have a good case for a raise. So, in fact, will the current $7.25 workers and up. We estimated "wage contour" effects for workers up to $11.50. In this case, the indirect breadth of coverage will be much wider. We'll see. Several people have asked me for copies of our study. I appreciate the interest. But it is about 150 pages long. The LA Living Wage coalition has been sending them out, but they might be reluctant to keep doing so after the fact. You can reach them at [EMAIL PROTECTED] I am also going to follow up on Anders' suggestion and look into putting it on the web, or accept his invitation to do so. Anyway, it is a tremendous victory, especially given the virulent opposition of business and the mayor. -- Bob Pollin At 01:34 PM 3/19/97 -0800, you wrote: Bob, Can you give us more information about this. What does the ordinance do? What is in the report you refer to? Thanks. Posted on 18 Mar 1997 at 20:15:49 by TELEC List Distributor (011802) [PEN-L:9004] LA Living Wage Passes! Date: Tue, 18 Mar 1997 17:14:23 -0800 (PST) Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Robert Pollin [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Multiple recipients of list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Finally, some very good news for the left and labor movement. After a long, bitter struggle, the LA Living Wage ordinance passed 12 - 0, with three abstensions. Mayor Richard Riordan had promised to veto the ordinance, but with a 12-vote majority, the ordinance is now veto proof! Though the coverage is still very small--directly probably about 5,000 workers--it should help unions to fight for new wage norms throughout the city. This victory was the result of an extremely well organized and effective labor/progressive coalition. Several people at UC-Riverside, including me, worked with the coalition in producing research, including a full scale study, "The Economics of the Los Angeles Living Wage Ordinance." There are great lessons here about what it takes to win something worthwhile. One thing is that well-supported appeals to social justice really can be effective at the local level, where the dominance of big money corporate politics is far less pervasive--even in a big city like LA. -- Bob Pollin Robert Pollin Department of Economics Univesity of California-Riverside Riverside, CA 92521-0427 (909) 787-5037, ext 1579 (office); (909) 788-8106 (home) (909) 787-5685 (fax); [EMAIL PROTECTED] (e-mail) Marsh Feldman Phone: 401/874-5953 Community Planning, 204 Rodman Hall FAX: 401/874-5511 The University of Rhode Island Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Kingston, RI 02881-0815 Robert Pollin Department of Economics Univesity of California-Riverside Riverside, CA 92521-0427 (909) 787-5037, ext 1579 (office); (909) 788-8106 (home) (909) 787-5685 (fax); [EMAIL PROTECTED] (e-mail)
[PEN-L:9004] LA Living Wage Passes!
Finally, some very good news for the left and labor movement. After a long, bitter struggle, the LA Living Wage ordinance passed 12 - 0, with three abstensions. Mayor Richard Riordan had promised to veto the ordinance, but with a 12-vote majority, the ordinance is now veto proof! Though the coverage is still very small--directly probably about 5,000 workers--it should help unions to fight for new wage norms throughout the city. This victory was the result of an extremely well organized and effective labor/progressive coalition. Several people at UC-Riverside, including me, worked with the coalition in producing research, including a full scale study, "The Economics of the Los Angeles Living Wage Ordinance." There are great lessons here about what it takes to win something worthwhile. One thing is that well-supported appeals to social justice really can be effective at the local level, where the dominance of big money corporate politics is far less pervasive--even in a big city like LA. -- Bob Pollin Robert Pollin Department of Economics Univesity of California-Riverside Riverside, CA 92521-0427 (909) 787-5037, ext 1579 (office); (909) 788-8106 (home) (909) 787-5685 (fax); [EMAIL PROTECTED] (e-mail)
[PEN-L:8824] 2000 March in Oakland against Welfare Cuts/For Living Wage (fwd)
== People for Bread, Work and Justice 2065 Kittredge #E, Berkeley, CA 94704 (510) 649-8173 [EMAIL PROTECTED] == 2000 March and Rally in Oakland to Protest Cuts in Welfare, Call for Living Wage for All Oakland, CA: Chanting, singing and marching, two thousand protesters marched and rallied Saturday, March 1st in downtown Oakland to protest cuts in social welfare in an event sponsored by a new alliance of over 100 national and Bay Area organizations. The alliance, named People for Bread, Work and Justice, mobilized unionists, church members, activists and welfare recipients to protest recent cuts in welfare and to call for legislation creating jobs and guaranteeing a living wage for all. Marking the day when the first cuts in Food Stamps will impact unemployed Americans, the spirited protest became the lead story on local television news broadcasts across the region. Preceded by a prayer vigil at Old Man's Park, the march assembled at 11am at the Federal Building in Oakland where speeched denounced the role of Bill Clinton and the Republican Congress in passsing so-called welfare "reform" that will devaste the lives of the poor. Rosa Bernard, a leader of the Coalition to Abolish Poverty, called for passage of national legislation sposored by Congressman Ron Dellums that would guarantee full employment. "We need a change in this country that includes everybody. We know you can't cut welfare if there aren't jobs, and there aren't jobs." Protesters marched down Broadway, the main street in Oakland's downtown, to a short minI-rally in front of Wells Fargo Bank where speakers denounced the corporate recipients of government aid, even as those corporations downsize and throw workers into unemployment. "Cut the Strings" puppet theatre used giant puppets to visually illustrate the corporate welfare received by many of the largest US firms. The march then continued down to Jack London Square, Oakland's key tourist/shopping district for a rally at 1pm. Speakers at the rally included Owen Marron, head of Alameda County's Central Labor Council, Anuradha Mittal of the international Institute for Food and Development Policy, Virginia Hall of the Emergency Services Network, Nam Thia of the National Coalition for Immigrant Rights, Kathleen Leon of the National Organization of Women (NOW), Sun Lee of APIForCE, Malik Miah of the Machinists union, Wilson Riles of the American Friends Service Committee, along with others representing the broad range of organizations in the alliance. The alliance stresses the fact that all working families share an interest in fighting these welfare cuts, since the lack of full employment in the economy means that more job searchers will drive down wages for everyone. A key demand of the alliance is that welfare and jobs policy by the government be designed to keep wages high for everyone while assuring a living wage for all. Argued Rene Picot of the Women's Economic Agenda Project, "If everyone has to work now in order to eat, then we demand livable wage jobs, and decent affordable housing, and child care for women who are over 54% of the workforce. We want our people off the streets and in housing." People for Bread, Work and Justice was formed as a broad alliance of labor unions, religious, social services, seniors, youth, women's, political, and community service organizations dedicated to organizing against the sweeping cutbacks in food stamps and welfare (AFDC, SSI, General Assistance) pushed through by President Clinton, Governor Wilson, and the ultra-conservative Congress. The new alliance advocates the alternative of a full employment policy that promotes jobs at livable wages, paid for by progressive taxation on corporations and the wealthy to create a massive jobs program. "We are looking for a national jobs bill," said boona cheema, executive director of the social service agency BOSS and a leader of the alliance. "We timed the march today because today is the day food stamp cuts are implemented, with immigrants and able-bodied people being hit in succession by April 1st. The total impact of welfare cuts will be half a million people in California by June 1st." The alliance intends to continue organizing in the Bay Area and with allies across the country to move forward a new agenda for economic justice and full employment. Attached is the list of all organizations endorsing the alliance and the March 1st march and rally. - ENDORSERS OF PEOPLE FOR BREAD, WORK AND JUSTICE ALLIANCE AND THE MARCH 1ST MARCH RALLY (PARTIAL LIST) ELECTED OFFICIALS: State Senator Barbara Lee Alameda County Supervisor Keith Carson San Francisco Supervisor Tom Ammiano San Francisco Superv
[PEN-L:5181] Re: Request for Info: Living Wage
EPI has the list of economists who signed the statement on the minimum wage, so also, I assume, the statement. EPI tel 210-775-8810; fax 202-775-0819. NJFAC has also published a piece on the min. wage by Robert Cherry--"Let's Have an Adequate Minimum Wage,", which is Uncommon Sense 10. June Zaccone, Economics (Emer), Hofstra University National Jobs for All Coalition [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:5162] Re: Request for Info: Living Wage
Dr. Baiman, Could you or anyone else please tell me where I could find the statement by 101 economists on the effects of a higher minimum wage? Sincerely, Michael Garrity Economics Dept. University of Utah Salt Lake City, UT 84112 (801) 581-7481
[PEN-L:5126] Re: Request for Info: Living Wage
On Sun, 16 Jun 1996, Michelle Billies wrote: I have been approached by a community group here in Syracuse, NY, considering launching a campaign for a living wage requirement for firms that do business with the city. I believe there such a legal requirement in Baltimore and I am told that Buffalo is conducting a similar campaign. They asked me about determining the economic effects of such a plan. Does anyone out there in Pen-Land have any knowledge, experience, or expertise with something like this? Does anyone know what the experience of cities that have done this has been? Thanks in advance for any suggestions. David Andrews [EMAIL PROTECTED] You can also try the New Party which has living wage campaigns in 10 cities. Try Adam Glickman at 212-302-5053. Also, I am an activist in New York City collecting information on community groups protesting welfare reform, working on "alternatives to welfare" or doing anti-poverty work more generally. Which group in Syracuse is launching this campaign? Have you located the groups in Buffalo and Baltimore? Thanks - Michelle Billies **New address: [EMAIL PROTECTED] I just testified before the Chicago City Council on this and would be glad to send my testimony (I can only do this hard copy because of my primitive system here) to those interested. My basic argument was that that Living wage Ordinances are excellent local economic development initiatives as they: a) transfer resources to at least some of those who need them most, b) are easy and cheap to monitor and implement unlike traditional grants, tax abatements, TIF zones , etc - which in Chicago are hardly monitored at all as it turns out anyway, c) ** the most important point as anti-living wage arguments stress all the jobs that will be lost**THEY CREATE JOBS as most ordinances have exclusions for small businesses non-profits and others doing business with the city who would be most cost impacted so COST SIDE job growth reduction can be greatly diminished through flexible funding of the Ordinance by local authorities (for a very small cost compared to other tax-abatements etc.) On the other hand DEMAND SIDE multiplier effects are increased because of the high level of LOCAL CONSUMPTION by low-wage workers (again unlike traditional programs which give most of their benfits to developers etc. who probably don't even live in the locality). Since most local minimum-wage studies indicate a wash in terms of job creation (se excellent EPI briefing paper by John Schmitt and also the statement by 101 economists on the minimum wage not causing unemployment) - this implies Living wage should create jobs. I had to really go after some U of Chicago consultants on this stuff! Also - the ordinance has passed in Milwaukee and Santa Clara County (CA) to my knowledge). I hadn't I hadn't heard about Syracuse or Buffalo. In Solidarity, Ron Baiman Dept. Of Econ. Roosevelt Univ. 430 S. Michigan Ave. Chicago, IL 60605
[PEN-L:3024] correction on living wage contact
One of the authors of the article I cited does have an email address. Article was Madeline Janis-Aparicio, Steve Cancian and Gary Phillips, "Building a Movement for a Living Wage," POVERTY AND RACE, Jan/Feb. 1996. Janis-Aparicio, who is involved in the LA Living Wage Coalition, is reachable at [EMAIL PROTECTED] June Zaccone, National Jobs for All Coalition, 212-870-3449
[PEN-L:2937] Contacts for Living Wage / Minimum Wage Campaigns in US?
Dear Penlrs, As part of our "Building a New Economy" web site, I'm looking for information about Living Wage and Minimum Wage campaigns in the U.S. I've got several people to call, but I'd like to start w/ email first (since, as I've learned from painful experience, it's much easier to get text files from folks who are already on-line). If anyone is involved in any of these campaigns or has the email addresses of folks who might be, I'd appreciate the information. Email contacts for "Prosperous Portland" would also be great. Thanks, Anders Schneiderman Center for Community Economic Research P.S. We'll probably have at least a demo of the site up in a few weeks; I'll definitely post something here so you-all can kibbitz.
[PEN-L:2941] Re: Contacts for Living Wage / Minimum Wage Campaigns in US?
Anders, I don't know how many of these guys have Web pages and you may already know about these groups but as far as I know: The Industrial Areas Foundation (IAF) (based in Chicago), The Midwest Center for Labor Research (MCLR), the New Party (New York City), are all heavily involved in living wage campaigns across the country. In Solidarity Ron Baiman Roosevelt Univ., Chicago
[PEN-L:2954] Re: Contacts for Living Wage / Minimum Wage Campaigns
POVERTY AND RACE, a publication of the Poverty and Race Research Action Council in Wshington has a rundown on living wage campaigns in jan/feb 1006 issue (call 202-387-9887): Building a Movement for a Living Wage, by Madeline Janis-Aparicio, Steve Cancian and Gary Phillips. No e-mail listed. June Zaccone, National Jobs for All Coalition
