>Mime-Version: 1.0 >Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2001 11:59:30 -0500 >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >From: Skip Hills <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Living Wage Article >Status: > >Friday, December 07, 2001 > >Published on Friday, December 7, 2001 > >A Living Wage Makes Good Economic Sense for Local Communities > >by Peter Phillips > >The wages for millions of the lowest paid workers in the United >States are failing to meet their basic needs. Today workers can be >employed full-time and still have incomes below the national official >poverty line. This wage disparity is amplified for workers in high >cost regions who find themselves unable to afford rent, food, and >basic necessities. Reports from homeless shelter operators across the >country indicate the regular use of emergency housing by full-time >employed individuals and their families. > >This situation has been magnified by a quarter-century decline in >real family income for the bottom 40% of the workers in the U.S. The >old adage that the poor get poorer is increasingly true. Attempts to >address this issue have been widespread. Coalitions of progressive >activists, labor unions, and church leaders have formed loosely knit >living wage groups in many cities. The Living Wage Movement in the >United States has now successfully achieved the passage of minimum >wage ordinances in some 70 cities. These ordinances have mostly >required city contractors to pay regionally determined wages that >meet the basic needs of working families. > >The Living Wage Movement often meets strong opposition. Resistance to >establishing local living wage ordinances or increasing the minimum >wage at State levels generally comes from business groups who claim >that increasing wages for the lowest paid workers will expand >unemployment, hurt small businesses, cause inflation, and encourage >business relocation. > >Research clearly shows that these concerns are misguided. When the >lowest paid workers receive additional income, they rapidly spend >that income to meet their basic needs. This new income circulating in >the region more then offsets the increased salary costs for most >businesses and will provide an overall fiscal boost to the local >economy. Studies show that in cities where living wages have been >implemented that the actual costs to business average less then 3% of >revenue, and that increased sales or small graduated price increases >easily cover these added wages. Furthermore there is no evidence >indicating businesses shy away from living wage areas. Actually, a >thriving economy is more likely to attract new businesses and >encourage expansion, thereby increasing employment in the community. > >When cities are considering the implementation of a living wage >ordinance, a cost benefit analysis is often conducted to determine >fiscal impacts. Generally missing from these reports are the >long-term regional fiscal impacts of increased spending by low-wage >workers. > >New research conducted by myself and students from Sonoma State >University in Santa Rosa, California provides an understanding of the >positive effects of increased low-wage worker spending on local >economies. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 1999 Santa Rosa PMSA >report indicates that approximately 5,391 City residences work in >jobs earning below $8.00 per hour. We conducted a random sample of >these low-wage workers using addresses from the Santa Rosa reverse >phone directory. On two weekends, teams of students from Sonoma State >University physically went into the neighborhood locations seeking to >find willing interviewees at or near the selected addresses. The >teams were successful in locating and interviewing 44 individuals >during the period. We are 70% statistically confident that our sample >survey of 44 individuals represents the answers for the entire >low-wage population in Santa Rosa. Of the 44 persons interviewed it >should be noted that over half were 25 years or older and close to >half were the primary wage earner for their families. > >The purpose of the interviews was to determine the likely spending >patterns of people making below $8.00 an hour were they to earn a >living wage. A series of questions was asked to determine how >low-wage individuals would most likely spend their increased wages. >For the purposes of the study a $400 a month average increase in >disposable income was assumed for individuals working over 20 hours a >week, and a $200 increase for individuals working less than 20 hours >per week. > >The results of the study indicate that if all of the 5,391 >lowest-wage individuals living in Santa Rosa made a living wage, they >would circulate in the local economy an additional $23,818,301 per >year. This amount would be spent in the following manner: >Housing-11.9%, Auto Purchases-13.6%, Auto Repairs-6.8%, Clothes-9.1%, >Food-6.2%, Movies-3.0%, Video Rentals-0.8%, Restaurants-5.0%, Credit >Card Debt-8.0%, New Purchases for Home & misc.-9.1%, >Vacations/travel-3.0%, Tapes and CDs-2.3%, Sports Activities-2.3%, >Books and Magazines-0.6%, Schools & Childcare-3.5%, Savings-14.8%. > >These amounts are substantial. Santa Rosa auto dealers should know >that they would receive over $4,500,000 in new sales and repair >orders given the implementation of a living wage in the City. > >With this new research it now is easier to predict the potential >positive economic benefits from a living wage. Business owners and >city managers everywhere should be joining the Living Wage Movement >and demanding the end to low-wages in the United States. It makes >good economic sense for all of us, and the poor do not have to be >poorer. > >Peter Phillips is an Associate Professor of Sociology at Sonoma State >University and director of Project Censored a media research group. >E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >-- >************************************************** >* Skip Hills * >* Faculty of Education, Queen's University * >* Kingston, Ontario K7L 3N6 * >* Voice:(613) 533-6479 * >* e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * >************************************************** >
