Living Wage
Living wage ordinances typically set a wage above the federal minimum wage, but they only apply to businesses that service receive state contracts or recieve assisstance from the government. Living wage policies are meant to ensure that workers recieve enough income to secure basic amoynts of food shelter, transport, medical needs and other necessities.
Commentary
Cry Wolf Quotes
The ordinance would cost the city [Chicago] nearly $20 million per year. The city would spend more than 20% of this amount ($4.2 million) on the administrative costs of certification, monitoring, and enforcement of the ordinance. This $20 million cost would require a permanent tax increase on citizens of Chicago.
This is bad news for cities. The living wage poses a big threat to their economic health, because the costs and restrictions it imposes on the private sector will destroy jobs —especially low-wage jobs — and send businesses fleeing to other locales.
By mandating an even higher minimum, the living wage prices even more people out of work. The people who push these cockamamie ideas never seem to ask why any employer would hire someone at $8.23 if that person's services are only valued in the marketplace at, say, $5.00.
The loony-tuners are at it again. The cost of doing business in Oakland is already about the highest in the state. Compared with other cities, adoption of the proposed [living wage] ordinance will drive the cost off the charts.
Evidence
-
The Economic Impact of Local Living Wages
The Economic Policy Institute finds that the costs of living wage ordinances are often overestimated.
-
Examining the Evidence: The Impact of the Los Angeles Living Wage Ordinance on Workers and Employers
Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy: The LA living wage ordinance brought a pay raise to 10,000 workers, most of whom were poor.
Backgrounders & Briefs
Living Wage Policy Brief: Stephanie Luce
Living wage ordinances have helped thousands of workers and tiresome cry wolf claims are wrong.
