Laserfiche WebLink
Living wage laws given mixed review <br />Page 1 of 2 <br />Posted on Wed, Jun. 29, 2005 <br />Living wage laws given mixed review <br />URBAN POVERTY RATES DIP, BUT SO DOES EMPLOYMENT, STUDY FINDS <br />By John Woolfolk <br />Mercury News <br />Living wage laws enacted in San Jose and other major cities around the country over the last decade have been a mixed <br />blessing, reducing both poverty and employment for the poor, according to a study being released today. <br />The 23-page report by the Public Policy Institute of California found that urban areas see a 2 percent decline in poverty <br />rates a year after enacting living wage laws. <br />But the study also found that a 50 percent increase in the living wage reduced employment by 6 percent among the <br />least-skilled workers. That's because the mandated wage increase acts like a tax on the use of low-skilled workers, <br />discouraging employers from hiring them, the report said. <br />'You're going to help some people, but exacerbate the problem for others," said David Neumark, a senior fellow at the <br />PPIC who co-wrote the study with Scott Adams, a University of Wisconsin economics professor. ~ 'Urban poverty falls, <br />but there are some people who lose, and those who lose are in some sense the least well-off." <br />Neumark said the poverty and employment figures are not directly comparable because poverty data is based on families <br />while employment figures are based on individuals. Neumark said the findings do not show that living wage laws are <br />either good or bad, but rather that policymakers must consider the trade-offs, as well as other measures to reduce <br />poverty. <br />' ~ This isn't a panacea," Neumark said. ' ' If you're concerned about low-wage workers, you need to think of other things <br />in your tool kit. A living wage may be part of the solution, but it's not the whole picture." <br />San Jose's living wage law was enacted in November 1998 at the end of former mayor Susan Hammer's term. It affects <br />employees of companies under city contract for more than $20,000, or those companies receiving more than $100,000 a <br />year in public assistance. <br />Required wages started at $9.50 but have since been adjusted for inflation. Affected companies currently must pay <br />workers $10.72 an hour if they provide health benefits and $11.96 if they do not. Those figures will rise Friday to $11.61 <br />with benefits and $12.86 without. <br />Mayor Ron Gonzales had opposed the living wage during his campaign, and has maintained his position that collective <br />bargaining is more effective. <br />' ~ He thinks union contracts and the kind of competitive wages that come from collective bargaining are the most <br />effective way of getting the competitive wages workers should get," said mayoral spokesman David Vossbrink. <br />Among the 18 job categories affected by San Jose's living wage law are custodial, laundry, landscaping and food service. <br />San Jose spokesman Tom Manheim said an early estimate by the city counted fewer than 1,000 affected workers. <br />Baltimore enacted the nation's first living wage law in 1994. The laws are on the books in 10 of the nation's largest <br />Cities, including San Francisco, Oakland, Los Angeles, Chicago and Detroit, among others. <br />Unlike minimum wage laws, which affect all workers of all types, living wage ordinances tend to be limited to employees <br />of companies under city contracts or those receiving public assistance, and tend to require much higher pay. <br />The PPIC study found that the laws had a more pronounced effect -- both on poverty and unemployment -- where the <br />coverage was broader and when nearby cities and counties had similar ordinances. <br />California's minimum hourly wage is $6.75. An attempt by Assemblywoman Sally Lieber, D-San Jose, to raise it failed <br />http J/www.mercurynews. com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/ 12011721.htm?template=cont... 6/29/2005 <br />