Search

ARCHIVES
CONTACT US
WORLD NEWS

'Living wage' article inaccurate

To the editor,

I am writing in response to Dan Cassino's commentary, "Who wants to make 8 bucks an hour?" In writing against Pima County's decision to consider implementing a living wage ordinance for Pima County, Cassino presents opinions not based on fact.

First of all, Cassino states that "a raise in the minimum wage means that a large number of workers will lose their jobs entirely, leaving them worse off than they were before." This is simply not supported by empirical data on raises in the minimum wage. Prominent economists such as Richard Freeman, Jared Bernstein and Robert Solow (a Nobel laureate) state that raising wages via a living wage or increases in the minimum wage does not lead to job layoffs. As Solow writes, "The main thing about minimum wage research is that the evidence of job loss is weak." In addition, Cassino uses arguments against the minimum wage and living wage interchangeably, when in fact these are two different issues. An increase in the minimum wage applies to all jobs in the nation, whereas living wages (in the Tucson case) apply only to some city or county contract workers; even in a global economy, city contract work does not go away.

We have the right (and many would argue, the duty) to pressure our city council and county government to spend our tax dollars to pay people living wages for their hard work. Another argument for local living wages is that Arizona consistently rates among the worst states on economic indicators such as poverty, health care coverage of children and increases in wages; even in our growing economy, the lowest-tier of Arizona workers has not seen real increases in wages during the past several years of economic growth. This is in part due to the high proportion of Arizona workers who make a minimum wage (the majority of whom are minorities and women). And why should we as students support a living wage? The people that benefit from local wage ordinances are (among others) the ones who keep our city buildings and bathrooms clean and our city buildings safe. These people do more physically strenuous work then many of us will ever do, yet they often are not paid enough to keep their children fed, clothed and healthy.

Thus, there are sound economic reasons for a living wage, just as there are compelling moral reasons for a living wage. The city-wide living wage is estimated to cost every citizen of Tucson $2 a year in increased taxes - your $2 a year will feed more children, provide more shelter and health care for families, and research suggests it will not lead to detrimental economic effects on other Tucson workers. It sounds like a no-brainer to me.

Karen Christopher

Sociology Graduate Student

Southern Arizona Alliance for Economic Justice