Summer Fest, and the Living Wage Isn’t So Easy
City Council finally revisits a serious problem: that Summer Fest workers may have to be paid a living wage (previously). They may be doing work and all, but is A2’s living-wage law, which would take effect if the city increased its funding for the event, really intended to apply to these “scores of high school and college students”? “We’re not talking about people trying to support families. We’re talking about primarily students in temporary, seasonal jobs,” says Chris Easthope. One can hope that Council will consider changes to the law that will close this loophole allowing workers of the wrong age and family status to earn more than minimum wage.
It should also be noted that Judy McGovern, who reported this story, has argued against a living wage for these workers in her column.
It sounds damn cheap. As if youth are not “real ” people yet. This is one of the reasons young people can no longer leave home. They cannot afford health insurance, car insurance, student loan payments much less the rent. But they are only students, what need of a living wage have they?
posted by maryd on February 26th, 2008 at 9:05 pmChris Easthope sucks. Someone please, tell me why I still in UofM town?
posted by Taxes in A2 suck! on February 27th, 2008 at 10:41 amUh, at least when I worked there, the folks were paid substantially less than minimum wage, as “seasonal workers.” It was augmented by free food, booze and stealing from the tip jars.
posted by js on February 27th, 2008 at 6:10 pmSo, once we start paying “students” a sub-minimum wage, older workers get fired (or never hired in the first place.) I love it when people try to argue that lower wages equal higher living standards (NOT!!!—It reminds me of the perpetual motion machines the Patent Office rejects from time-to-time.) I have a better idea; let the businesses that set-up there realize lower profits, or better yet, get rid of them altogether and replace them with nonprofits.
posted by Chuck L. on February 27th, 2008 at 6:47 pmChuck,
posted by Andy on February 28th, 2008 at 2:35 pmThe changes are specifically for non-profits. The changes do not allow for profit businesses to pay less than the living wage.
Well, it only applies to city government and businesses that work with city government in the first place.
Is anyone aware of any coherent argument for exempting “seasonal” jobs? Wouldn’t those workers be more likely to need a living wage since they have no job security and need to look for work more often?
posted by ann arbor is overrated on February 28th, 2008 at 2:41 pmWhat I’m unaware of is the coherent argument that shows that waving the magic wand of government to mandate higher wages somehow makes everyone better off. If it were the case, raise the “living wage” to $100 an hour and be done with it. Oh, wait, the work isn’t actually worth that much and no employer (well, except maybe the gummint) can afford to pay it? Whoops, no jobs then.
posted by Dave on February 28th, 2008 at 4:59 pmNice Porgy and Bess headline, though.
posted by Dave on February 28th, 2008 at 4:59 pmI was going to phrase a coherent argument somewhat more delicately than Dave: the natural response of the businesses is to just hire fewer people; so, the question is whether no job is better than a job that pays crap.
posted by Nick on February 28th, 2008 at 5:15 pmWhy do we have anti-trust laws either? If it’s a good thing for government to magically declare a monopoly illegal, why not a 99-opoly as well? Let’s just mandate that there are always 100 competitors in any industry!
Or we could just, you know, realize that just because it’s bad for government to mandate a certain number of (competitors, dollars you can make an hour), it doesn’t mean that all such numbers are bad.
Here’s an interesting piece that argues against minimum wage laws on the grounds that they unfairly help low-skilled workers. “In fact, the power of the minimum wage to kill jobs has been greatly overestimated. Nowadays, most labor economists will tell you that that minimum wages have at most a tiny impact on employment.” I’m not an economist, but I thought this was the consensus as well.
posted by ann arbor is overrated on February 28th, 2008 at 5:37 pm“In fact, the power of the minimum wage to kill jobs has been greatly overestimated.” That’s because the demand for low-wage workers is highly inelastic. The minimum wage declined hugely in real terms since the 1970s, but there was no proportional increase in the number of jobs open at that level. Same logic works the other way.
We discussed this thoroughly on an earlier thread, but I don’t have time right now to dig it up and link to it.
posted by Larry Kestenbaum on February 28th, 2008 at 5:46 pmBy the way, I’m not sure how any of this applies to citywide wage laws. There’s probably a very different analysis.
posted by ann arbor is overrated on February 28th, 2008 at 5:46 pmI wouldn’t describe that as a consensus position among economists. The theoretical argument is that minimum wage laws can kill jobs, depending on how high the minimum is and how much of a drag the labor costs become to the firm. This is obviously not easy to study empirically viz., endogeneity. The fly in the ointment was a famous paper by Card and Krueger that concluded that a higher minimum wage had actually increased employment in the specific dataset they used. But the paper’s methods and the generalizability of the sample were both questionable enough that it’s spurred vigorous debate without really changing the conventional wisdom.
Re: “Or we could just, you know, realize that just because it’s bad for government to mandate a certain number of (competitors, dollars you can make an hour), it doesn’t mean that all such numbers are bad.”
Or we could just have the govt focus on enforcing contracts and individual and property rights and just let the people buying stuff figure out how many suppliers there should be. It might work, though it doesn’t seem to be a fashionable idea these days.
posted by Nick on February 28th, 2008 at 5:52 pm“Or we could just have the govt focus on enforcing contracts and individual and property rights and just let the people buying stuff figure out how many suppliers there should be. It might work, though it doesn’t seem to be a fashionable idea these days.”
That’s because it tends to be instable. The market’s often fine and good unless it says that there should be widespread collapse (say, the airlines after 9/11 or agriculture in the Great Depression). Then people tend to not like it so much, when they’re unemployed, homeless and hungry.
Besides, as soon as you grant that promotion of general welfare is a duty that government can assume—a cultural assumption since time immemorial—the hand-on-heart calls to only enforce contracts and property rights rings a bit hollow. Those rights aren’t absolute, therefore where people decide that there’s a greater practical benefit in abrogating them, they can be modified.
posted by js on March 1st, 2008 at 10:51 pmI’m not sure that promoting general welfare (a somewhat hazy concept) has been considered a duty of government since time immemorial - feudal societies and monarchies didn’t see it that way, if I remember my history correctly - unless “time immemorial” refers to the interval of time since FDR or since a Big-3 automaker first asked for a federal bailout. The more general point is that life can suck for certain groups in society at any point in time, but not everyone is enamored of using government to help those groups by punishing the hard work of others. Especially given how, well, wasteful and corrupt government tends to be.
posted by Nick on March 2nd, 2008 at 7:01 pmAlso, on the subject of “Those rights aren’t absolute, therefore where people decide that there’s a greater practical benefit in abrogating them, they can be modified”, wasn’t the US founded on the principle of protecting the minority against the whims of the majority? Just saying.
posted by Nick on March 2nd, 2008 at 7:03 pmThe police power of the state is grounded in the power of the government to provide for the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the people. While not feudal, it originated long before the New Deal, which anyone with even a passing knowledge of American jurisprudential history might recognize.
Just saying.
posted by Errata on March 2nd, 2008 at 7:27 pm“The police power of the state is grounded in the power of the government to provide for the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the people.” So is that a direct quote from Stalin, or just a paraphrase?
posted by Nick on March 2nd, 2008 at 7:52 pmActually, Nick, I think you can make a strong case that governments have always existed to promote the general welfare, even in the days of monarchies.
Henry II, for instance, was a very effective king in part because he sought to establish the common good through a system of royal magistrate courts, where every citizen had the right to be tried. This was smart, because it made the populace loyal to him over any local feudal lord. It was Henry’s incompetent son, John, who was forced to sign the Magna Carta after making a series of bad decisions that weakened the economy and overextended England’s military. Sound familiar?
Government is always responsive to the good of the people eventually, it’s just that some governments respond more efficiently than others.
Moving on: when you talk about letting “people buying stuff figure out how many suppliers there should be,” I assume you’re referring to the “rational agents” who act on “perfect information” in the “free market.” Surely, you jest. First of all, there may be such a thing as a free market, but we in the US don’t have one of those. Just ask Halliburton. Secondly, I think the idea that we as consumers act on perfect information has been roundly disproved. There’s nothing sacred about free market economics.
That said, I see no reason why government should not intervene to increase a laborer’s wage.
posted by Elise on March 2nd, 2008 at 8:11 pmHee, hee. Ever heard of Lochner, Nick?
posted by Errata on March 2nd, 2008 at 10:50 pm“That said, I see no reason why government should not intervene to increase a laborer’s wage.”
Should the decision to step in and use force to intervene in the marketplace be based on a reasonable cost/benefit analysis of the effect of that intervention…or on a lack of reason not to?
Raising the minimum wage results in lost jobs. ‘How many’ is the question that nobody can agree upon it’s answer.
posted by Tit for Tat on March 3rd, 2008 at 12:00 pmThe marketplace and property rights wouldn’t exist without the force of government intervention in human affairs. Y’all would be more plausible libertarians if you had some knowledge of history and economics.
Cost/benefit analysis? How about well-established inelasticity of demand? The cost/benefit of a reasonable minimum wage is resoundingly positive.
posted by Larry Kestenbaum on March 3rd, 2008 at 1:21 pmKestenbaum goes Kentucky Fried. I never thought I’d hear the man say “Y’all”. . .
posted by David Boyle on March 3rd, 2008 at 1:57 pmWell, I have to say I agree with Larry — the capital markets are probably the most regulated industry in the US, and I don’t even hear Republicans arguing to get rid of the SEC (in fact, they generally run the SEC).
posted by Anna on March 3rd, 2008 at 3:22 pm“Y’all” sounds more friendly and hospitable than “youse”.
posted by jcp2 on March 3rd, 2008 at 3:23 pmI prefer “y’ins”
posted by Anna on March 3rd, 2008 at 3:28 pmI picked up “y’all” many years ago, from a friend of mine who had been state chair of Arkansas Gay Liberation. Sometimes you need a second person plural.
Isn’t “y’ins” a Pittsburgh thing? I think “y’all” has a better claim on being understood by those who didn’t grow up with it.
posted by Larry Kestenbaum on March 3rd, 2008 at 3:56 pmI like “y’all”, which I picked up when doing a lot of business (bidness) in Texas and S. Carolina, for the reason Larry stated.
Now if someone would invent a gender-neutral singular pronoun…
posted by Tom Brandt on March 3rd, 2008 at 8:48 pmYep, as in, “y’ins gun duntun?”
posted by Anna on March 3rd, 2008 at 9:20 pmAlthough I was born a Yankee, I grew up in the deep south, 40 miles from the FL/GA border.
Ya’ll is the correct lingual contraction for “you all”, from “all of you”. Y’uns is the correct plural for “you uns”, not “y’ins”.
Actually “y’ins is a midwestern, mostly Great Lake-ese for “you uns” because Great Lakers come down hard and kind of screechy on their i’s as in “ieeee” (and a’s as in “aeee”) instead of softly drawling the “u” in “y’uns”
posted by mucho gusto on March 4th, 2008 at 8:25 amErgh, I didn’t realize there were correct and incorrect ways to spell slang terms, ain’t in the dictionary and whatnot. But, I will refrain from using “y’ins” and commence using the politically correct “y’uns” from now on.
posted by Anna on March 4th, 2008 at 12:49 pm“The cost/benefit of a reasonable minimum wage is resoundingly positive.”
I agree with you, but good luck getting a lot of people to agree on what constitutes “reasonable”.
posted by Tit for Tat on March 4th, 2008 at 1:27 pmHow come all these so-called Libertarians — I call them Fibbertarians — keep crying for some government to spend tax-dollars just to enforce their contracts. Do they REALLY want the socialized enforcement of property rights like it was in the SOVIET UNION??
If those Godless Republicans want to huff doobie, why don’t they enforce their own contracts like their heroes, the dope dealers, instead of foisting that burden onto everyone else.
posted by A Different Jon on March 4th, 2008 at 2:15 pm“Yinz” is definitely a Pixburgh thing. As in, “Yinz better sweep the floor before everyone comes over for the Stillerz game. It needs cleaned.” I’ve never heard “yinz” outside of the greater Pittsburgh area.
I miss the ‘burgh…
posted by ex-suburbanite on March 4th, 2008 at 2:55 pmSo, I don’t know anything about yinz, but I have heard my-laws often say “It needs cleaned”or “the floor needs swept”. I always thought that was a n old northwest ohio thing from the oldtime German families.
posted by juliem on March 4th, 2008 at 3:12 pm“I’m not sure that promoting general welfare (a somewhat hazy concept) has been considered a duty of government since time immemorial - feudal societies and monarchies didn’t see it that way, if I remember my history correctly - unless “time immemorial” refers to the interval of time since FDR or since a Big-3 automaker first asked for a federal bailout.”
It’s the argument behind both Draco and Hammurabi, and the basis of Hobbes’ and Rousseau’s liberalism. Further, feudal societies and monarchies very much did see it that way—they traded protection of serfs for material gain, and faced revolts when that wasn’t honored. Even Machiavelli endorses it, and that’s a man who had no interest in favoring theory over realism.
So, no, you don’t remember your history correctly. You also seem not to remember the Constitution, or you would have caught the reference on the first pass.
posted by js on March 4th, 2008 at 5:30 pmOnto your second snark—”Also, on the subject of “Those rights aren’t absolute, therefore where people decide that there’s a greater practical benefit in abrogating them, they can be modified”, wasn’t the US founded on the principle of protecting the minority against the whims of the majority? Just saying.”
Yes, though you seem to have latched on to some perverse reading of Chompsky (protecting the property of the minority from the majority). However, the two things that I’d say to that are first that those rights have never once been held to be absolute, only a much higher hurdle for justifying governmental intervention (free speech springs to mind here), and second that the conception of rights as absolute comes from the premise of Natural Rights stemming from God. We, as a society, have moved away from that Lockian conception of rights, and toward a negotiated conception, where rights exist as guarantees from a society that must constantly be contested and defended. If you really want, I can give you a whole lecture about how that came to be, but in the meantime, content yourself with knowing that your conception is simplistic and does not back up the argument that you want to make very well.
posted by js on March 4th, 2008 at 5:36 pmOh, how’d that “p” get into “Chomsky”? Chompsky sounds like a Russian pacman!
posted by js on March 4th, 2008 at 5:37 pmThe whole “needs cleaned” I think is a German thing. Like “gum band” for “rubber band”. My fourth grade teacher–a yinzer through and through–had no idea what I was talking about when I asked for a rubber band. Ah, public education…
posted by ex-suburbanite on March 4th, 2008 at 9:48 pmI believe that would have to be Nom Chompsky, or even nom nom chompsky….
posted by David on March 4th, 2008 at 10:33 pmIn my head, Nom Chompsky just became the Russian term for Hungry Hungry Hippos, in which (because my imagination doesn’t delineate between Russia and the USSR) greedy capitalists gorge themselves on the fruits of the proletariat’s labor. After each round, whoever has the most marbles is executed in a show trial.
posted by js on March 5th, 2008 at 2:50 pmHey, juliem, Mrs. Structure-Dude! makes fun of me all the time for saying “the car needs washed” or the “lawn needs mowed.” I thought it was just my weird family, but my parents are both from northwest Ohio. So I might have a regional dialect? I always thought I talked all normal and stuff.
Where are your in-laws from?
posted by Parking Structure Dude! on March 5th, 2008 at 3:46 pm