|
Comment on this article |
Email this Article
|
|
News :: Civil & Human Rights : Economy : Elections & Legislation : Labor : Political-Economy : Urban Development |
|
Living-Wage Law Does Combat Poverty |
Current rating: 0 |
by Bruce Nissen and Jen Wolfe Borum
(No verified email address) |
19 Feb 2006
|
The study finds that the average age of living-wage recipients is 43; none in our sample were teens. A large majority work 40 hours per week or longer and most appear to have families to support. Virtually no respondents believe that job loss, involuntary reductions of working hours, cuts in healthcare benefits or ''speedup'' (forced harder work) had resulted from the ordinance.
The evidence is unequivocal: None of the predicted negative consequences have materialized in any meaningful way. |
Below are excerpts from ''A Difference that Matters,'' by Florida International University researchers Bruce Nissen and Jen Wolfe Borum. Released this week, the study is at www.risep-fiu.org/reports
The purpose of the Miami-Dade Living Wage Ordinance is to combat ''working poverty'' for those working directly or indirectly on the public payroll. The rationale is that public money should not be used to create or subsidize working poverty. The best way to gauge the law's success or failure is to see if it is helping to achieve that aim.
Conversely, elected officials and the public have a right to know if the law has created any negative ''unintended consequences'' predicted by its opponents. Has it mainly benefited teenagers, many of them well off, who are merely working for spending money? Has it caused job loss, involuntary loss of working hours, cuts in employer-provided healthcare benefits or similar harms to the covered workers?
Unequivocal evidence
The study finds that the average age of living-wage recipients is 43; none in our sample were teens. A large majority work 40 hours per week or longer and most appear to have families to support. Virtually no respondents believe that job loss, involuntary reductions of working hours, cuts in healthcare benefits or ''speedup'' (forced harder work) had resulted from the ordinance.
The evidence is unequivocal: None of the predicted negative consequences have materialized in any meaningful way.
Has the law actually benefited its covered workers? The typical respondent who received a pay increase received an extra $2.75 per hour as a result of the law. This translates into $5,720 more per year for those working full time. Compared to previous jobs, these ''living wage'' jobs pay $3.74 per hour more. These are substantial pay increases.
What difference has the extra income made? In our sample, numerous improvements are reported. Of those receiving a pay increase:
• 87.5 percent found their ability to reduce debt or to pay bills improved;
• 59.5 percent found their time for themselves and enjoyment of leisure time enhanced;
• 58 percent found their housing situation improved.
Low awareness
These are impressive percentages of the estimated 5,000 workers covered under the Miami-Dade Living Wage Ordinance. Changes like these are precisely the type of improvements in daily life envisioned in the ordinance's purpose of reducing working poverty in work paid for by taxpayer revenues. This is strong evidence that the law has achieved its intended purpose.
The law is perceived to be most helpful by immigrants, Hispanics and men, but it also has been extremely helpful to large numbers of native born, non-Hispanic and women workers who are covered.
Two issues are also raised.
• Awareness of the ordinance is lower than it should be. The commission or county might consider measures to make the ordinance more known.
• Approximately 11.5 percent of those surveyed were not receiving the living wage of at least $9.44 per hour. The county should probably pay close attention to ways to ensure compliance from those few employers who are not abiding by the law.
© 2006 The Miami Herald
http://www.miami.com |
See also:
http://www.risep-fiu.org/reports
|
Copyright by the author. All rights reserved. |
