The wages for millions of the lowest paid workers in the United States
are failing to meet their basic needs. Today workers can be employed
full-time and still have incomes below the national official poverty
line. This wage disparity is amplified for workers in high cost regions
who find themselves unable to afford rent, food, and basic necessities.
Reports from homeless shelter operators across the country indicate the
regular use of emergency housing by full-time employed individuals and
their families.
This situation has been magnified by a quarter-century decline in real
family income for the bottom 40% of the workers in the U.S. The old
adage that the poor get poorer is increasingly true. Attempts to address
this issue have been widespread. Coalitions of progressive activists,
labor unions, and church leaders have formed loosely knit living wage
groups in many cities. The Living Wage Movement in the United States has
now successfully achieved the passage of minimum wage ordinances in some
70 cities. These ordinances have mostly required city contractors to pay
regionally determined wages that meet the basic needs of working
families.
The Living Wage Movement often meets strong opposition. Resistance to
establishing local living wage ordinances or increasing the minimum wage
at State levels generally comes from business groups who claim that
increasing wages for the lowest paid workers will expand unemployment,
hurt small businesses, cause inflation, and encourage business
relocation.
Research clearly shows that these concerns are misguided. When the
lowest paid workers receive additional income, they rapidly spend that
income to meet their basic needs. This new income circulating in the
region more then offsets the increased salary costs for most businesses
and will provide an overall fiscal boost to the local economy. Studies
show that in cities where living wages have been implemented that the
actual costs to business average less then 3% of revenue, and that
increased sales or small graduated price increases easily cover these
added wages. Furthermore there is no evidence indicating businesses shy
away from living wage areas. Actually, a thriving economy is more likely
to attract new businesses and encourage expansion, thereby increasing
employment in the community.
When cities are considering the implementation of a living wage
ordinance, a cost benefit analysis is often conducted to determine
fiscal impacts. Generally missing from these reports are the long-term
regional fiscal impacts of increased spending by low-wage workers.
New research conducted by myself and students from Sonoma State
University in Santa Rosa, California provides an understanding of the
positive effects of increased low-wage worker spending on local
economies. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 1999 Santa Rosa PMSA
report indicates that approximately 5,391 City residences work in jobs
earning below $8.00 per hour. We conducted a random sample of these
low-wage workers using addresses from the Santa Rosa reverse phone
directory. On two weekends, teams of students from Sonoma State
University physically went into the neighborhood locations seeking to
find willing interviewees at or near the selected addresses. The teams
were successful in locating and interviewing 44 individuals during the
period. We are 70% statistically confident that our sample survey of 44
individuals represents the answers for the entire low-wage population in
Santa Rosa. Of the 44 persons interviewed it should be noted that over
half were 25 years or older and close to half were the primary wage
earner for their families.
The purpose of the interviews was to determine the likely spending
patterns of people making below $8.00 an hour were they to earn a living
wage. A series of questions was asked to determine how low-wage
individuals would most likely spend their increased wages. For the
purposes of the study a $400 a month average increase in disposable
income was assumed for individuals working over 20 hours a week, and a
$200 increase for individuals working less than 20 hours per week.
The results of the study indicate that if all of the 5,391 lowest-wage
individuals living in Santa Rosa made a living wage, they would
circulate in the local economy an additional $23,818,301 per year. This
amount would be spent in the following manner: Housing-11.9%, Auto
Purchases-13.6%, Auto Repairs-6.8%, Clothes-9.1%, Food-6.2%,
Movies-3.0%, Video Rentals-0.8%, Restaurants-5.0%, Credit Card
Debt-8.0%, New Purchases for Home & misc.-9.1%, Vacations/travel-3.0%,
Tapes and CDs-2.3%, Sports Activities-2.3%, Books and Magazines-0.6%,
Schools & Childcare-3.5%, Savings-14.8%.
These amounts are substantial. Santa Rosa auto dealers should know that
they would receive over $4,500,000 in new sales and repair orders given
the implementation of a living wage in the City.
With this new research it now is easier to predict the potential
positive economic benefits from a living wage. Business owners and city
managers everywhere should be joining the Living Wage Movement and
demanding the end to low-wages in the United States. It makes good
economic sense for all of us, and the poor do not have to be poorer.
Peter Phillips is an Associate Professor of Sociology at Sonoma State
University and director of Project Censored a media research group.
E-mail: peter.phillips@sonoma.edu
###