Download the report below.
Executive Summary
Living wage movements are gaining momentum on college campuses across the country. As one component of a larger social justice agenda, campus living wage measures represent student efforts to promote egalitarianism and acknowledge the basic dignity of campus employees. Students argue that the work of housekeepers, gardeners, and security staff, for example, often goes unnoticed and unappreciated, and therefore advocate raising minimum compensation so that any full-time worker earns enough to afford a "living." Students believe that college endowments are large enough to withstand the extra expense of increased
employment costs, especially since doing so will strengthen the sense of
community on campus.
Student activists, however, ignore the broader implications of living wage
measures, which mimic those of federal and state minimum wage laws. Acting like a tax on employment, a living wage mandate results in layoffs and displacement. As jobs disappear, the competition for each available position intensifies and low-skilled workers find it even more difficult to find employment. Disadvantaged communities suffer most from the resulting stagnancy; underemployment among young black males, for example, is often attributed to the job destruction caused by the widespread establishment of minimum wages.
Books like Barbara Ehrenreich's Nickel and Dimed-now required reading at several leading universities-bolster the popularity of living wage activism. The unity between curriculum and campus activism is potent and appealing, but results in one-sided discourse on these issues. To ensure prudent decision making on campus, students must carefully examine the consequences of living wage mandates.
2 Comments
evelyne | March 2, 2008, 11:27am | #
That's a sound economic principle, that the more employees cost, fewer will get hired. However, these days we're not going to let anyone be unable to feed themselves or pay their rent, so if someone were only making $2 an hour, their income would have to be subsidized in order for them to be able to make ends meet. Therefore, either employers pay their employees a living wage, or they pay them very little, and their income gets subsidized by charities or, most likely, social services from the government. Furthermore, if someone is only making $2 an hour and the government won't let them starve to death anyway, they might as well not even work, since they receive the same "benefits" whether they work or not. Doing away with living wage requirements would probably lead to more unemployment, since there's no reason for someone to work for so little.
Dheeraj Chand | March 5, 2008, 11:29am | #
Hi,
I still haven't seen any official IWF comment on whether or not it is the official position of IWF, as expressed by Charlotte Allen in The Washington Post, that women are stupid by dint of being women.
Please direct me to any official comment relating to this.
Thanks,
Dheeraj