Manhattan Institute for Policy Research.
search  
 
Subscribe   Subscribe   MI on Facebook  Find us on Twitter      
   
     
 

RealClearMarkets

 

Expand New York City's Living Wage?

July 01, 2010

By Diana Furchtgott-Roth

PRINTER FRIENDLY

New York City, which faces a predicted budget gap of $4.1 billion this fiscal year, is considering an expansion of the reach of “living wage” legislation that would make the deficit worse, drive jobs out of the city and raise unemployment among low-skill workers.

The bill pending in the City Council would extend New York City’s requirement for payment of a “living wage,” defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary as “a wage sufficient to provide the necessities and comforts essential to an acceptable standard of living.” The new wage would apply to jobs connected with any new development projects that benefit from city subsidies greater than $100,000, both construction work and continuing employment thereafter.

Under present law, the “living wage” applies to contractors doing business with the city in a variety of service lines, including food service; homecare for seniors; and daycare.

The pending bill has nothing to do with alleviating poverty in New York. The vast majority of people in New York and elsewhere already make more than $11.50 an hour.

Rather, the bill would hurt the young and the low-skilled, people whose skills and productivity are worth less than $11.50 an hour, preventing them from getting their foot on the first rung of the career ladder. Most of those making less than $11.50 an hour will be paid more after a reasonable time on the job as they acquire experience and do their jobs more efficiently.

Under the proposed law, qualifying projects that receive direct subsidies or tax breaks would be required to pay workers $11.50 an hour, or $10 an hour plus health benefits.

City Council members Oliver Koppell and Annabel Palma introduced the legislation and Bronx Borough President Ruben Diaz Jr. supports it.

One force behind the bill is the Retail, Wholesale, and Department Store Union, whose members would be beneficiaries of the proposed law. The bill has 25 sponsors, and needs 26 votes for a majority on the 51-member council.

To override an expected veto by Mayor Michael Bloomberg, 34 votes would be needed.

Mayor Bloomberg has criticized the plan, saying, “It’s a nice idea, but is poorly thought out and will not work.”

How would the new law operate? It would require firms that accept $100,000 in city subsidies to pay higher wages for some jobs than they pay now, or risk losing the subsidy money.

Not only would the construction contractors be required to pay the “living wage,” but later any employees in the development itself. So cashiers and retail workers at a shopping mall would also be paid “living wages.”

The prospect of higher construction and operating costs likely would stifle development.

This misnamed variant on the minimum wage would be particularly detrimental to low-skill workers, because the gap between their wages and the “living wage” is the highest. Employers would have an incentive to lay off low-skill workers and replace them with more experienced and skilled hands.

According to University of California (Irvine) economics professor David Neumark, “the adverse effects of living wages fall more heavily on the least-skilled individuals, who are least likely to be employable after a mandated wage increase is enacted.” In other words, because a “living wage” is essentially a tax on low-skill labor, less of it is hired.

The truly insidious aspect of the “living wage” movement is that the purported beneficiaries are the losers. The people primarily harmed by the “living wage” legislation are the poor and the young, those who would otherwise willingly work for less than $11.50 an hour because it is better than the alternative, earning nothing at all.

Job markets are dynamic, and workers earn more with greater experience. Take away initial job opportunities and the “living wage” movement condemns millions of young Americans to unemployment, to a loss of opportunity, and to a lesser future. Young Americans living under the “living wage” movement face horrible choices: accept unemployment and limited opportunities; work illegally and risk getting caught; or move to a more enlightened community.

Admittedly, most cities are facing financial shortfalls, but the “living wage” contributes to their dismal fiscal situations by raising the cost of employment for municipal employees and contractors. Just three examples: Boston, which has a “living wage” of $12.79 an hour, has a budget shortfall of $42 million. San Francisco, with a “living wage” of $11.54 an hour, has a gap of $483 million. Chicago, with a “living wage” of $11.03 per hour, has a gap of almost $520 million.

Paying contractors a “living wage” adds to cities’ budget pressure, because they can no longer save money by contracting out jobs and relying on more-efficient private firms. Expanding such a requirement, raising employment costs, would increase the deficit and raise New York’s unemployment, now at 8.3% statewide and 8.8% in the New York metro area.

New York has stood up to terrorists, looked them in the eye, and proclaimed that it will not be defeated. The city should have little trouble standing up to bullies who would make life harder for young and unskilled workers. It is time for New York to stand tall again and defeat further “living wage” legislation.

Original Source: http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2010/07/01/expand_new_york_citys_living_wage_98549.html

 

 
 
 

Thank you for visiting us. To receive a General Information Packet, please email support@manhattan-institute.org
and include your name and address in your e-mail message.

The Manhattan Institute, a 501(c)(3), is a think tank whose mission is to develop and disseminate new ideas
that foster greater economic choice and individual responsibility.

Copyright © 2014 Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, Inc. All rights reserved.

52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10017
phone (212) 599-7000 / fax (212) 599-3494