There is no one who has argued in opposition to the living wage proposal that
has denied that it is difficult, if not impossible, for a family to live comfortably
on the wages of someone working in a menial job, earning minimum or close to minimum
wage.
But conversely there is no one who has argued in favor of the living wage who has advanced any solution other than to suggest a living wage double the minimum wage for those in public jobs, or for those employed by vendors while working on public projects.
Beyond Cash Donations: How New Forms of Giving Are Transforming Not-for-Profit Accounting
Evolving Funding Landscape for Not-for-Profits Not-for-profit organizations are being asked to do more with less,…
Learn More
No one has suggested that in place of a living wage, the encouragement of training programs so workers may elevate the quality of their work, and be empowered with the skills that allow them to compete for higher paying jobs.
No one in favor of the living wage has considered what impact the higher wage might have not only on the specific jobs involved, but on other jobs up the line that will require higher and higher wages as higher minimums are created – and the impact that might have on inflation and on the overall health of what is now a struggling economy.
No one in favor of the living wage has offered an analysis of just who these low wage earners are, and whether they are the primary wage earners for their families. Studies by some groups show that the majority of those in lower wage jobs are the second, third or fourth wage earners in a household.
To throw a blanket over a whole category, and then suggest that the only solution is to subsidize their wages, even if they don’t actively seek to improve their skills, can and will have an enormously negative impact on the economy.
We do want to see lower wage earners improve their lot, but by improving their skills so they can demand better wages in jobs that offer greater dignity in the workplace and the possibility for advancement.
We’re also concerned that adding costs for the city or for companies doing business with the city will ultimately translate into added taxes or added business costs that will deter any business expansion.
Training, however, is important and we believe the city should seek partnerships with institutions such as the Community College of Rhode Island that already provides a facility that includes such amenities like childcare, at its Providence campus. Perhaps CCRI could develop a program to help train and improve the skill levels of lower paid city employees.
And the city as well could look more favorably upon companies that provide similar training when they bid on city contracts.
In an economy that is slowing and shows little inclination to regain the robustness of even a year ago, it is difficult to consider programs that add cost to either the city or businesses. Yet, it is imperative to encourage individuals to improve their skills, the skills that ultimately will enable them to advance.
