« Officials zero in on 'living wage' figure | Main | Wheeler running for re-election in 2007 »

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Quote: ...citing its potential effects on the budget and a shift away from a market-based salary scale as reasons against adopting it.

Regarding the "shift away from a market based salary scale." That's essentially saying- "we'd be paying higher than market value for the labor." as the reason for not adopting a living wage? Is that a correct understanding?

If so... As far as I'm concerned the "effects on the budget is the only legitimate excuse."

...that they would look into how to identify and support those county employees in need.

That sounds like "we will try to develop a charity program for employees in need." Which isn't good enough. People are working because they want charity. Not to mention the stigma that goes along with being someone who "has" to take advantage of an assistance program. And that feeling of shame is exactly what would be counted on to keep "assistance" participation low.

Anyway those are just my opinions.

My bad. Edit- People are working because they want charity. Should read- People are NOT working because they want charity.

Thank goodness the County and School Boards came to their senses and rejected a "living wage". The Board of Supervisors and School Board have a responsibility to provide basic services to the community and they have a fudiciary responsibility to get the most "bang for the buck" from *my* tax money. It was apparent that implementing a living wage was a "feel good" issue and a nice sound bite for some of our politicians. Words like "the right thing to do" and "moral obligation" were freely thrown about to support this. Shoot, I think increasing my salary is the "right thing to do". Can you start working on that?

Of course, the living wage would not have provided my children with a better education, nor would it have improved the efficiency of county govt. On the contrary, it would have siphoned money *away* from programs directly impacting the education of our children. It would have also started a viscious cycle whereby higher county wages would have resulted in higher taxes, in turn increasing the cost of "living" in this area, which of course would have provided more ammunition for further raising the "living wage"...and the cycle would continue. I won't even get into whether a family of four *should* be able to support themselves in this community on minimum wage. Exactly how many families of four are only making minimum wage and don't have a second job or another income?

The "living wage" would have increased wages for teenagers, other part-time personnel, and entry level personnel (after all, they have to start somewhere, right?)...and it would have hurt our children and taxpayers.

Thankfully, our elected officials rejected this socialist program and are sticking with a market-based approach that has served this county (and our country) quite well. If we need a reminder of how well it actually does work, look at the socialist governments in Western Europe, with their stagnant economies and runaway unemployment. I hope this issue stays off the agenda.

The comments to this entry are closed.