A Living Wage?

Taxpayers are rightfully concerned about how their local tax dollars are being used. The Ventura County Board of Supervisors made a bold and visionary move toward reducing poverty among our county’s working poor families and toward building a healthy and sustainable economy for all the county’s residents when it took action to adopt a living wage ordinance by early 2000.

With this action our county supervisors have taken the first step toward ending the use of millions of local taxpayer dollars to create poverty-wage jobs, which have left many workers unable to support their families.

The county is joining 36 other cities and counties throughout the nation that have adopted similar anti-poverty policies. The city of Oxnard is considering a similar proposal.

Efforts to pass living wage ordinances reflect a growing frustration by taxpayers. The public has become increasingly concerned with the rise in poverty among working families and is demanding greater accountability as to how tax dollars are spent.

The living wage proposal being considered by the county and by Oxnard would require that companies receiving taxpayer dollars of $25,000 or more in the form of contract services, subsidies or leases pay their workers a wage they could live on.

The proposed $8 per hour with health benefits and $10 without would be enough to raise the income for a family of four just over the federal poverty level of $16,450.

Although this proposed wage standard is far from enough to eliminate poverty in Ventura County (currently at 23% of households), it does represent an important move in the right direction. In fact, a recent study by a nonpartisan affordable housing group calculated that a Ventura County family with one job must earn at least $15.25 per hour to afford a typical two bedroom apartment, while another study determined that a single parent with two children would need to earn $19 an hour to meet basic expenses of housing, food and health care.

*

Although the working poor must face the daily struggles to feed, clothe and house their families on low wages, they do not shoulder this burden alone. As taxpayers, we all bear the burden of the cost of poverty.

Ventura County taxpayers spent $22 million in 1998 to cover the cost of the uninsured while spending more than $4 million each month in cash assistance to poor families. It is estimated that each minimum-wage job created costs $8,600 annually in food stamps, MediCal and other forms of public assistance that low-wage families must rely on to make ends meet.

Part of what concerns the public is that while poverty is increasing among working families, companies are receiving millions each year in the form of subsidies and lucrative government contracts. In turn, many of these companies pay wages at or just above state minimum wage requirements, resulting in a double hit to the taxpayer. First their taxes are going to subsidize businesses that pay poverty wages, then their taxes must be used again for public assistance to poor families.

Living wage policies are relatively new and therefore have elicited some concerns by the business community. Similar concerns were raised in earlier times in response to such policies as minimum wage requirements, the 40-hour work week and other worker health and safety standards.

The greatest fear expressed by those opposed to a living wage ordinance is that requiring companies to pay a decent wage and benefits may cause them to relocate to a place where labor is cheaper. Reputable studies, as well as successful local employers, tell us that this fear is unfounded.

According to a study commissioned by the Council of State Governments, the important factors in choosing a business location include quality of life, education and skills of the work force, proximity to markets and access to infrastructure--all things Ventura County can offer. The ability to pay substandard wages was not listed as a factor.

Another concern raised is that such an ordinance would cost the taxpayer more due to higher costs for contracted services. This too has been found not to be the case. Studies of Baltimore and other cities that have adopted living wage ordinances show that there has been no significant increase in the real cost of contracts.

*

The tax burden related to public assistance to the poor, was also significantly reduced. Living wage households experienced both a decrease in their use of public assistance and an increase in their tax contribution. They also spent their earnings locally, supporting neighborhood businesses and strengthening the local economy.

During this holiday season let’s all remember those families living in poverty. Let’s also keep in mind that we, as taxpayers and responsible citizens, have the power to give these working families the dignity and justice they deserve, by supporting the efforts of our elected officials to adopt living wage policies.