Results 1 to 1 of 1

Thread: based on new research, I'm considering supporting the "Living Wage" !

  1. #1
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default based on new research, I'm considering supporting the "Living Wage" !

    (snip)"As mentioned above, previous work analyzing the effectiveness of living wage ordinances examined only cash income. For example, Neumark and Adams (2002) found a modest decrease in poverty rates utilizing data from the Current Population Survey Annual Demographic Files measure of cash income, which excludes in-kind benefits such as food stamps and subsidies such as Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) payments. Failing to account for these income sources can dramatically distort the effect of a policy on the actual standard of living for a family. For example, a family with two children can qualify for more than $4,000 in tax-free cash assistance as a result of the EITC (and earn even more in states with supplemental state-run EITC programs). A benefit of this size would clearly affect the quality of life of low income families.

    As earnings increase, recipients can see the benefits from these programs decrease dramatically. For example, the marginal tax rate in the “phase-out range” for the EITC can reach as high as 21.06 percent and the tax rates for food stamps are generally 30 percent. Failing to include the loss of these benefits when evaluating the benefit of living wage ordinances can dramatically inflate the perceived effectiveness.

    Examining the effect of living wage ordinances, the authors found that the ordinances decreased cash transfer assistance. Specifically, the authors found that the enactment of a living wage ordinance decreased assistance by $34 per month. In addition, the authors found that the increase in earnings resulting from the ordinance was only $16 per month. This means that for every dollar in increased earnings from a living wage ordinance, families can expect to lose up to $2.12 in cash assistance—greatly limiting the ability of the policy to help low-income families.(emphasis added) Controlling for factors such as the business cycle, state minimum wage levels, and welfare reform, the authors found that the enactment of a living wage increased total family income by only $55 per month. Due to lost benefits, 38 percent of this increase in income is crowded out. If the effect of important programs like food stamps is factored in, this tax rate would likely be higher.

    Overall, the authors have found that living wage ordinances do little to actually increase the standard of living for low-income families. The $55-a-month increase in total family earnings represents a less than 2 percent increase for the average family. In terms of an increase in earnings, the $16-per-month increase represents an increase of approximately one-half of one percent. The authors state, “a reasonable reading of our results is that the living wage has a limited capability in improving the economic status of the poor.” This limited capability is important because decades of studies clearly show that mandated wage floors create disemployment effects—particularly for the low-skilled employees these laws are intended to help. Pushing the intended beneficiaries out of a job while providing minimal benefits to remaining employees makes living wage ordinances an ineffective anti-poverty policy. "

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At Last ! Liberal Stealth Economics that will actually wind up saving me tax money by reducing eligibility for welfare/food stamps/rent assistance etc !

    Of course the bad news is that, based on consistent past study results, passage of 'living wage' laws usually result in permanent elimination of low paying jobs thus increased unemployment thus having to provide semi-permanent welfare/medicaid benefits to the displaced workers, which would probably greatly overwhelm the benefit cost savings of any 'living wage' workers who still have jobs.
    Last edited by Melonie; 05-24-2005 at 03:21 PM.

Similar Threads

  1. "Hun," "Baby," "Darlin'" and other endearing terms
    By Chicagoeditor in forum Customer Conversation
    Replies: 74
    Last Post: 10-29-2013, 04:02 PM
  2. Replies: 20
    Last Post: 02-02-2007, 06:55 PM
  3. "Real Wage" calculator
    By anomar in forum Stripping (was Stripping General)
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 05-28-2006, 01:45 AM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-24-2005, 03:04 PM
  5. Dutch Muslims "supporting" Islamic Terrorism
    By Melonie in forum Political Poo
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 01-31-2005, 03:44 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •