This archive article is selected from The Cleveland Pages, the city's only weekly independent journal of politics and opinion on the Internet. Find out all about the Cleveland Pages here, or check out the current issue.
The Free Times, in an article no longer online, called Cleveland Pages "Spicily independent... in the best tradition of citizen-journalist."
The Cleveland Pages is a somewhat-weekly commentary on what's new and why it's all happening in Cleveland and Cuyahoga County. If what you read here is upsetting, you might prefer this simple-minded happy-talk instead.
Bookmark the Cleveland Pages at http://re.cleveland.oh.us. Bookmark this issue at http://re.cleveland.oh.us/archives/20000505.html.
A Cleveland Pages archive search will be available soon... Meanwhile, skip to the flat-file archive list! And read an overview of who's putting this thing out and what it's about.
It was on the front page of the Plain Dealer's Metro section Thursday: "Committee considers 'living wage'". The article--the biggest thing above the fold--described a hearing held by an ad hoc committee of Council on the bill that was introduced recently to guarantee a basic wage level for some workers.
The committee plans to consider this legislation, and in all likelihood will make some changes, before recommending it to the full Council. Unfortunately, I was too busy untangling somebody else's software documentation to be there myself. It's a good thing I don't depend on the Plain Dealer for all my information though.
Writer Kevin Harter, who presumably was actually there, started with a spin typical of Growth Association scare propaganda, and finished the whole article--sixteen column inches, twenty-one paragraphs--without actually explaining what the proposed legislation would actually do if passed. His commentary on the speakers and selective omission of fact amount to an artlessly unsubtle endorsement of a position contrary to the interests of most Clevelanders.
"With unemployment in Cleveland above the national average and poverty on the rise, " starts Harter, "City Council is trying to determine whether a mandated 'living wage' is the way to put more money in the pockets and purses of the city's working poor."
Notice how the very first sentence of the article begins with a fact that, while coincidentally true, happens to bolster the argument against the Living Wage legislation. (Opponents say wage increases exacerbate unemployment, which may even be true in the general case, but read on.)
In paragraph 2, Harter describes pro-Living Wage statements as "impassioned" (read illogical) and opponents as "dispassionate" (read informed, analytical). Those supporting the ordinance are unnamed and unidentified; those opposing it are "city business leaders."
Speakers in favor of the Living Wage were quoted thrice, but none of their words in the article addressed the actual legislation. Speaking in opposition, David Hansen of the Growth Association was quoted for three whole paragraphs and paraphrased for one more--essentially making threats about what might happen if the ordinance passes.
The word "mandate," which isn't found anywhere in the actual ordinance, nor directly quoted in the article, was used by the Plain Dealer three times (including the second-page column heading, which last probably wasn't written by the reporter). A "mandate" is "an authoritative command," according to one dictionary; it's something you have to do, or else.
Or else what? Or else the employer can forego free money from the city, or large city contracts, that's what else. The Living Wage bill is not a minimum-wage law. Scare tactics aside, the city has no jurisdiction over general wage levels. This bill affects only the employers who choose to be affected by it. It adds absolutely nothing to the general cost of doing business in the city for most employers.
Paying federal income taxes is a mandate. Jury duty is a mandate. Agreeing to pay your workers ten bucks an hour as a condition of accepting larger city contracts is no mandate, it's just another part the mutual obligations one enters into when agreeing to a contract. Companies who find the Living Wage too burdensome might stop bidding on city purchasing contracts (which could limit competition a little, which would be bad) or will refrain from asking for free money in the form of loans and abatements (which would be just dandy in every way).
The entire premise of the Living Wage--I suppose Kevin Harter might have missed it buried in the bill's second paragraph--is that it sets conditions on contracts or "economic assistance" from the city. If you don't want to pay, you don't have to play. As central as it is, this point could not be found, stated or implied, anywhere in the article.
Not to mention that the bill explicity provides for exemptions where an employer can certify that paying 125% of poverty level wages would be a hardship.
I understand part of what the Living Wage opponents are trying to say. Milton Friedman, after all, was my first love in economics, before Henry George came along. As someone who understands and appreciates free markets, I'd agree that a statewide minimum wage of $10 per hour would probably be a bad thing. Too many companies can easily choose to expand elsewhere or leave entirely if lesser-skilled workers became that expensive here.
But city contractors can't just leave. You can't paint buildings, trim grass, or sweep streets for the city of Cleveland without hiring people who live fairly close to Cleveland!
The Living Wage, which is expected to be passed by Council and signed by the Mayor, is probably going to cause a small increase in the city's expenses. Contract seekers of all kinds will figure the added wage costs into their bids just like inflation, since the legislation affects them all.
What opponents don't seem to notice is that this is a good thing. Obviously Cleveland taxpayers would rather put those additional costs into wages than welfare or other programs.
To address the biggest scare of all, it's extremely unlikely that any jobs will actually be lost or foregone as a result of this legislation. As simply as it can possibly be made, the Living Wage has nothing to do with businesses who can actually pick up and leave. It has everything to do with good wages for people who work on city contracts, who actually might then require less use of social services.
Something my neighbor Bill said a couple years ago really stuck with me. He pointed out that minimum-wage jobs are plentiful, but underemployment is as prevalent here as outright unemployment. For a person with very little marketable skills, McDonald's is still hiring all over. It's when one might be ready to move up to something that might actually support a mortgage on Storer or Union that the jobs get scarcer.
If you want to see an economic ripple effect, go check the streets of any neighborhood that has gone over to wholesale welfare dependency. The ripple goes both ways. Boost a few workers up to the wage range envisioned by this bill and you'll see more home ownership, better maintenance, and healthier children. Think of it as the GI Bill for city people.
I would, and should, be the last person to insist on objectivity in a newspaper. When you read the Cleveland Pages it's not hard to figure out where I'm coming from
Harter's article, on the other hand, is just one more piece of evidence that the Plain Dealer continues to be on call as a shill for special interests. But they'll never admit it.
Given all the relevant facts, the concerns of Living Wage opponents sound a little unreasonable. But you gotta give 'em something... at least they're impassioned about it!
This document's template was last modified on Wednesday, 09-Nov-2005 18:51:58 EST. There is a new Cleveland Pages more or less every weekend. The entire Cleveland Pages website is © 1997,1998,1999,2000,2001,2002,2003 by Mark W. Schumann, all rights reserved. Copyrights belonging to others on individual items are noted. Nobody else would take the credit or blame for these opinions anyway.
Go to the front page
Last validated 05 May 2000:
![[ Valid HTML 4.0! ]](/images/vh40.gif){kind=small}
![[ Valid CSS! ]](/images/vcss.gif){kind=small}
![[ Bobby Approved! ]](/images/approved.gif){kind=small}
![[ Made with Cascading Style Sheets]](/images/mwcts.gif)
The W3C validator verifies that documents on this site conform to the Strict HTML 4.01 specification, which is a step towards consistency, accessibility, and interoperability.
Bobby checks for opportunities to improve access for users regardless of disabilities or special needs.