Living Wage Movement

No social movement in the United States since the end of the Cold War has shown more staying power, or wider appeal, than the living wage movement. In just over a decade, from the passage of the first major living wage law in Baltimore in late 1994 through the passage of the Philadelphia ordinance in May 2005, 130 cities and counties enacted living wage ordinances—laws that typically say that businesses getting city contracts or subsidies must pay their employees enough to stay out of poverty. (Generally, the aim is to keep workers' families 30% above the poverty line, where they remain eligible for food stamps.) These cities range in size from the largest—New York, Chicago, Boston, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, New Orleans, San Antonio, Denver, Orlando, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and others—to smaller cities such as Omaha, Lawrence, Missoula, and Duluth. By 2004, more than 40 million Americans lived in jurisdictions covered by living wage laws. These figures indicate the remarkable popularity of the living wage ideal. In 2000, 77% of St. Louis voters approved a living wage law. In 1999, 80% of Detroit voters did the same. Indeed, in the 3 years from 2000 to 2002, living wage laws passed at the rate of nearly 20 a year. The trend was so one-sided that an opposition lobbyist complained in 2002 that there has not been a fair debate yet. It is a very emotionally charged issue. If someone on the street is asked if they support a living wage, they will overwhelmingly say they do.

Living wage laws are popular, it seems, for two main reasons. Many people see them as a way to fight poverty in a period when low-wage jobs are proliferating, high-wage jobs are scarce, and the federal minimum wage lags behind inflation—so much so, in fact, that a household headed by a fully employed single mother with two children and a minimum wage job would fall nearly 40% below the federal poverty line in 2005. Others, meanwhile, dislike what they see as corporate welfare and oppose the idea that businesses that pay their workers poverty-level wages should be rewarded with high-dollar contracts and tax breaks at public expense. Combined, these two motives have proven formidable.

Nearly all living wage ordinances cover workers employed by firms that receive city service contracts, and nearly half cover workers who are employed by firms that receive tax subsidies. In Santa Fe and San Francisco, living wages are mandated for a high percentage of the city's workers. In a few cases—notably, New Orleans—sweeping measures were passed at the city level and then overturned at the judicial or legislative level.

Local campaigns, though often inspired by news about efforts elsewhere, are generally grassroots initiatives that spring from local circumstances. A typical effort in a big city might pivot around the involvement of major municipal unions with support from labor-friendly city council members. In smaller communities with fewer or weaker trade unions, campaigns often build on the united efforts of churches, women's groups, neighborhood groups, anti-poverty organizations, and [Page 867]students, among others. Opposition comes mainly from developers, chambers of commerce, restaurant and bar owners, and journalists who espouse free-market objections to legislated wage levels. Successful campaigns generally take about 3 years, on average.

...