Strengthening Constitutional Self-Government

No Left Turns

The living wage: my speculations



Shep Barbash, who blogs at


This study reaches three broad conclusions.
First, such minimum wages would result in
approximately 131,000 to 222,000 workers losing
their jobs. Second, Florida employers would
see their wage costs skyrocket in the range of
wage gains would go to low-wage workers
in higher income families rather than to those
most in need.





Discussions - 5 Comments

"The living wage is not the most narrowly targeted means of assisting the working poor."

What are the more practical alternatives for assisting the working poor, and why hasn’t the ’living wage’ crowd embraced them?

We were just discussing this in my economic geography class yesterday. A living wage law passed in Cleveland was difficult for social services organizations, who had city and county contracts to provide employment and placement services, to handle. Employers would not contract with some organizations, fearing they would have to pay this lviing wage. People complained it was just another entitlement program (just like prescription drug coverage) for the guy taking my money at the city-owned parking lot. $10.50 an hour for sitting on your backside, collecting money as a parking lot attendant??

Let’s get over it. High-wage jobs have, for all intents and purposes, fled Cleveland’s inner city. Move on, get over it and do something really good to improve Cleveland - drop the living wage and rehire all the cops and fireighters laid off!

My "living" is a million a year. Check please!

What are the more practical alternatives for assisting the working poor

I know this is blasphemy on NLT, but a plain old wealth transfer is better than a "living wage." The inefficiencies of redistribution are lower than those of price-fixing in the labor market.

and why hasn’t the ’living wage’ crowd embraced them?

Because they are hacks who need a political catch-phrase that makes them feel warm and fuzzy.

Nope, OV, the reason they use "living wage" is because "income redistribution" is a political non-starter. Another word for it is legalized theft. Most people are willing to support the government, but government acting as Robin Hood doesn’t represent the people equally. Of course, we do have a great number of income transfer programs (e.g., Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare), but these benefit such a large swath of the middle class that they are popular. Income distribution from the middle and upper-middle would sink a politician because THOSE INCOME GROUPS ARE THE ONES WHO VOTE. Really, it’s that simple.

Leave a Comment

* denotes a required field

No TrackBacks
TrackBack URL: