New Haven Independent

posted by: cedarhillresident on April 19, 2010  10:42am

YOUR JOKING!!!!!!!!!!!! This will cost the city in the long run!! Not a smart move

posted by: Jonathan Hopkins on April 19, 2010  11:41am

Perhaps taking steps to lower the cost of living is a smarter approach.
It should be a civil right that every child be within walking distance of their neighborhood school, a park and a play ground. This would get rid of the expensive, elaborate and unnecessary private yellow busing system. Every person should be able to walk to a store or a stand that sells fresh, locally grown produce, which when compounded with a lifestyle based around walking drastically lowers health-related costs over a lifetime.
Our agriculture should be established in relation to our populations, not in relation to which states can lobby for the most federal subsidies. The stores that provide the produce should be deployed at intervals related to walking, not maximum efficiency.
The increased price in organic, local goods deployed over many small community-based shops is offset by lower transportation and health costs.
While I wish that companies, businesses and corporations acted solely in favor of the public good, instead of elite groups of stockholders, the reality is measures that make them pay more is most likely going to worsen the problem. Instead of the fat cats cutting into their profits, they would likely cut costs elsewhere at the expense of the environment, other groups of working people, the region by freezing hiring and de-centering business to cheaper locales. It will probably take measures at the level of federal policy to encourage community-based businesses to re-organize themselves locally instead of nationally or globally.

posted by: dollars and cents on April 19, 2010  11:50am

it’s always easy when you’re spending OTHER people’s money.

posted by: streever on April 19, 2010  11:55am

Great work by Jones, Lemar, & Goldson: I’m extremely impressed by the teamwork to insure that our citizens are paid fairly for their work.

Minimum wage contributes to the economic disparity of our city. Enforcing fair pay & requiring best practice from our contractors is a way to bring all of New Haven’s residents to a fair footing.

posted by: V on April 19, 2010  12:11pm

....

Instead of looking for ways to cut city costs, and our taxes, they’re looking for ways to increase city costs.  GREAT.  Sign me up for higher taxes.  Oh, wait, that’s right, this idiot city already has.

posted by: alexey on April 19, 2010  1:05pm

If I read the New Haven Register article correctly, the city has concluded that it would cost half as much to pay janitors a “living wage” than a “union wage” by privatizing.  The Request for Proposal apparently included wage figures hire than the state minimum wage.

Mr. Hopkins envisions a return to true neighborhood schools, where every student walks to school.  That would mean a return to de facto segregation.  Edgewood, for example, one of the city’s top-rated schools, would have fewer minorities.  Even if all schools were rated above agerage somehow in quality of education a la Lake Wobegon, the courts would rule that they are inequal by having separate racial populations.  Even if neighborhood elementary schools could be maintained, students still would have to be bussed to high schools.  And, in the sprawled out suburbs and rural areas, busses still would be required for all students, because those towns don’t have the density for neighborhood schools.

Given at least the perception and not the reality of the safety of children walking to school, many parents would drive their kids anyhow.  Yes, there can be buddy groups, etc., but still many parents would drive their children.

posted by: Threefifths on April 19, 2010  2:30pm

No matter how you cut it.We now have a growing class of people who are proletarian. Again we must get out of this two party system. Proportional Representation Now!!!!

posted by: To the Critics of a Living Wage on April 19, 2010  2:34pm

So, your argument against living wages is that some folks should work and not receive a living wage, in other words, work for slave wages, so that those business people should have higher profit margins. That will allow them to hire more slaves to grow their profit margins even higher. But, as you say, they should be happy to have a job.

posted by: Jonathan Hopkins on April 19, 2010  3:05pm

alexey,
Segregation is not a school problem, it is a neighborhood problem. Desegregating at the school level was a mistake, it should have happened at the neighborhood level. Now we artificially diversify our schools with an elaborate private busing system, which does nothing to address the problems of segregated neighborhoods. If community-based elementary and neighborhood-based middle schools were to return than the shift from focus on schools to focus on neighborhoods would also have to happen. Luckily, the vast majority of the housing stock in this city is one of the most flexible and adaptive building forms on the planet, which allows for extreme diversity in terms of density and income within a very small geographic area.
As far as suburbs go, they’re pretty much hopeless and unworkable in their current condition. They need to be massively overhauled and turned into diverse little towns with centers that produce goods and services in a self-sustaining way because the current relationship of being a parasite to cities is not working, has not worked and will not work in the future.
High schools would still need transit but by 14 years old, people can take the city bus and if the high schools were centrally located it would just be one bus with no transfer necessary.
Supporting magnet schools as the solution to segregation essentially amounts to supporting neighborhood segregation. I went to a magnet elementary and middle school and received a good education and I would not have traded it for anything. However, the magnet school’s diversity can be replicated in neighborhood schools if the neighborhoods are diverse. This can happen through a ‘balancing’ of the city. For instance, East Rock is too expensive and Newhallville is under-appreciated, yet both neighborhoods have nearly identical design components. With well placed incentives, small improvements and an ad campaign, Newhallville can easily develop a character similar to East Rock. Same goes for most of the city.

posted by: Jonathan Hopkins on April 19, 2010  3:25pm

To critics of a living wage,
If you were referring to me at all, let me just explain that I am all for people having more money to live off of. The way I suggested doing this is to lower the cost of living instead of raising the cost of employing; in net terms, lowering the cost of living is the same as raising one’s pay. The reason I support this immediately is because our entire society has been built around corporations being able to do what they want for decades and decades. If we impose on them, they’ll simply do more harm to make sure their bottom line stays the same of grows. I do not support this in anyway, but what I think about corporations matters very little to the actual corporations. It will take a lot of policy changes at the federal level to change the relationship between the people and the elite in the corporate world. It seems to me that raising the pay wage is not going to solve any long term issues; it may actually make things worse. Lower the cost of living now, and begin the slow process of dismantling corporate power-that is my position.

posted by: To To the Critics of a Living Wage on April 19, 2010  3:48pm

That’s a strawman. Slavery is forced labor; no one is forced to keep their job. If people feel wages for a job are too low, then nobody would work that job. If we artificially inflate wages, employers must pay those costs. Those employers will then hire less people, and in the long run, harm more people. You can’t force the market to pay people much more than what their labor is worth without giving up something, namely jobs. Don’t these aldermen realize the city is running a deficit right now?

posted by: Vinny G on April 19, 2010  5:30pm

In order for society to exist there needs to be a wide spectrum of employees.  Some with a higher education and some with a lower education.  If you feel that the wage you are making is not enough, one needs to reach higher, educate themselves, go to college or take up a skilled trade.  If one does not choose to reach higher then they are competing for a job with others at that same level.  A person spend 40 plus hours a week at their job.  You want to be happy at it.

posted by: streever on April 19, 2010  5:56pm

I’m surprised people are so against this. Yes, it may impact your taxes. If you don’t want garbage service or janitorial service, then speak out against that, don’t speak out against folk less privileged than you earning enough money to pay rent.

The reality is that minimum wage in CT isn’t enough to live on. Having a working poor isn’t a status quo we should aspire to keep, but something we should be actively changing, and I applaud our three alders for working toward a city in which everyone earns enough money to live.

posted by: streever on April 19, 2010  7:41pm

Vinny, To To, etc:
I don’t think you really grasp the situation.
“Just get more education”—at 8.50 an hour I’m not sure how one can afford a better education, on top of this most of my friends who graduated from Yale last year could not find a job, so I’m not sure how you expect folks who are going to community college in their 30s, 40s, to come out & get good jobs.

Second, if you aren’t making enough right now working for 8.50 an hour, you tell me how you’ll survive while you go to night school (and pay for that!) for the next 2-4 years in order to be qualified for a better job.

Poverty is an endless cycle. Your over-privileged response is disgusting. I’m really glad that our elected officials aren’t as poorly educated as to how economics & class systems work.

posted by: Jonathan Hopkins on April 19, 2010  7:58pm

Streever,
This issue reminds me a lot of what happens on at a lot of colleges; colleges spend more money on attracting more students (through landscaping, more frequent cleaning, etc) which raises tuition. Some students who graduate become teachers and expect a certain salary to pay off their debts, which are higher than the students who graduated before them when the college did not have a higher tuition. The increased pay for teachers further increases tuition which releases a new group of students who expect a certain income and the process continually cycles upward. Similar things happen in places where people live. At some point we must question whether or not we simply allow costs to rise and artificially raise wages to match the increases in cost of living or if there must be a way to lower costs to match income. Perhaps in this situation, it is not possible, in which case I’d agree with you, but where are the 3 aldermen who are looking into making this a city that is affordable to live in rather than a city where pay is artificially increased to keep up with the city’s affordability. Again, perhaps this particular situation cannot be addressed by means other than what is proposed, but is there anyone looking into the alternatives?

posted by: "to to" on April 19, 2010  11:46pm

Streever,
How is my viewpoint over-privileged? It’s reality. At a time when the city has to resort to shady parking deals to balance the budget, why is this something that we should add to budget? Wages can’t be magically forced to rise. These contractors aren’t giant corporations; they’re people who must also make ends meet. Raise wages and employers either hire less, or pass on the higher costs in their contracts with the city.

It’s an idea with good intentions. I don’t want to see people in a situation where they don’t make enough to live. But this isn’t the right way to do it.

The issue of Yale grads unable to find jobs has little to do with this. The sooner we recover from recession, the sooner conditions improve for everyone.

posted by: working(too hard) mom on April 20, 2010  6:15am

Johnathan Hopkins is absolutely correct.  Artificially increasing wages is not the solution.  Studies have shown that these type of wage increases do nothing except hinder hiring. These Aldermen need to really look at the effects this would have. BAD IDEA!
The “living wage” is currently 12.00 and should stay there.  Why should anyone get a 9% increase in this economy?

posted by: V on April 20, 2010  9:02am

“so that those business people should have higher profit margins. That will allow them to hire more slaves to grow their profit margins even higher.”

Keep saying “slaves” and I guess you’ll start to believe what is coming out of your mouth.

Our elected officials should be figuring out ways to save city money (our taxes) rather than coming up with ideas to spend more.  Do you think that these increased costs won’t get passed on to the city, and therefore, to the taxpayer?

posted by: Bill on April 20, 2010  9:35am

There are plenty of job openings in New Haven county that pay more than minimum wage. They require some education, but and here’s the killer, you must pass a drug test.

posted by: Townie on April 20, 2010  9:50am

This is just another symptom of a corrupt economic system. Capitalism is set up to create hierarchy and reinforce the established ruling class. Add government intervention to that paradigm and you have the U.S. system. The majority of working people are in some way dependent on the Government. The non-working poor are completely dependent on the Government. A citizenry dependent on the government is the antithesis of a healthy Democratic society. Think 1930’s & 40’s Germany.

posted by: JAK on April 20, 2010  10:00am

Hopkins - You’re wrong about categorizing corporate stockholders as elite.  99% of “working families” are investors in corporate America through their 401k plans and pension plans.  The vast majority of Americans have a real stake in U.S. corporations and how well they do.  Its not 1890 anymore with the robber barons vs the down-trodden worker.

Streever - Why do you think it is alright to take money from someone and then turn around and give it to someone else? Why are you qualified to over-ride what people are free to pay for goods and services?  The person (To the critics of living wage)who said you can’t force markets to adjust to your worldview is completely right.  If you legislate people to over-pay for a service, they will not simply absorb that cost.  They will either pass it on to consumers or reduce other costs which they have more control over.  Its not a static situation.

This is a dumb legislative proposal coming out of admirable but misguided intentions.

posted by: Threefifths on April 20, 2010  10:50am

We need a up dated program like this.

Works Progress Administration (WPA)

The Works Progress Administration (WPA) was instituted by presidential executive order under the Emergency Relief Appropriation Act of April 1935, to generate public jobs for the unemployed. The WPA was restructured in 1939 when it was reassigned to the Federal Works Agency.

By 1936 over 3.4 million people were employed on various WPA programs. Administered by Harry Hopkins and furnished with an original congressional allocation of $4.8 billion, the WPA made work accessible to the unemployed on an unparalleled scale by disbursing funds for an extensive array of programs. Hopkins argued that although the work relief program was more costly than direct relief payments, it was worth it. He averred, “Give a man a dole, and you save his body and destroy his spirit. Give him a job and you save both body and spirit.”

While responsibility for such unemployable people as children, the elderly, and the handicapped was remanded to the states, the WPA provided literally millions of jobs to employable people, enrolling on average about two million a year during its eight-year stint. Far fewer women were enrolled than men. Just 13.5 percent of WPA employees were women in 1938, its top enrollment year.

The WPA was charged with selecting projects that would make a real and lasting contribution — but would not vie with private firms. As it turned out, the “pump-priming” effect of federal projects actually stimulated private business during the Depression years. The WPA focused on tangible improvements: During its tenure, workers constructed 651,087 miles of roads, streets and highways; and built, repaired or refurbished 124,031 bridges, 125,110 public buildings, 8,192 parks, and 853 landing fields. In addition, workers cleaned slums, revived forests, and extended electrical power to rural locations.

Work was provided for nearly a million students through the WPA National Youth Administration (NYA). The Federal One projects employed 40,000 artists and other cultural workers to produce music and theater, sculptures, murals and paintings, state and regional travel guides, and surveys of national archives. The Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) was a program designed to address the problem of jobless young men aged between 18 and 25 years old. CCC camps were set up all around the country.

The WPA’s positive results for the public good and its popularity helped Franklin D. Roosevelt to garner a thumping electoral victory in 1936, even though the agency employed no more than about 25 percent of the nation’s jobless.

Meanwhile, New Deal critics in Congress accused the program of waste, political maneuvering, and even subversive activity; they took their chance to prune the program when unemployment figures dipped a little in 1937. When unemployment rose again the following year, funding was brought back to previous levels. However, 1939 saw more cutbacks. The Emergency Relief Appropriations Act of June 30 eliminated the Federal Theater Project, cut back WPA pay and limited enrollment to 18 months. Reacting to charges of politicking by WPA employees during the 1938 congressional races, the Hatch Act of August 1939 prevented federal workers from participating in a broad array of political activities.

With wartime prosperity rising in the 1940s, the WPA became more difficult to justify, and on June 30, 1943 the agency was terminated by presidential proclamation. All told, the WPA had employed more than 8,500,000 individuals on 1,410,000 projects with an average salary of $41.57 a month, and had spent about $11 billion.

posted by: Steve Ross, Human on April 20, 2010  11:14am

Money is ludicrous.

posted by: William Kurtz on April 20, 2010  1:13pm

Isn’t the larger problem the bizarre situation that has public money being paid to private corporations before being paid to the people who actually performed the needed service?  Why aren’t these workers being paid directly, without a middleman? 

I see in the story that the BOE is examining private bids in the hopes that they will represent a savings over unionized labor, but I’m not sure how that can even possible . . . a private contractor has—or should have—all of the overhead associated with maintaining a workforce, and in addition has to generate a profit.  Can someone explain how this costs less than paying people directly?  I have the same question about military contractors vs. actual military personnel.

posted by: Jonathan Hopkins on April 20, 2010  2:55pm

JAK,
In 1890 corporations were controlled and established by the public to serve a temporary purpose of serving the public good. How much they could make was determined by the government and corporations were a pretty small part of our society. As public projects became more expansive (rail roads, water infrastructure, etc) corporations had more influence and were able to infiltrate the government and fundamentally change the constitution to give the corporations the same privileges as individuals, which over time lead to further and further erosion of responsibility and liability. Fast forward 100 years and corporations are now the most influential part of our society, economy and culture. I don’t see this as a good thing. You apparently do. I don’t get how this means I’m ‘wrong’, I just see it as us differing in opinion.
Townie,
I don’t think capitalism is as inherently evil as you think. Blaming capitalism for our problems is like blaming the existence of humans for murder. The systems we have established and the principles we have abandoned in order to allow the perversion of our economy is what’s to blame not something like capitalism, which, correct me if I’m wrong, is just a set of rules established to govern excess wealth.

posted by: JAK on April 20, 2010  4:06pm

Jonathan Hopkins - corporate power was immense in 1890 with the rise of the robber-barons including Rockefeller who paid no income tax.  Standard Oil, the railroads, and utilities didn’t work for the people.  They had unchecked monopolistic power over markets and labor.  The Sherman anti-trust laws were passed in that very year as a way to check the dominance of corporate power.  Laborers had no equity stake in the corporations.  They were overworked, bullied, and abused.  These conditions led to the birth of the modern labor movement which itself grew to into a monopolistic leviathan and subsequently resulted in the destruction of Detroit.

Today employees in corporate environments have a huge stake in the success of corporations through direct and indirect stock ownership. 

And people who use on ancient class-focused rhetoric as a way of seperating the interest of “working people” from companies are going also going the way of the Detroit-based American auto industry….into the rearview mirror.

posted by: V on April 20, 2010  7:15pm

“Why aren’t these workers being paid directly, without a middleman?
- Can someone explain how this costs less than paying people directly?”

Compare the cost of a public employee (union wages are higher, union benefits include earlier retirement, traditional pensions, etc) to that of a private employee and you soon realize how it could be cheaper.  Public sector employees get very generous hourly wages and benefits, compared to private sector workers in the same job fields.

posted by: Bob Brantley on April 20, 2010  9:28pm

$13/hr is way too much for a janitor. Why is it anyone’s concern but their own whether they make a “living wage”? When I got laid off years ago, I worked 2 jobs each day and another on weekends. Together, it added up to a “living wage”. But I didn’t look to the government to make it so.

I saved every penny I could and eventually started a business fixing PCs. Today I employ 15 New Havenites doing the same. When people make less they work harder. Why artificially inflate their salary to a level they don’t deserve, and also take away their desperate need to find work that pays more?

posted by: Townie on April 21, 2010  7:01am

Jonathan Hopkins:
Capitalism is a system that creates an automatic classification of human beings according to their “value”, it is contradictory to a true democratic society. There is an argument to be made that it is not the system that effects exploitation, but it’s the people who control the system that create it. I partially agree with that point. However, if we had a more equitable system, a cooperative system that did not thrive on subjugation and wage-slavery then perhaps we might be able to abandon greed and consumerism. But, maybe it’s a chicken and egg argument. Maybe people are just inherently greedy and driven by mindless consumption. People seem to forget, or to never know, that this nation was founded by a small group of wealthy men who wrote the Constitution in order to protect their “rights” to property and wealth. Hamilton, Adams, Madison and Washington, among others, did not believe in democracy, they believed in, and created a strong Federal Republic, which would protect the Oligarchy from the “mob”.
Nothing has changed since that time.
Anyway, I’m against city funded wage increases. The workers should get raises the old fashioned way, go on strike or protest. Imagine what this city would be like if there weren’t any janitors. Janitors are just as valuable as doctors in our society and they should be compensated accordingly.

posted by: c'mon on April 21, 2010  3:44pm

Americans in general are foolish when it comes to a living wage. There is no way a person getting paid 11.50 an hour is earning enough to support themselves hell it justifies having state support services hell i’ve been working earning 11.00 hr with one child and get food stamps and save enough just to pay bills with the money so blind get an education done that seek higher paying jobs ok how about the fact the the price for everything especially energy makes having a job that pays under 15.00 hr i’d say in CT insane to think its a living wage life is’nt about money who is getting paid what they are worth? The cost of living is tooooo high period.

posted by: Sandra Kreeger on April 22, 2010  7:02pm

“C’mon”, the cost of living is too high because of government.