THE LIVING WAGE campaign is a pandemic of misguided idealism. Though the protestors' hearts are in the right place, their brains are nowhere to be found. What many students do not realize is that the arbitrary nature of this campaign will ultimately only hurt the people they are trying to help.
Last Friday, Economics Prof. Edwin Burton was asked by the Market Wage Campaign -- not to be confused with the Living Wage Campaign -- to discuss the economic principles behind this issue. Indeed, it is unfortunate that the 17 protesters inside Madison Hall did not take an hour off to listen to the realities behind what they are trying to accomplish. Perhaps, however, this is because the facts do not bode well for their cause.
Fundamentally, the idea of a "living wage" is a flawed concept. The recently increased University minimum wage, $9.37 per hour, was specifically calculated to match costs in the Charlottesville area and is far above the federal minimum wage of $5.15 and the Virginia government employee minimum of $6.83. Clearly, University employees are at the top of this skill market.
That one word -- skill -- is the central point in this issue. As Burton noted, the job market determines a person's wage based on his or her skill level -- i.e. education, background, experience in similar jobs, etc. What the living wage protesters do not realize is that by simply increasing the minimum wage for University employees they do nothing actually to improve their situation. This, according to Burton, is because in the long run many of these jobs will be phased out or will be turned over to employees with higher skill sets. It is idiotic to hire someone at $10.72 an hour when the work he or she provides is only worth $6 per hour or even $9.37 per hour, and the University administration certainly would never be so out of touch with the world to offer any more.
Thus, a person whose skill level is determined to be below $10.72 will be unable to receive a job at the University however much he or she wants one. Under a market wage, the University would be able to help far more people because while it will still hire employees whose skills merit $10.72, the University will also be able to take on extra employees with lesser skills. One might argue that there is little difference between $9.37 per hour and $10.72 per hour, but the central point remains the same: Many people who could otherwise be employed by the University will be turned away.
It is unlikely that workers would be fired if the University caved in and adopted the $10.72 wage, but this really does not matter because the University would simply stop hiring. What's more, if wage bills increased too much, Burton pointed out that the University could outsource low-skill jobs to an independent company -- a company which would certainly pay far less than the University currently offers. The Living Wage Campaign counters this by demanding that the University pay a minimum of $10.72 to everyone it hires, even if through an outside party, but this is simply not feasible. It would be extremely difficult to enforce and once again, the University simply would not hire those extra employees.
Finally, the protesters' methods in trying to achieve a "living wage" resemble that of a petulant child. Sitting downstairs in President Casteen's office and refusing to even discuss alternatives to their "demands" will only get them exactly what they deserve -- a criminal record. Perhaps this is what they want, but in vainly trying to be martyrs, the 17 students of the sit-in only discredited themselves before the sane community.
The ultimate problem with the Living Wage Campaign is that it is so blinded by socialist idealism it fails to understand reality or to offer a feasible solution that will actually help poorer Charlottesville residents. Indeed, this unyielding ignorance will ultimately be their undoing.
Instead of simply demanding higher wages with no apparent reasoning or method for achieving this goal, living wage supporters should look for a rational solution to the poverty problem. For example, they could establish a general fund and seek alumni donations or -- God forbid -- contribute a percentage of their own future incomes to supplement University employee paychecks. Alternatively, as Burton suggested, they could work through Madison House or some other program to help educate employees, babysit their children, etc.
The Living Wage Campaign may have a noble aim, but its methodology is entirely illogical and counter-productive. Simply demanding a higher wage may help current University employees in the short-run, but it can only hurt far more who will then be unable to get a job. Finally, just picking an arbitrary cause, camping out and expecting someone else to fix it and carry the burden is problematic for oh-so-many reasons. Effective change requires a sound plan. The Living Wage Campaign lacks any sort of plan or even the willingness to seek one.
Allan Cruickshanks is a Cavalier Daily associate editor. He can be reached at acruickshanks@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | 4 days agoThe University must rethink its approach to education beyond traditional major-specific requirements and mandate personal development courses.
EDITORIAL: Commercialization threatens U.Va.’s educational mission
By Editorial Board | 5 days agoAfter all, measuring the University’s worth in terms of accrued capital, operational efficiency and numerical rankings molds this space into just another cookie-cutter institution.
YOUNIS: Why every U.Va. student should say yes to English
By Ayat Younis | January 9, 2025Every student at the University, regardless of their primary field of study, can professionally and academically benefit from engaging with the English department.
