Comments on: A Plea For Temperance

By: anti-add it up

anti-add it up — Wed, 26 Apr 2006 00:43:28 +0000

think about what you’ve said.

OK, do you know why what you’ve said isn’t very well thought through?

It’s because yes, UVA does have a budget, but we don’t just have money lying around the budget going unused. It would have to come from _something_. The most likely place is from other people’s jobs in the same field. In that situation, you would be creating unemployment at the expense of raising a lot of people’s wages that don’t need it, and a few that “do” according to a few hazy numbers. Also I’m kind of curious as to how everyone has deduced that these people need this much money to live, as they’re obviously living at the moment. Maybe Luxury Wage is more apt?

By: add it up

add it up — Thu, 20 Apr 2006 01:28:03 +0000

neither of those things would “have” to happen. The Board of Visitors would have to change the budget they set each year to allot more for paying workers. The money is there already, it’s just a matter of adjusting the budget, theoretically.

By: just curious

just curious — Mon, 17 Apr 2006 19:18:28 +0000

just one thing — assuming uva wouldn’t get anymore money from the GA (the state budget is so tight already) either jobs would have to be cut or tuition would have to increase to pay for an increase in wages. There are students here who have a hard time paying tuition already with student loans and holding down jobs, do we want to make things more difficult on them?

and UVa does already pay more to these people than anywhere else in c-ville would comparably (9.37 is more than the City of Charlottesville pays for similar positions)

By: Teresa Tung

Teresa Tung — Mon, 17 Apr 2006 04:05:15 +0000

I’m too tired and too under-educated about economics to debate the specifics of your argument, but I, without any saracasm, just wanted to comment and say that I appreciate this open conversation. I am sincerely thankful and inspired that you are thinking logically about the issue and at least trying to explore other solutions to the problems instead of just dismissing them.

As for the person who asked about universities that have living wage implemented, I have this incomplete info to offer:

http://www.acorn.org/index.php?id=878 - list of cities that ACORN has successfully passed living wage in

As for universities, I couldn’t find a complete list, but I believe that among them are Georgetown and Johns Hopkins. I’ll post again if I find more info.

By: add it up

add it up — Sun, 16 Apr 2006 20:32:41 +0000

Does anyone know, specifically, how much power Casteen has in implementing a living wage? From all the reports it seems that the most he can do is lobby the General Assembly, is this true?

Also, while I feel the “look for other avenues” approach is obviously a smart one, I don’t really see that getting done. The Living Wage Campaign has obviously outlined their goal and it doesn’t involve feasability studies of other options. Maybe more student groups will arise in the wake of all this publicity and push for other options, but I’m doubtful that any of them will have the impact that Living Wage has. As for the University, I think it’d be surprising to see them pour their own resources into finding the best way to provide for their workers.

Does anyone have a list of universities that currently have a living wage implemented? livingwagecampaign.org lists 130 cities and counties (warning: this website is out of date) but no universities…I wonder if it’s worked anywhere?

By: Rosie

Rosie — Sun, 16 Apr 2006 19:28:59 +0000

another reason the “provide childcare” option might be better - even if it doesn’t save a lot of money, i imagine it would raise fewer hackles

By: aprotim

aprotim — Sun, 16 Apr 2006 17:41:31 +0000

I didn’t say this is a cure-all, which is why I didn’t say “implement this - now!” I said, “please determine the feasability of this.” The point is to not decide “this is the right number, the only solution is to pay people this much!” Look for other avenues, and see whether they work. In fact, the entire idea is to make people who know what they’re doing “do the research”.

With that in mind, yes, it may be more expensive - it also may be less expensive. The point of a fasibility study is to determine the most cost effective way to do this.

I agree that the math is haphazard at best, but I wanted to use their math to not confuse things. Their numbers also seem to assume 40 hours/wk, 52 wks/year. On the other hand, the tax burden is not nearly so high, as both state and federal income tax tend to fall out of the picture when you have two children at that income level, leaving just FICA and Medicare. Point is, (though I initially tried to), I’m not going to fall into the trap of trying to argue about economic models I don’t understand, but I do think that we need to focus on the real issue - which is caring for children at that level, not paying everybody more.

By: add it up

add it up — Sun, 16 Apr 2006 17:10:15 +0000

Actually, the above is calculated assuming both parents are working 40 hours a week. So no, there is no stay-at-home childcarer.

By: Aleks

Aleks — Sun, 16 Apr 2006 16:46:59 +0000

Considering that UVA provides health insurance to their employees, majority of the health-related costs should be covered by that. (There are lots of ways people have lived around the world spending less money per-child. Re-usable diapers, reuse of books, etc.etc. If the cost per child was $450, then there would not be families with 4+ childrean.)

Also, those calculations seem to imply that only one person needs to work to support the whole family. In that case, the government considers the other person to be stay-at-home childcarer. Then the cost of daycare should not exist.

Additionally, the taxes would drop considerably with more dependents, negating at least some part of the increased cost. (Child-care expenses, diapers, books, etc. are all tax-deductible.)

By: add it up

add it up — Sun, 16 Apr 2006 15:06:48 +0000

I like your idea, however I can’t ignore the irony of your criticism that the Living Wage’s model is “entirely too simple”. So, let’s calculate how much a two parent household is making at $9.37/hour. Using the model above to determine the number of hours worked in a month (173.32), this gives us $3,248.03, a full $467.97 less than the Living Wage propsal. Taking this number, I think your argument would be a lot more effective if you did some sort of child care research in the Charlottesville area and attempted to match these numbers. Also, isn’t it possible that it would be more expensive for the University to provide child care for all of its employees than to raise their wages?