Securing the Living Wage been an elusive quest for many local and state governments--but it is far from impossible.
Perhaps no case better exemplifies the nature of the struggle for living wage legislation than the recent Chicago campaign. Originally passing in an overwhelming 35-14 vote in the Chicago City Council, the ordinance would have significantly raised the minimum wage in Chicago, and then would have indexed it to keep consistent with the rate of inflation. The movement's advocates recognized--as we all should--that legislation can often encounter a variety of time-consuming impasses and 'speed-bumps', while inflation inexorably marches onward; leaving low-wage workers caught in a constant game of catch-up. But what made the Chicago example particularly unique and important was its target: 'big box' retailers. By arguing that these 'big box' retailers--e.g. Walmart, Target, Home Depot, etc.--could more easily afford to pay their employees the living wage, versus, say, a 'mom and pop' store, the effort made economic and moral sense, without igniting opposition from smaller businesses.
So what happened? Essentially, the mayor vetoed the ordinance. And while the Council scrambled to try to overturn the veto, an intense lobbying campaign took place to inform Council members of all the supposed 'evils' of a city-wide living wage law: employees will be laid off, businesses will be hurt, prices will increase, companies will move elsewhere, etc. In other words, 'these companies won't survive!' But as noted in this very informative NY Times article, studies have shown moderate increases in the minimum wage to have little negative impact upon businesses, and sometimes even producing a positive result. Indeed, I would argue that increases in the minimum wage will put more money into the hands of the people that primarily shop at the 'big box' retailers in the first place, likely resulting in increased patronage and sales.
But while the economics of the situation might be inherently controversial, the moral argument involved is powerful and compelling: No one that works full time should be anywhere near the poverty line, let alone below it. It is this moral argument that should be invoked whenever living wage advocates are presented with all of the scare tactics that corporate lobbyists and sympathetic legislators regularly employ.
We should not forget some of the notable living wage successes, such as Baltimore, Albuquerque, and Santa Fe. But the hard reality is that for every success, there have undoubtedly been dozens of Chicago-type failures. In recognizing this we should not kid ourselves as to who the opponents of living-wage legislation are, and where their interests lie. The Chicago case made it clear who these opponents are, but it also made clear the closeness by which another city nearly enacted living wage legislation. All you have to do, then, is want it.
The comedian Chris Rock once joked, "Do you know what your boss is telling you when he pays you the minimum wage? He's telling you, 'I would pay you less, but I can't.'" Let us remember this as we fight not only for increases in the bare minimum standard of living, but for a wage that better reflects and rewards the difficult work done--without which, these companies really could never survive.