Living Wage: More than 100 Economists Say Yes

By Rev. Jim Conn

Who can you trust? That question looms before the public as we ponder nearly opposite analyses of Measure JJ, Santa Monica's living wage ordinance.

Two views of this ballot measure have surfaced in the past week. A fierce attack on Measure JJ was issued by Rick Sander of UCLA. The same day, Professor Robert Pollin of the University of Massachusetts at Amherst released an update of his comprehensive study on Santa Monica's living wage. The two reports differ on nearly all findings, and it is not hard to understand why.

The stakes are high, especially for the 2,000 low-wage workers who will benefit from the passage of JJ. Forty percent of these workers qualify as poor or near-poor, and 85 percent of them live in families whose income falls below the Basic Needs threshold formulated by the California Budget Project, which has conducted definitive studies on what it takes for families to get by.

Professor Pollin has impeccable credentials as an economist. He is a founding director of the Political Economy Research Institute at University of Massachusetts Amherst, where he teaches, and has published four books on economics as well as numerous peer-reviewed articles.

In January 2000, Pollin was commissioned by the City of Santa Monica to conduct exhaustive original research on the living wage proposal. He was given access to the city's confidential tax records, and also conducted a survey of workers and businesses likely to be affected by the living wage law.

Pollin concluded that the living wage will provide significant benefit to working families, dramatically reducing eligibility for government-funded anti-poverty programs. He also found that job loss will be minimal, and that tourism industry hubs such as luxury hotels can well afford to pay their employees a living wage, and indeed have prospered due to public investments in the beachfront district. His study provided objective evidence that the living wage is sound policy for Santa Monica.

Pollin's new analysis released this week confirms his earlier findings. His report takes into account changes made by the City Council to the original living wage proposal, as well as current economic conditions in Santa Monica.

Harvard University Professor Richard Freeman, one of the most eminent labor economists in the world, completed a peer review of Polin's original study for the city. Freeman affirmed all of Pollin's major findings and called the study "a fine piece of applied research."

Pollin's research was backed last week by 120 economists from the U.S. as well as Canada, Mexico, and Britain. In a statement endorsing Measure JJ, they cited Pollin's study and Freeman's peer review. Many highly prominent economists are among the signatories, including University of Texas at Austin Professor James K. Galbraith, Cornell University Professor Lourdes Beneria, Oxford University Professor Andrew Glyn, and Professor Stephen Machin of London's University College.

What about Professor Rick Sander, whose conclusions are the opposite of Pollin's? Sander teaches law at UCLA. He has never published in a major peer-reviewed economics journal, nor published a book on economics. His study included no original worker interviews, nor did he have access to confidential city data.

His current study is underwritten to the tune of $14,000 by the Employment Policies Institute, a conservative think tank closely associated with the fast food and beverage industries. Not surprisingly, EPI is the leading national critic of living wage and minimum wage legislation.

Sander published a previous study attacking the Santa Monica living wage, for which he received $55,000 from the city's hotel industry. That same industry has spent nearly $2 million to stop enactment of the living wage law.

As voters enter the booth November 5, we will be faced with a central question. Do we trust a broad cross section of highly accomplished economists, who have joined with hundreds of community leaders, educators, religious leaders and elected officials in endorsing Measure JJ? Or do we trust the special interests who have paid for partisan research in the hope of denying workers a fair wage?

To answer that question, voters should examine the evidence, the credentials, and the money. Then the choice will be clear: to vote yes on Measure JJ.