NO ONE who is working full-time should be living in poverty. This is a very basic concept of the American Dream: people who work hard day in and day out should be able to support their family and enjoy a decent standard of living. Sadly, people who work at the University for companies like Aramark and Morrison's can't do that because the University does not guarantee a living wage to all direct and contract workers. These are people whose faces we see when they feed us in the dining halls and take care of us in the hospital, and who are a part of our community.
According to one recent study, the self sufficiency standard in Charlottesville for a two adult family supporting one infant and one preschooler was calculated at $41,862 per year, or $9.91 an hour, per adult (www.vakids.org). Nevertheless, Charlottesville residents who work for companies like Aramark are making as little as $7.25 an hour.
Poverty affects not only a family's basic needs budget, but also its ability to invest in things like heath care and education for its children. When someone cannot support themselves or their families on one full-time job, they are often forced to take second and even third jobs, dramatically increasing the number of work hours in a week. Every extra hour a parent has to spend away from home is an hour they cannot spend with their family. Parents have less time to read to their children or help them with homework, much less prepare a healthy meal. It is wrong that the people who feed us every day in Newcomb can't afford to pay their bills and provide a healthy diet for their own family. If we really do care about basic family values, we must enact a living wage so that no child is left behind. We have a social responsibility to uphold the dignity of others by giving them their just due; the living wage is a right, not a privilege.
Contrary to what many critics say, there are economic as well as moral arguments for the living wage.Studies have shown that paying a living wage reduces employee turnover, thereby increasing efficiency and cutting training costs. It has been shown that many businesses are able to absorb the added cost of higher wages through the longer term benefits they bring to the company ("What's so bad about a living wage?" Business Week, Sept. 4, 2000). More and more economists agree with Michigan State University Profesor David Neumark that "living wages actually reduce poverty" and that "if someone's getting up on a soapbox and saying these are a disaster, they may believe it, but there's really no evidence" ("National study concludes that 'living wage' reduces poverty," San Francisco Chronicle, March 14).
Furthermore, there is a glaring discrepancy in the logic of those who argue that wages should be left up to purely market forces. Many who argue against the living wage say the market should not be "artificially" manipulated, while at the same time supporting government subsidies and tax incentives to attract business investment. To argue that government should take a proactive role in support of business initiatives and economic development, but that the living wage is bad because it distorts the market, is both logically contradictory and morally bankrupt. Moreover, it should be stressed that when companies like Aramark pay their employees poverty wages, they place an extra burden on taxpayers. University workers below the poverty level are eligible for social support in the form of housing subsidies, food stamps and other basic social services. It is a betrayal of the American Dream that full-time workers must rely on government assistance.
From an economic perspective, the demand by living wage proponents of $8.65 an hour plus health insurance is a conservative one. American economic productivity grew 74.2 percent between 1968 and 2000 and "the minimum wage would have been $13.80 in 2000 -- not $5.15 -- if it had kept pace with productivity," according to a book called "Raise the floor" by Sklar, Holly and Laryssa Mykyta, and Susan Wefald. The staggering deflation in the purchasing power of the American working poor is detrimental to both local and national economies, and it demonstrates a criminal neglect in public policy for the plight of the working poor.
There are concrete steps we can take to help in the fight against poverty. President John T. Casteen III, Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer Leonard Sandridge, and the Board of Visitors should include a living wage requirement as a stipulation for bids on all University contracts. Student Council should pass a resolution supporting a living wage policy for everyone that services the University community. With hard work and sensible policies, we can realize the American Dream by ensuring that everyone working full-time can support themselves and their families.
(Nicholas Graber-Grace is an organizer of the living wage campaign.)
Read More
BURSTEIN: Federal workforce cuts target Virginia — and Youngkin’s response falls short
By Carly Burstein | 6 days agoForcing employees to choose between uprooting their families or losing their livelihoods is not just callous — it is economically reckless.
HUYNH: Virginia’s proposed ‘whippets’ law is laughable
By Viet Huynh | May 1, 2025As people continue to be harmed by nitrous oxide abuse, Virginians will see this new law as the ineffective, ultimately harmful policy that it is.
EDITORIAL: We can demand more of our university presidents
By Editorial Board | May 1, 2025We hope for greater transparency because for the principles of solidarity in this statement to be enacted and effective, stakeholders must be treated as partners in resistance.
