Livable Wages - Something that has received disappointingly little coverage in the local press is a conversation that the City Commission had over the course of the summer on the question of what constitutes a living wage in the City of Sarasota. That issue ties directly to the larger discussions taking place regarding affordable housing, but is much less often being talked about. In addition to all of the questions raised about how to bring housing prices down, there is little discussion about bringing wages up. I have heard reference made more than once lately to "people who earn $10 an hour" and how difficult it is for them to live - something that is hard to dispute.
Without getting into the genisis of the number (though that information is available), I wanted to report here that the City Commission took a stand on the subject with the adoption of their fiscal year 2006-2007 budget, which took effect on October 1. What they said was that $10 an hour is not enough - for anyone. They have said that no full-time city employee will be asked to work for less than $26,750 a year, or approximately $12.86 an hour. Of course nobody is suggesting that anyone can live comfortably at that salary within the city limits, particularly a one-earner family. But it is a starting point, and is a philosophical statement by the commission that speaks volumes.
Some will say it's easier for the city, which operates as a monopoly, apart from the competitive pressures of the private sector. But what about places like Whole Foods or Starbucks, where somewhat higher prices are willingly paid, which then channels into better benefits for those employees.
I don't have the answers, and realize that I've only made simplistic points. That's where you come in - where do you believe the employers fit into this conversation about housing, living wages, and benefits like health insurance? If you're an employer, please weigh in with your perspective.
(Note: Thank you to the folks at "Creative Loafing" for recognizing this blog and the people who use it!)
Without getting into the genisis of the number (though that information is available), I wanted to report here that the City Commission took a stand on the subject with the adoption of their fiscal year 2006-2007 budget, which took effect on October 1. What they said was that $10 an hour is not enough - for anyone. They have said that no full-time city employee will be asked to work for less than $26,750 a year, or approximately $12.86 an hour. Of course nobody is suggesting that anyone can live comfortably at that salary within the city limits, particularly a one-earner family. But it is a starting point, and is a philosophical statement by the commission that speaks volumes.
Some will say it's easier for the city, which operates as a monopoly, apart from the competitive pressures of the private sector. But what about places like Whole Foods or Starbucks, where somewhat higher prices are willingly paid, which then channels into better benefits for those employees.
I don't have the answers, and realize that I've only made simplistic points. That's where you come in - where do you believe the employers fit into this conversation about housing, living wages, and benefits like health insurance? If you're an employer, please weigh in with your perspective.
(Note: Thank you to the folks at "Creative Loafing" for recognizing this blog and the people who use it!)
posted by Michael McNees at 1:59 PM
9 comments
