www.eagletimes.com
2017-09-09 / Front Page A tale of 2 states: Panel talks living wage in Vermont By KELSEY CHRISTENSEN kchristensen@eagletimes.com SPRINGFIELD, Vt. — The Vermont Democratic Party, chaired by Faisal Gill, held a forum on livable wages, and how to achieve them, at the Springfield Town Library on Thursday evening. “The purpose of this forum is to give everyone an open dialogue,” Gill said at the top of the meeting. Paul Cilo, founder of the Public Assets Institute, a think-tank in Montpelier, was on hand to break down terms and data for the attendees. He first sought to differentiate minimum wage and livable wage and what each number represents. “The statutory definition of livable wage is, for a two-person household with no kids, what one half that cost is,” Cilo said. In 2017, the livable wage is $13.03 per hour in Vermont. Minimum wage is the state or nationally set standard for the minimum an employee can make. Cilo discussed the disparity between these two figures. Every even numbered year since 2004, the Vermont Joint Fiscal Office has calculated the livable wage — the wage required to meet the basic needs of a household — for different household configurations. The Vermont minimum wage is $10 per hour, which fails to meet the basic needs of any household configuration as calculated by the Joint Fiscal Office. According to the state office’s calculations, a single parents with two kids would need to make $35 per hour to meet the basic needs of that family. Cilo also discussed the current state of the Vermont economy. According to analyses by the Public Assets Institute, many Vermonters are only just now approaching 2007 incomes, or incomes equal to those before the recession of 2008. While there’s been steady growth in the top 5 percent of earners, Cilo said, the bottom 20 percent has lost and continues to lose economic ground. In Vermont, the state set minimum wage, by statute, rises with inflation. According to Silo, a minimum wage of $14.13 in 2018 would mean a $15 minimum wage in 2020; $13.03 would give Vermont minimum wage in 2024; $12.15 would ensure minimum wage by 2026. The panel then discussed some of the challenges involved in raising the minimum wage to a livable wage. Panelist Isaac Grimm, Political Engagement Director with Rights and Democracy, warned about the “benefits cliff,” which he says prevents people who rely on public services from taking raises or promotions because they would lose their services. “The most disenfranchised people in this state need to be speaking up more than anybody else,” Grimm said. Sen. Allison Clarkson, a senator for Windsor County, however, thinks that getting people off of public services is one of the virtues of raising the minimum wage. “It’s essential to do this to protect public money,” Clarkson said. “This is an issue conservatives should be embracing, because it protects the public purse.” Rep. Alice Emmons stressed that the legislature will look closely at all consequences before passing a higher minimum wage. “We have to do a lot of due diligence to see what the money actually gets you,” Emmons said. “The question is going to be who are the winners and who are the losers.” When the public had the opportunity to inquire and discuss the topic, Jason Curtis of Springfield lamented Vermont taxes. “The taxes to a big paycheck make it almost not worth it,” he said. He also expressed the disparities in different parts of Vermont. “I see two Vermonts: one is blooming.” Windham County Rep. Matt Trieber validated that perspective. “When you look at the graphs that talk about Vermont and take out Chittenden County, you get a tale of two states,” he said. Many attendees raised concerns about the business community, and whether businesses in parts of Vermont that have seen less growth can prosper while paying a higher wage. Grimm contends that higher wages will result in more private spending, bolstering economies. “Low wage workers will be spending that money locally, which has a net positive effect,” he said. Addressing concerns about whether businesses would simply move to neighboring New Hampshire if forced to pay a higher wage in Vermont, Cilo contended that prevailing wages in New Hampshire are higher than minimum wage, but that the labor force would move towards the businesses with higher wages if such a disparity arose. John Pepper, of Norwich, a business owner who pays his employees a living wage, addressed the business community as well. “A business is not a business if it doesn’t provide for its employees,” he said. “[If wages are raised] the truth is businesses will fail, it will be scary for them, and these people will be very vocal.” Pepper thinks businesses need to adjust to taking less of a profit. The legislature has formed a Minimum Wage Study Committee, tasked with studying all the economic impacts of minimum wage. The results of the study will be taken under advisement during the next legislative session.
A misguided lecture in how not to attract businesses to your area that would employ many people with many of them receiving wages far above the forced $15 per hour idiotic goal.
ReplyDeleteSome of the audience received a Massachusetts Institute of Technology
ReplyDeletechart of livable wage requirements in Windsor County and a graph of income distribution among Springfield households. Forty-three percent of households in Springfield don't make a livable wage
Livable is relative to ones expenditures so this argument is mute.
ReplyDeleteNo, it's based on averages. Some people for example do not own a car, while others own three cars. But on average a person owns one (or 1.2) cars, and it will cost thus-and-so-much to own that car (and .2). So, on average, the livable wage in Vermont is a sum certain for a household of a certain size.
ReplyDeleteGee I wonder why people are fleeing the state in droves. Who would want to do business in a place like Vermont??
ReplyDeletePeople are not fleeing the state in droves. As a matter of fact, I heard the actual outflow is balanced by an equal influx.
ReplyDeleteRE: "I heard.....blah, blah, blah, blah"
DeleteIn the past 10 years, 2/3 of Springfield's residents have put their homes up for sale. Rarely does a Springfield, college graduate return. The demographic has starkly deteriorated from a prosperous, middle class, blue collar community, to multi unit, low income rental properties inhabited by welfare mothers, disability scammers, dropouts and addicts. No one relocates here for an upward, career move. No one.
Well, what can you expect when Springfield's capital base gets raped by cowboy capitalism? Granted that nobody at the time had an idea of how to protect us against it, but now that we've seen how it's done, we can protect ourselves against a repeat, if we want to.
DeleteRather than gripe and moan about a sorry state of affairs, let's decide to step up to the plate and protect and empower Springfield's businesses and workers.