Hey, hey! Ho, ho! A poverty wage has got to go!
        This was the war cry of the Harvard Living Wage Campaign, which held its first organized protest on Friday, February 26. Several dozen students assembled in front of the Science Center to hear from such speakers as Howard Zinn, a Boston College historian and self-proclaimed socialist. Later, the demonstration moved to just outside Neil Rudenstine's office in Massachusetts Hall. The campaign's goal is to force Harvard into implementing a minimum $10 per hour wage for all non-student employees, full-time or part-time.
        At first glance, this sounds like a good humanitarian idea. But upon further reflection, it's clear that its implementation will have negative effects on both the workers in question and Harvard students.
        One problem with the proposal is the loss of jobs that will result from its establishment. It is conventional wisdom among economists that a minimum wage causes fewer jobs to exist than would otherwise. When the price of labor falls, firms demand more; when the price rises, firms demand less. Since service jobs can easily be consolidated and eliminated, it would be easy for Harvard to trim its workforce in response to the higher cost of labor. Instead of paying ten dollars an hour to unskilled laborers, the University can hire students part-time at rates of eight or nine dollars an hour -- fairly generous by campus standards. Unskilled service positions can also most likely be consolidated, just as often happens in manufacturing and service industries. The bottom line is that the "living wage" will result in workers losing their jobs.
        Some argue that since our nation is experiencing a booming job market, those who lose their jobs will be able to find work elsewhere.  But this assertion is uninformed. The job market boom is the result of an increased demand for semi-skilled and skilled labor, but not for unskilled labor. One reason for wage stagnation for unskilled labor is the well-known fact that demand for such labor is low. As a result, it would be difficult for those laid off to find new jobs. Those who do find work might be forced to accept even lower wages than Harvard offers.
        Others argue that the unemployment resulting from a living wage is outweighed by the benefits to those who keep their jobs. But theoretical assertions of total societal well-being don't mean much when the rent is due. That's the ironic thing about those campaigning for a living wage. They claim to care about the workers, but they're simply not in touch with the tremendous challenges unskilled laborers face in regard to finding and keeping a job. It's a cruel job market for them, especially for those with families. And so it's better to have a low income than no income at all.
        Another problem with the living wage is the premise on which the $10 figure itself is founded. Cambridge has defined that figure as the minimum wage necessary to keep Cantabrigians out of poverty. Many workers, however, don't even live in Cambridge. And for those that do, the cost of living varies throughout different parts of the city. The Living Wage Campaign maintains that people should be able to live in the communities where their jobs are, but that's not realistic. Americans everywhere commute to jobs to avoid areas of high costs of living.
        And who will pay for the living wage? The endowment stands at $11 billion, but almost all of it is locked up. Wealthy alumni often dictate how their gifts will be spent. Thus far, there's been little alumni interest in raising the minimum wage. As a result, the cost of the new wage will be reflected in a tuition increase. Surprisingly, that's acceptable for some: one presumptive Undergraduate Council member argued that, since students eligible for financial aid just received a two-thousand-dollar hike in their assistance packages, a thousand-dollar increase in tuition wouldn't be so bad.
        But such statements show just how out-of-touch the Living Wage Campaign and its supporters are in regard to students' (and parents') needs. Just as workers shouldn't have to subsidize student tuition, students and parents shouldn't have to subsidize a "living wage."
Are those campaigning for the living wage half-witted communists? Of course not, but neither are those who are against the living wage cruel and heartless. The problem of low wages will not be solved until national policies -- such as tax cuts and incentives to invest -- are pursued.  Until then, it makes little sense to adopt a solution that will do more harm than good.