'Waging' war on poverty

Some people work 40 hours a week in Bloomington, but they cannot afford food, adequate clothing or shelter because their minimum wage job affords a lifestyle below the national poverty level.\nAs a result, town residents flooded the Common Council meeting with passionate testimony, "expert" data and economic opinions about Bloomington's proposed living wage ordinance. The Common Council listened to the perceived pros and cons of the legislation from city officials and invited guests before opening the floor to audience questions and comments. The audience did not seem united in support for or opposition to the bill.\nThe proposed living wage ordinance, although substantially changed from its original drafting, would raise the minimum wage from $5.15 to $8.50 for employees hired to work city-contracted labor. City officials predict the plan will cost $50,000, although the City Council and the Mayor's office have not yet devised a plan for funding the project. Critics for the bill claim Bloomington Mayor Mark Kruzan and Common Council President Andy Ruff have allowed nonprofit organizations and other businesses exemptions from the mandate to provide their staff self-sustaining wages.\nBloomington resident William Scott, who has lived in town for 43 years, told the crowd a story of his childhood to illuminate why he thought the city should not legislate a living wage ordinance. His dad lost his job in 1933 during the America's Great Depression when he was four years old. \nScott said he "sold comic books to buy sugar for his cereal" until the cereal ran out. At this time, he said, Scott and his father moved in with his grandparents.\n"You keep speaking of the working poor as a permanent class of folks," Scott said. "People working at poverty wages, within 5 years, 70 percent are out of poverty -- 10 percent enjoy six-figure salaries ... The unintentional consequences (of this bill) cannot be waved off as flies on glasses."\nScott, like many other Bloomington residents who shared their thoughts with the audience, offered no specific study or particular body of research to support his claims.\nAdvocates of the proposed living wage ordinance predict a "ripple effect" through the local economy. A depreciated minimum wage, North American Free Trade Agreement fallout and an increasing disparity between the highest and lowest salaries in a company are also reasons cited for supporting Bloomington's living wage ordinance. \nBloomington resident Marsha McCarthy, a psychologist, said she supports the bill because the real effects of poverty happen to children living in poor, working families. She said the parents she works with who earn low wages often have to work more, which dramatically effects children.\nMcCarthy said children growing up in poverty-stricken environments often experience school problems, family problems and health problems -- all related to poverty. She said her recommendation to parents is often to "spend more time with their children," which they often cannot do because work conflicts with school conferences and medical appointments.\nCritics believe the legislation is designed to "help the wrong people out."\nBloomington resident Jane Baxter has a moderate opinion on the matter, claiming residents "will get up the next day and nothing will have changed" if the Common Council passes the living wage ordinance. The Council will vote on the ordinance on March 28. \nContact the City Council to voice your opinion about the living wage ordinance at 349-3409.\nContact City & State Editor David A. Nosko at dnosko@indiana.edu