The P-I Does PR for Socialists
I read a story in the Seattle P-I yesterday, and it prompted me to send this letter to the reporter, Carol Smith, which I copied to the editor. Read the story (it’s pretty short), then my letter below.
I am disappointed with your article in the Jan. 19 edition of the Post-Intelligencer (“Most jobs in county don’t pay ‘living wage’”). In effect, your story was a press release for the Northwest Federation of Community Organizations (NWFCO). The only person quoted in your story is the author of the report. There is no response or reaction from people who disagree with the findings of the report, and no comment from outsiders on the validity of the methodology in the report.
The problem with this study, and the group who produced it, is that they assume that every person who works full time should receive enough money to support a family of four, regardless of what they do for a living. In essence, people should be paid on the basis of their need, rather than on the basis of the value they produce. Or, to put it more simply: “To each according to their need, from each according to their ability.” This ignores the fundamental relationship between productivity and compensation.
The report offers three strategies to “close the job gap, promote living wage jobs, and make sure people are able to get and keep these jobs.” The first is to “increase the number of jobs that pay a living wage.” But there is no shortage of jobs that pay a living wage. As just one example, Microsoft’s web site currently lists 3909 job openings in Washington. Microsoft would love to hire local workers for these jobs, rather than pay relocation expenses and often work permits for foreign workers to be brought into the country. The problem is a lack of highly-educated, highly-skilled workers in the local worker pool.
Another strategy is to “meet people’s basic needs until they find a stable living wage job, and reduce costs of living without lowering living standards.” In other words, find new ways of transferring wealth to those who don’t have the skills to provide for themselves. In addition, NWFCO defines basic needs very broadly: among their basic needs are automobile ownership and entertainment. NWFCO’s argument, therefore, implies subsidies for cars and movies. I have not been convinced that health insurance is a basic need (I have lived without on several occasions). I certainly don’t believe that it is necessary to have a car, especially if you live in the urban sections of King County. And taxpayers should never be asked to subsidize entertainment costs.
I do not know if your story had any of these alternate perspectives, which were then lost in editing, or if the story ran as written. I believe you do your readers a disservice by offering such a one-sided version of the story outside of the opinion pages.
UPDATE: Less than an hour after sending my letter to Carol Smith, she replied: “Allen — You make many good points, and I appreciate your taking the time to share your point of view. Best, Carol”
