* Alderman Moore Acts Victorious in Front of News Cameras

If you saw the news you couldn't miss Alderman Moore acting as if he just beat Rocky in a heavyweight fight. Smiling at the podium with his arms raised, Alderman Moore was proud as a peacock after being the first to sign the "living wage" ordinance. You know, the softball legislation that won't hold an ounce of weight if it ever does pass full council. The legislation that doesn't effect one business in his ward. This is the 2006 version of the 2005 Foie Gras legislation Alderman Moore wasted city taxpayer time on. Alderman Moore's legislation du jour.

The authors of one living wage report, Dr. George Tolley, Peter Bernstein and Michael Lesage provides information on the "living wage" ordinance, and their findings were shocking. The study was originally presented to the Chicago City Council in July 1996. At the time, the Chicago City Council was considering a living wage ordinance calling for a 79% minimum wage hike for employees of city contractors and firms that received municipal tax breaks. The results of this study were alarming!

* The ordinance would cost the city nearly $20 million per year. The city would spend more than 20% of this amount ($4.2 million) on the administrative costs of certification, monitoring, and enforcement of the ordinance. This $20 million cost would require a permanent tax increase on citizens of Chicago.

* Labor costs among affected firms would rise by $37.5 million. This amount does not include additional administrative costs employers would incur in submitting payroll data and other paperwork to the city, or in determining which workers (if any) would be covered by the ordinance. Even firms that already paid more than the wage called for in the ordinance would bear the ongoing costs of proving their compliance.

* The city could expect at least 1,300 lost jobs as a result of the ordinance.

* The living wage ordinance would result in pay increases for about 8,470 workers. However, the authors point out that many of these workers were not in poverty to begin with.

* Nationwide, more than 70% of workers with wages below $7.50 live in households with incomes well above the poverty line for a family of four.

* Thus, while more than 8,400 workers in Chicago would get a raise, the number actually pulled out of poverty would be much smaller‚ despite tens of millions of dollars in new costs to the city.

* Moreover, the authors note that many of the 1,300 people who would lose their jobs could fall into poverty.,

When presented with these facts, the Chicago City Council shelved the living wage proposal. Advocates of the policy later convinced the City Council to accept a less extensive version of the living wage proposal. City officials estimated this second proposal would cost the city as much as $4 million.

Alderman Moore, go back to trying to saving the ducks, you are so over-matched here.