Soundings, December 2003

Last July, the Berkeley City Council voted to set the city's "living wage" at $10.76 per hour. For organizations holding large city contracts or leasing city-owned property, that figure becomes the minimum wage they must pay their employees.

So is the Left rejoicing?

Not at all. Because—guess what?—many leftist nonprofits have to pay that minimum wage, and they find it onerous. "The Berkeley Food and Housing Project, Berkeley's largest homeless services organization, estimates it would cost some $30,000 to bring their employees' salaries up to compliance—money the group doesn't have."

Welcome to the real world. What did leftists suppose businesses would do with a wage bill of that kind? Apparently, they do not believe businesses are affected by wage costs. According to Terrie Light, associate director of the Project, when businesses' costs increase, they can raise prices or push to sell more. Said Florence Green, executive director of the California Association of Nonprofits: "We aren't like the business community. We don't have any way to pass off the costs." Michael Chandler, "Nonprofits Feel the Squeeze of Wage Increases," The Daily Californian, October 27, 2003.

In fact, nonprofits can also raise prices, for there is nothing sacrosanct about a price of zero. And the nonprofit equivalent of pushing to sell more is simply begging harder. If nonprofits do not find those to be congenial or effective methods of offsetting the "living wage," well, profit-making businesses do not find their options any more palatable.

Is Scandinavia pro-business? If anyone is puzzled by the fact that the World Economic Forum ranked all four Scandinavian countries, plus Iceland, among the world's ten most competitive business environments, the following story may shed some light. Yes, the government of the United States is not (yet) as deeply committed to the welfare state and does not seize as high a percentage of its citizens' incomes in taxes. (The Swedish government consumes 53 percent of GDP.) But when it comes to the operation of the marketplace itself, Scandinavia can seem a model of good sense.

"Norway's highest court Friday turned down an appeal from the widow of a longtime smoker who'd claimed that tobacco firm Tiedemanns had addicted him to its product. The ruling cleared Tiedemanns of any liability. . . . Robert Lund, from Sunndalsoera, was diagnosed with lung cancer after smoking for more than 40 years. He sought compensation from Tiedemanns Tobaksfabrik AS, claiming its products had made him dependent on nicotine.

"The courts claimed otherwise, noting that it already was known as early as the 1950s and 1960s that smoking was dangerous to one's health.

"The court ruled that Robert Lund's bad health was his own responsibility, because he had continued to smoke 20 to 25 cigarettes a day for decades after he must have been made aware of the health risks." Aftenposten, October 31, 2003.

"As some New Yorkers have learned the hard way, the mere existence of an ashtray in a place where smoking is prohibited can lead to a summons. It doesn't matter if the ashtray is stored well away from public areas. It doesn't matter if it is used as a decoration, or to hold paper clips or M&M's."

Recently, ashtray police raided the Players, the theater-themed club on Gramercy Park South. "Health officials acting on an anonymous tip, insisted last week on inspecting the office of the club's executive director, John Martello. They found no one smoking. But . . . they came upon three ashtrays on a shelf behind a desk. . . . 'I think what I was most appalled about,' [Martello] said, 'was the constitutionality of them being able to come in and search my office. Unlike the police, they don't need a search warrant. They just walked in on an anonymous tip.'

"[Sandra Mullin, a spokeswoman for the city's Department of Health and Mental Hygience] acknowledged that 'there is some discretion offered to our inspectors.'" The New York Times, December 2, 2003.

Where Europeans See Threats to World Peace

People from across the European Union (EU) were asked this question: "For each of the following countries, tell me if in your opinion it presents or not a threat to the peace of the world." Below, in the left column, are the countries regarded as threats. Each row gives the percentages that said the country in question did represent a threat to world peace. The EU result is a population-weighted average of the fifteen EU countries.

This poll was conducted between October 8 and October 16, 2003, by EOS Gallup Europe, at the request of the European Commission. It was published in November 2003 as Iraq and Peace in the World and can be found on-line at http://europa.eu.int/comm/public_opinion/flash/fl151_iraq_full_report.pdf.