I have nothing against a "Living Wage" I just don't know what it means. Should people be paid enough for 40 hours of work so that they should be able to provide food and shelter for themselves? Their families? If they are a two parent family should both members have to work or should one person be able to make enough that the other doesn't have to work. Does a living wage include Cable? How many channels? Iphone 5 or just a basic smart phone with unlimited texting? How many times a month should a living wage allow a family of four to eat out each month? Where? If a person likes to smoke or wants a couple of beers every night should a Living Wage make sure they have enough to support those habits? Should a living wage insure that anyone who works can afford to take a nice vacation every year? Buy a boat? If someone wants to live in Madison where housing is more expensive than it is in Janesville should their wage be higher even if they work in Janesville to offset the cost (as well as the cost of transportation)? The term Living Wage sure sounds nice but as with many feel good ideas nobody seems to be able to define what it really means.

dtb...you have a reading comprehension problem. I'm not against a living wage. I'm for a fair job evaluation. I never said I was against a living wage but how it is assessed and applied.

What do you have against a living wage?

dtb...they have experienced tight budgets before and their response is raise tuition, rather than any belt tightening. I am just saying its easy to give pay raises when it's not your money or affect your bottom line. How do you think the state and local communitites have gotten into budget trouble before. The chickens are coming home to roost as now they having to say "No, money is tight, there are no raises." That is except for Chicago, who even tho in dire financial shape agreed to 16% increases for teachers over the next four years. They haven't seemed to get the message yet.

Do you seriously think those thing won't be part of the equation? That 10 people will gather in a room and say "oh heck let's just pay everyone $100 grand"?. That the UW System doesn't have a tight budget? Come on and get real.

dtb...don't worry about the academics. They are very well paid. Just google it. I'm concerned that some academic committee gets together and decides the "living wages" for the rest of UW. They can feel very generous as it's not their money. UW is the second largest employer in the state so it would affect businesses in the state. Wages should be determined by education and/or training required, skill level, difficulty of job, conditions of job, internal equity/external competitiveness and various other factors, not just on the whim of some academic committee.

donnaw would prefer they be paid slave wages. If the Chinese can work for a dollar a day, then so should educated professionals in Wisconsin.

Donnaw
.
I dunno... The article doesn't articulate whether these new measures would increase or decrease spending... Perhaps this is an attempt at financial responsibility in response to Act 10?
.
The article is so poorly presented that both sides can chew on each others necks like puppies and nobody will really know what actual facts are being contended.
.
Common Gazette...... Throw us a bone here!

"Paid a living wage." to heck with what the job entails, skill level required or other factors that people in the real world work with. Wonder what the UW business school thinks of this. And who determines what a living wage is? More liberal lets just all be paid more. After all, money grows on trees. Just raise taxes...or higher tuition increases.