Why should we care that over thirty million Americans and their families face these conditions? We should care because it is morally repugnant. In a nation as rich as ours, where CEOs make four hundred times the average rank-and-file worker, leaving workers without the basic protections of life should be unthinkable. While one can argue that certain individuals should receive larger rewards than others for their contributions to society, it is quite another story to leave those who have worked hard without even the minimal necessities.

Allowing these conditions to continue challenges our notions of basic equity and fairness as these workers play by the rules and get so little in return. It erodes our most cherished values of personal responsibility, hard work, and perseverance. It sends the message that work does not pay. It may be that so little has been done to rectify this problem because of who these workers are. Yet if America does nothing to address these conditions, it locks this hierarchy in place and threatens to make it not an aberration of American society, but a norm of the American economy.

But it is not on these grounds alone that we should care. There are costs to these workers' families and to society as a whole. Leaving a large group of workers out of society's rewards impairs the functioning of America's democracy and communities and destroys the kind of nation we want to become. Our country is growing more fractured, with an increased social distrust and a lack of confidence in government and in each other. Letting these conditions fester damages our nation's economy and aggravates society's social ills. Ultimately, allowing these conditions to persist undermines the country's moral foundations and in the process diminishes us all.

THE COST TO CHILDREN A FATE, NOT A FUTURE

Low-wage jobs are hard on children. They are the unseen victims of these low-wage jobs.

Unlike the elderly, whose poverty rate has halved since 1970, childrens' poverty rates are higher today than they were three decades ago. 1 Nearly 17 percent of children in the United States live in poverty~more than thirteen million children. 2 These poverty figures exceed those in most other advanced countries, ranging from 1.5 to four times higher than in Canada and Western Europe. 3

Looking only at the number of children "officially" in poverty, however, underestimates the extent of the problem. Family income for children in the bottom one-third of families is 16 percent lower than a quarter of a century ago." And millions of children suffer similar deprivations, even though their parents' incomes put them slightly above the "official" poverty rate.

Children of low-wage workers start off at such a deficit that it calls into question our belief in "equal opportunity." And the stakes are higher today. Workers who have not completed high school or have a postsecondary education suffer greater economic penalties than they did in the past.

Conservatives have historically focused on "equal opportunity" as an essential core American value rather than "equality of outcome." But that focus falls to grasp that the meager outcomes for the thirty million low-wage workers diminishes the equality of opportunity available to their children. "The pay of America's lowest lifetime earners has become so remote from the pay of the median earner as to make them a class apart, with radically diminished possibilities next to those in the mainstream," Columbia University economist Edmund Phelps explains. "The gulf in pay, by sapping their initiative and hindering their access to middle-class institutions' casts a pall over poor communities and leaves a legacy of disadvantage for the next generation. 5

As conservative University of Chicago economist James Heckman so aptly notes, "Never has the accident of birth mattered more. If I am born to educated, supportive parents, my chances of doing well are totally different than if 1 were born to a single parent or abusive parents. I am a University of Chicago libertarian but this is a case of market failure. Children don't get to 'buy' their parents and so there has to be some kind of intervention to make up for these environmental differences." 6

 The impact of inadequate income on a child's health, education, emotional and behavioral development, and occupational attainment can no longer be questioned. Parental income is the single most important factor in accounting for differences in the socioeconomic attainment of children.7 Low income alone is strongly correlated with a low level of preschool ability, which subsequently leads to lower test scores, grade failure, school disengagement, higher dropout rates, and less successful adult careers.8 And lower-income children are at a ' higher risk of mental health problems, depression, low self-confidence, peer conflict, and conduct disorders than children from parents with higher incomes. 9 This has been recently corroborated by a study at the Joint Center for Poverty Research at Northwestern University. 10

All of this is common sense. Without adequate resources, parents are forced to live in poorer neighborhoods with higher crime rates and social problems." Flor Segunda's and Linda Stevens's children face these conditions daily. Each day Linda's daughter must steer clear of the gangs hanging out on the corner. They also move more frequently, which hurts their children's education.12 "It is hard on my oldest son, who is in grammar school," Flor says. "Each time we move, it takes time for Jose to ad) ust. He has to make new friends. It hurts him in school."

The working poor have the least access to high-quality early childhood services. 13 Without subsidies, these parents are forced to piece together child care with relatives, friends, neighbors, or low-cost family day-care centers. 14 And subsidies from the government are difficult to obtain. Estimates are that only 12 percent of the almost fifteen million children eligible for child-care subsidies actually received them in 1999. 15 As New York Times reporter Sara Rimer notes, "Low-income working families are in many ways the forgotten class in the national debate over child care. They make too little to afford the choices of professional women, whether to use a nanny or an au pair, to work part-time or full-time. Many make too much to qualify for government programs. Others make little enough to qualify, but are low on long waiting lists while priority is given to women leaving the welfare rolls for jobs." 16

Children need a stimulating environment for normal brain development, and without that stimulation, children's psychological and neurological development can be irreversibly impaired. 17 Studies show that children in low-quality child care behave more aggressively, react poorly to stress, and have delayed cognitive and language development. 18 They are more likely to drop out of school, repeat grades, need special education and become delinquent.19 Many low-income parents have no choice but to place their children in substandard arrangements. 20

Without adequate child care and family resources, poorer children start public school less prepared. Low-income parents have trouble affording books and computer. 21 Their children must depend on the schools to catch them up and provide the necessary educational tools. Yet, many schools in poor neighborhoods lack the resources to offset these differences in school preparation. 22

More money is spent to educate more affluent children. 23 Although researchers differ over the degree that money matters in educational outcomes, most agree that it does have an impact. 24 They all agree, moreover, that certain parental resources help children succeed in school: the ability to identify and choose good schools and school districts, the ability to live in a good neighborhood, the ability to provide formal and informal educational resources at home, and a high degree of parental education-resources that many children of low-wage workers lack. 25

To further compound their difficulties, children of lowerwage workers are less healthy than those of higher-paid workers.26 They are exposed to more environmental risk factors: lead paint, rundown housing, crime, pollution, and family stress. They are less likely to be covered by health insurance than children from more affluent parents. 27 Some children qualify for government programs such as CHIP or Medicaid. Yet ignorance of eligibility for these programs (many believe one must be on welfare to qualify) and bureaucratic hurdles, including lengthy and complicated application forms, prevented more than half of parents from enrolling their children in 1998-1999. 28

A child's health improves with health insurance coverage. 29 Uninsured children have a higher rate of acute and infectious diseases and have a higher number of hospitalization stays. 30 They are six times more likely to go without needed care, five times more likely to use a hospital emergency room as a regular source of care, and four times more likely to have necessary care delayed. 31 Being sick makes it difficult for any child to have consistent school attendance and good school performance. For children of low-wage workers, however, it adds yet another barrier for these children to overcome.

Children of low-wage workers get less parental time and supervision than children of parents in higher-wage jobs. Their parent's lobs provide fewer vacation days and holidays, less family leave and sick leave, and many of their parents must work two lobs or overtime hour. 32 The lack of time off and)ob flexibility deprives these workers' children of parental care when they are sick, have a problem at school, have an emergency, or just need the day-to-day attention that all children require. 33 The lack of adult care and supervision has a lasting effect. These children are less likely to finish school and are more likely to be delinquent. 34

If children of lower-income workers succeed in high school, in spite of these many obstacles, they are still half as likely to attend college as students comparably qualified from the top income group. 35 The gap between college-entry rates for low-income families and high-income families is as wide as it was three decades ago. 36 High school students from low-income families who had high scores on standardized tests were less likely to attend college than all students from the top income group. 37 Yet even when children attend the same schools, the disparity persists. 38

The economic importance of postsecondary education has risen dramatically in the last two decades. In 1980, the average twenty-five- to thirty-four-year-old male college graduate earned 19 percent more than the average high school graduate of the same age. 39 Twenty years later, the difference had nearly tripled. 40 And for women today, the differential is even higher, reaching 60 percent.

Most students have responded by staying in school longer. But this response is directly correlated with family income. From early 1980 to the mid-nineties, the number of high school seniors from the top quarter of income earners who went to a four year college increased by over 10 percent. In fact, the large increase in college enrollment in the past twenty years was among children in the top 60 percent of income. 41 By contrast, college enrollment in poorer homes showed no change. 42

The future trend for lower-wage children is not promising. 43 Aid programs for the poor have fallen off. Most programs do not give enough to get a student from a low-income family through a two-year community college without a struggle. 44 A report by the Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance found:

The opportunity to pursue a bachelor's degree is all but ruled out for increasing numbers of low-income students by record levels of unmet need.... Over the past three decades there has been a shift in policy priorities away from access at all levels that has caused a steep rise in the unmet needs of low-income students. As a result, the cost of higher education has risen steadily as a percentage of family income only for low-income families, while middle income affordability and merit have begun to displace access as the focus of policy makers at the federal, state and institutional level. 45

The decision to leave these children without help also has social costs. We all pay for the impact of these conditions on the workers' children. Schools pay when they must invest added resources to offset the lack of readiness. Our economy suffers when these children grow up to be less educated and productive adults. Taxpayers pay for all the problems in the form of higher expenditures for schools, social services, medical care expenses, and criminal prevention . 46 But ultimately society pays with more crime, le ss social cohesion, and decreased participation in our communities . 47

COSTS TO OUR DEMOCRACY

Lower-wage Americans today are the least likely to participate in the democratic process . 48 In the last forty years, the proportion of Americans who vote in elections has dropped by more than 10 percent, placing it close to the bottom among democratic countries. 49 The low voter turnout, however, is not random among economic groups. Voting has fallen most sharply among those with lower incomes.

Corporations and individuals with money can make political contributions that influence government decisions. As mass communication and marketing have become preeminent in elections, money to pay for television and marketing has become increasingly more important, skewing even further the influence of those with money That influence is reflected in legislation and government regulation that favors corporate interests and wealthy individuals who can contribute lavishly. Those without resources have little to offer that can compete. 50

"People in Washington, they're trying to make decisions and they're making top dollars and here we are trying to get by and they want to give us minimum wage," Cynthia Porter explains. "They just don't get it. Why vote?" Under the best of circumstances, the enormous demands on low-wage workers make it difficult for them to participate fully in the democratic process. But the lack of rewards from the system alienates them from the process and produces a cynicism about participating.

What does this portend for the future of our democracy? What happens when a large group of citizens withdraws from the democratic process? Our democracy is premised on a reasonable degree of equality amongst its citizens. This equality brings a commonality of focus, values, and participation. As class distinctions become more pronounced and certain groups withdraw from the process, American democracy as we know it will disappear.

COSTS TO FAMILIES

This country extols the institution of marriage and the primacy of family values. Yet, the economic hardship and financial instability many low-wage workers' families face puts added strains on their domestic life. Increased domestic violence is one result. Higher divorce rates and lower marriage rates are another. Intact families living in poverty dissolve at double the rate of families above the poverty level. 51 When the wages of white men in the bottom two-thirds of the labor market stagnated or fell between 1973 and the mid-nineties, their marriage rates declined. By 1996, there were dramatic differences in the marriage rate between this group and the top one-third of wage earners. 52 Conversely, with better economic prospects, marriage rates increase and domestic violence rates decrease. 53

The same positive correlation between better jobs and marriage rates was found to be true in the African-American community. Harvard sociologist William Julius Wilson determined that the decline in black men's labor market prospects was a key to the disintegration of the black family. Beginning in 1970, as the number of marriageable men and those with steady jobs fell in low-income communities, women in these communities became less likely to marry. 54

The lack of positive job prospects for both men and women without a college education also leads to a greater number of teen pregnancies .55 Experts suggest that less educated women faced with few reliable providers as spouses and few prospects of their own do not postpone having children. 56 In fact, they believe they have relatively little to lose by having a first birth in their teens or early twenties. The incentives for postponing parenthood are only substantial for young women when they really believe that they have a strong prospect for making it into the middle class. 57 Having intact families is especially important to children, as children in single parent households suffer the highest poverty rates. 58

COSTS TO OUR COMMUNITIES

Low-wage jobs hurt America's communities by reducing the taxes for local schools and other public services. Examining the impact of a living-wage ordinance in Santa Rosa, California, a recent study by Sonoma State University sociologist Peter Phillips found that increasing the wages of low-earning workers would in fact produce substantial new spending in the Santa Rosa local economy that would benefit local businesses. 59 Likewise, increasing the wages of low earners would infuse needed money into low-income neighborhoods. 60

With a decrease in economic opportunities for workers, America's communities also face increases in alcoholism, drug addiction, and crime. 61 Policing, peer effects, neighborhood conditions, and the severity of penalties certainly influence the propensity for individuals to commit crimes. Yet better employment prospects also play a part and, like sanctions, affect the incentive to commit crime. 62 In the eighties and nineties, for example, depressed labor markets for less educated men contributed to a rise in their criminal activity. Likewise, crime rates decreased in the late nineties as unemployment in the low-wage sector fell and wages increased in a full-employment economy. 63 As Harvard economist Richard Freeman notes, reducing youth crime rates would be made easier "by enhancing the rewards for legitimate work." 64

Taxpayers also pay for the increased costs of crime and other social ills in the form of a costly criminal justice system. A staggering number of American men are involved in crime compared to other industrialized countries. Roughly 3 percent of the male workforce is incarcerated and about 9 percent is under supervision of the criminal justice system. By the mid-nineties, one man was incarcerated for every fifty men in the workforce. 65

Mass incarceration is an expensive way to control crime. Taxpayers pay $20,000 a year to house and feed every new inmate, about as much per year as sending someone to a good university. Seventy-four billion dollars is spent on the criminal justice system. 66 In 1995, California alone budgeted more for prisons than for higher education. 67 The cost of inadequate jobs is a growingprison and jail population and a costly criminal justice system. Ensuring that Americans have good Jobs is one part of a larger strategy for reducing crime and limiting the costly strategy of mass incarceration.

COSTS TO OUR ECONOMY

Improving productivity is essential to our economic growth. This becomes even more imperative as the size of our workforce declines over the next twenty years. As Harvard economist David Ellwood points out, "In the last twenty years, our prime labor force-people between twenty-five and fifty-four~-grew by 20 million, 16 million of them native born. In the next twenty years, the growth of that labor force will be zero. 68

Increasing productivity requires that employers make investments in workers in the form of training and technology. These are investments that most low-wage employers fail to make. To the contrary, the conditions in these jobs inhibit rather than enhance job performance. As the Work and Family Institute noted in its 1997 National Study of the Changing Workforce, "When workers feel burned-out by their jobs, when they have insufficient time and energy for themselves and their families, when work puts them in a bad mood-these feelings spill back into the workplace, limiting performance. 69

With so few rewards, there is little incentive for lower-wage workers to remain on these I obs. These high turnover rates drain productivity. 70 When a company continually needs to replace employees, costs are increased and sales are lost because new workers need to be hired and trained . 71 The high number of absences due to worker accidents and illnesses that result from these jobs diminish output further. These demanding jobs and un-supportive workplaces also reduce the productivity of future workers.

These low-paying jobs reduce economic growth by reducing the consumption of goods. More than two-thirds of American gross domestic product is based on personal consumption and 85 percent of that consumption is in consumable goods and services. 72 The failure of these jobs to provide adequate wages constricts the purchasing power of these workers and, in turn, decreases the gross domestic product.

In spite of the disadvantages to our economy, many businesses continue to use this low-wage, high-turnover strategy. The conventional thinking has held that low-wage workers are plentiful in supply, interchangeable, and easily replaced. 73 But this strategy overlooks the demographic changes that will occur in the next twenty years that will significantly reduce the supply of labor. In a tight labor market, these low-road policies are more difficult to employ.

Whether or not an individual company can succeed, however, is not really the point. Individual companies have gained competitive advantages by polluting streams or hiring child labor. But many have worked over the years to condemn and make such practices illegal. Laws have attempted to prevent companies from benefiting from these actions. The same should be true here. While an individual business may benefit from these low-road policies, it is not in the interest of our overall economy or society.

Continuing these vast inequalities and low-road policies, more-over, undermines the very rationale for our economic system. One of the leading experts on U.S. income distribution, MIT economist Frank Levy explains, "Our markets are justified not only on the basis that they enhance individual freedom, but that the economic growth they create helps everyone. 117', The free market today falls that test for more than thirty million Americans.

COSTS TO CONSUMERS

Employers defend the practice of keeping labor costs down in these low-wage jobs as a means of keeping down costs to consumers. No doubt, Americans have gotten more inexpensive services and goods as a result. Yet as a nation do we really want to enrich ourselves by exploiting other workers? Beyond the moral question, there are trade-offs to Americans consumers. We learned that when airlines auctioned off airport security to the lowest bidder-creating some of the lowest-wage, poorly benefited Jobs in America-American lives were risked. After September 11 there was a move to improve airport security by improving the wages, working conditions, and training for the women and men who staff these jobs.

This is a lesson that can be applied more broadly. There are millions of low-wage Jobs in the United States, which may not suggest the urgency of airline safety, but do supply some of our most essential needs. The same lesson applies. The level of wages and benefits that these workers receive and the working conditions in which these workers operate directly affects the quality of the services they provide. This is basic common sense. As Princeton economist Alan Krueger succinctly puts it, "Economic logic says you usually get what you pay for." 75

A variety of studies establish the inextricable link between the wages, benefits, and conditions of a job and the quality of the service provided.76 A study of pre-9/11 airport security directed by Michael Reich of the University of California at Berkeley examined the impact of a quality standards program at the San Francisco International Airport. The San Francisco program, begun in April 2000, established compensation, hiring, and training guidelines. Starting pay rose from $5.25 to $10 an hour plus health benefits, or $11.25 an hour without benefits. The average wage in the industry was $6.00 an hour. Not surprisingly, turnover decreased from 110 percent to 25 percent. Employers reported that absenteeism and grievances fell as morale, skills, and performance improved. 77

Other studies that focus on the nursing home, home healthcare, and child-care industries show similar results. 78 In each of these industries, poor wages, insufficient benefits, and poor conditions create large turnover. Effective care for the elderly, the disabled, or a child requires consistent interaction with the same provider of care who is knowledgeable about the adult or child. Yet annual turnover rates for nursing assistants-who supply nearly 90 percent of the care in most nursing homes--can be as high as 100 percent. The inability to earn a sufficient income to support their families (nursing home aides make, on average, $7.93 per hour with few benefits) makes these workers leave their jobs. 79

In a report to the Maryland General Assembly, which examined the quality of Maryland's nursing homes, the authors cited nursing home staffing, pay, and training as the key ingredients in improving the care in the state's nursing homes. 80 The Health Facilities Association of Maryland, an industry trade association that represents 154 nursing homes, concurred in this assessment of how to improve care: "Stabilizing the workforce of direct caregivers is one of the most important things that can be done." 81 The findings are consistent with studies of nursing homes throughout the United States. 82 To improve nursing home quality, the treatment of workers must improve.

A study of home health-care workers found the same connection between improvements for workers and improvement in the quality of service. 83 When home health-care workers were provided with better wages and benefits, there was a dramatic reduction in the job turnover rate, which is the key indicator of quality service. 84 The Cooperative Home Care Associates, a worker-owned home health-care agency in New York employing over 450 workers, pays 20 percent more than the area average of $7.65 an hour. They provide health benefits and compensation for aides' travel time to their clients. In contrast to the industry norm of seventy-five hours, CHCA provides four weeks of training. They also try to provide full-time work and career advancement opportunities. The result has been a job turnover rate of less than 20 percent in an industry where turnover reaches 60 percent. 85

"If we want quality care to mean truly competent, individualized, and compassionate care," Rosalie Kane, a University of Minnesota professor and a prominent authority on long-term care, notes, "we must find a way to provide 'quality jobs' as well. If we allow current circumstances to prevail, if we permit the majority of caregivers to remain poorly paid, unappreciated, and poorly supported, we will also have made our choice about what we can expect for those in need of care." 86 The same linkage is seen in other industries. Artie Nathan, vice president of human resources at the Mirage hotels, credits the low turnover in his casino hotels, 70 percent in an industry that can run as high as 300 percent turnover, to the better wages and training they provide the workers. 87

Inadequate rewards and harsh working conditions also contribute to low worker morale, worker anger, and disaffection. As Donna Klein, vice president of workforce effectiveness at Marriott International notes, "The ironic thing is that the quality of our product and the delivery of service are driven by employee mood." 81 It is pretty basic. The delivery of quality service in a job is related to how a worker is treated in that lob.

COSTS TO OUR NATION'S HEALTH

The association between income and health is long-standing. The poor have worse health than the near poor, the near poor fare worse than the lower middle class, the lower middle class fare worse than the middle class, and the middle class fare worse than the upper class." The lowest economic groups have a higher incidence of cancer, heart disease, diabetes, asthma, and respiratory disease and have a greater likelihood of death from illness or injury than other groups. 90 This is consistent with the increased risk for hypertension, cardiovascular disease, and mental illness from work environments that offer little autonomy or control and are concentrated 111 low-wage occupations. 91

New, striking research postulates that the more unequal a society, the more unhealthy is not only the poorer group but the general populace. 92 The entire society suffers. The size of the gap in income and assets between the top and bottom of a society can itself be an important determinant of the health of all members of a society. Once nations achieve a minimum threshold of income, economic inequality is strongly related to the population's mortality and life-expectancy rates. 93 The United States, the world's wealthiest nation, performs poorly on major health indicators, ranking close to the bottom among wealthy countries in average life expectancy. 94

Harvard public health professors 1chiro Kawachi and Bruce Kennedy hypothesize that the connection between economic inequality and a society's poorer health and higher mortality rates stems from economic inequality's effects on a society's decreased social cohesion and the erosion of its social capital. This lack of social capital includes the decrease in interpersonal trust between citizens, norms of reciprocity, and the vibrancy of civic associations. 95 Diminished social cohesion leads to under-investment in public education and other forms of social spending. University of Sussex professor Richard Wilkinson finds that economic inequality produces poorer health outcomes because "more unequal societies are marked by higher levels of violence, lower levels of trust, more hostility and less involvement in community life." 96 What is clear from this recent research is that the conditions of low-wage workers in America may contribute not only to their poor health, but also to the poor health of our society as a whole.

If these workers become the invisible "other" that we ignore, it is a tragedy not only for the workers and their families, but those standing by unwilling to act. It changes us as we sit by, accommodating this inhumanity. We become numb to those around us as we distance ourselves from the connection that binds us to other human beings. We close off the caring and compassionate parts of ourselves. It is our loss.

If we want a society in which our citizens participate, one that is supportive of families, one with healthy and productive people, one with safe and thriving communities, and one in which every individual can reach his or her fullest potential, we must act to change these low-wage conditions, which our society has helped to create. Yet as we look to make improvements, we must not allow common myths to blur our vision and prevent us from seeing clearly.