Editor's Notebook: PSLM and the Betrayal of the Living Wage

I believe in a living wage, but I don’t believe in the Progressive Student Labor Movement (PSLM). How often have we heard this? So far, the arguments that support the living wage but condemn the sit-in and the PSLM’s tactics have focused on the sit-in as an ineffective means. The Crimson, for one, believes the PSLM should leave because its tactics are “more likely to harden the administration’s resolve” than accomplish the goal of $10.25 per hour plus benefits. Perhaps, but that’s still not the issue.

To begin with, one of the PSLM’s tactics seems to be a strategy of shaming people into believing the way they do: some ask “how can you not believe in a living wage?” This is nothing but moral arrogance, and it reeks of leftist censorship.

But that’s still getting away from the issue. What do we really want when we say we want a living wage? It’s an arbitrary number, sure, but so is the minimum wage, or cut-offs for tax brackets, etc., etc. Instead of throwing out a number, I’d argue that hard-working families deserve to live out of poverty, and that the children of hard-working families deserve an equal chance to succeed.

That said, neither the PSLM nor any of its supporters have gotten it right. Their goal is to have Harvard University pay a living wage. Why should Harvard have to pay a living wage? Because it has $19 billion, the PSLM says. Some add to this argument by saying that because Harvard raises the property values and the standard of living in Cambridge, it therefore owes its workers a living wage. Both arguments, however, are meritless.

The tactic is a “targeting-wealth” strategy—that is really what the PSLM is about. Targeting those with money is a throwback to the ’60s—a comparison that will give student activists glee—and is an attack on the very principles that maintain America as a democracy. Citizens must be free to be entrepreneurs, to create wealth, and to enjoy it. This is obvious. But the PSLM insists that because Harvard has a $19 billion endowment, that it owes workers more money. Really? Sit in at McDonald’s: they probably pay minimum wage and they’re rich. You wouldn’t have to even have food delivered. And how about starting with the Nike sneakers? Yeah, I saw a dozen of those marching in front of Mass Hall. Take those off.

It’s all a part of the idea that money is a bad thing. Indeed, here at Harvard, it seems economics just irritate students. And that’s justified. The introduction to economics class here at Harvard, Ec 10, is taught by a professor that in the same breath calls workers “dumb” and equations “beautiful,” as I heard him say in Economics 1420. But students shouldn’t just reject economics and the idea of the free market because of one professor, or because it seems so logical and free of emotion.

Where are the real progressives? Working families deserve a living wage through tax breaks, social welfare and, most of all, the best public education system in the world. They deserve a better social infrastructure. We do not have all of these things now, and that is the real tragedy. However, the PSLM, in demanding a living wage at Harvard, diverts attention from the real problem to itself.

I support a living wage. Now, and when I graduate, I will use my few abilities to do my part to see that working adults and children are offered nothing less than the full equality of opportunity that America stands for. Not through sit-ins at private institutions and companies. Not because I ate Dunkin’ Donuts delivered to me while I talked on my cell phone. Not because I wanted to have a great rush confronting authority. Look at the whole picture. Think for yourself. And look past this spectacle to the real problems—it’ll soon be our responsibility to solve them.