The extent of this apartheid is even more striking in the context of public assistance for the working poor. The overall population in the Pennsylvania suburban counties is about twice that of Philadelphia. In spite of this, the number of families living in subsidized housing in Philadelphia is twice that in the suburbs. There are four times as many families living in Philadelphia's public housing as there are in the suburbs. Nearly 50% more Philadelphians receive food stamps than do suburbanites. Four times as many Philadelphians as suburbanites receive assistance with their energy bills. Only half as many suburbanites are on welfare as Philadelphians. About two and one half times as many Philadelphians receive assistance from Medicaid as do residents of the suburbs.

As far as employer, occupation, benefits and longevity on the job, the affluent and the working poor are also different. The two industries that employ the greatest number of working poor in Philadelphia are the retail trades and personal services, 24% and 11% respectively. Of those earning more than $7.90, only 12% work in retailing and less than 3% work in personal services. The most common occupation among those earning more than $7.90 is managerial or administrative. The most common occupation among those earning the minimum wage is clerk. Among the working poor of Philadelphia, only 24% receive health benefits from their employer or union. In the suburbs this proportion is 41%. A member of the working poor is three times as likely to work for two or more employers during the year as a more affluent person.

The inevitable conclusion is that southeast Pennsylvania has become racially divided, separate and unequal. By comparison to a suburbanite, a resident of Philadelphia is more likely to be earning less than $7.90 per hour, receiving public assistance of one kind or another, receiving less in fringe benefits, changing employers more often, and working in a low level job resulting in more job turnover. Philadelphia needs a living wage in order to restore some dignity to work and some economic parity between city and suburbs.

The notion that less government intervention in the market place is better than more has been around since Adam Smith published The Wealth of Nations in 1776. An argument against the living wage is that it is another example of government dictating the terms of employment to businesses. In other words, it is just one more regulatory policy and is therefore bad.

The conservative doctrine about regulation is worthy of consideration. In markets that satisfy a number of stylized criteria, any regulation moves the economy away from efficiency; the economy is producing less than it can at higher prices. However, economists have consistently argued that regulation may be necessary to correct for certain market failures; pollution, for example. Furthermore, if there is a market failure, or as soon as a single regulation is introduced, the economy will be moved away from a first best organization. These features of the market place need to be recognized and policy makers must begin to seek a second best solution.

The simple matter is that the workplace is filled with policies and regulations affecting employment. Discrimination and safety in the work place are two of the more common market failures that regulation is meant to correct. The Davis-Bacon Act, and its state and local variants, is used to ensure that some employers do not exploit non-union labor to win government contracts. Minority set asides are used to provide minority access to contracts and jobs. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration has oversight of the workplace. The affirmative action laws affect relations between employers and workers and among workers. Without the policies implemented by these laws and agencies the world of work would be far different. The costs of production might in fact be lower without Davis-Bacon, OSHA, and other realities of employment, but the quality of life might also be lower. The public will was that workers should be protected, and there was sufficient political courage to bring these changes into the workplace.

It is a fiction to believe that the government of Philadelphia does not already intervene in the labor market. For example, the city uses minority set asides for both business ownership and employment. A prevailing wage ordinance governs the wages paid to construction workers on city contracts. The City regularly negotiates tax abatement with large firms for the purpose of luring jobs to the city. There are enterprise zones in which businesses receive special tax treatment in connection with new jobs. The Philadelphia Industrial Development Corporation provides subsidized loans to businesses that bring new jobs to the city, or keep existing jobs in Philadelphia. But there is one flaw in all of the laudable initiatives meant to increase employment in Philadelphia. None of them address the wages paid by the firms receiving the taxpayers' largesse, in the sense of ex post accountability. In the instance of the living wage ordinance before City Council, government intervention in the market place is aimed at fine tuning existing labor policy. A living wage ordinance articulates what the City expects to receive for the taxpayers' dollars that have been invested in private businesses. Since job creation, occupational health, and equal employment access have been addressed it is now time to address the terms of employment for low wage workers.