UVA Living Wage Campaign

On Thursday afternoon, there was a rally in support of a living wage of $11.44 for all University employees outside of the Special Collections Library, where the Board of Visitors was holding its quarterly meeting.  This Cav Daily article on the rally outlines the beliefs of the Living Wage Campaign that current wages do not line up with the University's belief in honor because they leave many employees and their families below the poverty line, despite a recent increase in "minimum hire rate" from $10.14 to $10.65.
Passing by the rally on Thursday piqued my interest, and as I looked into the issue to find a way to relate it to this class, I stumbled across an interview with Economics Professor Edgar Olsen on the topic of the Living Wage Campaign.  In the interview, Olsen suggests that government policy would be a better way to pursue social justice than the establishment of a living wage by the University, saying that welfare programs are in place for just such a purpose.  He goes on to say that "[e]nsuring a minimum standard of living is an appropriate role for government, but not for a private employer." He goes on to cite the example of Harvard, which raised its minimum wage in response to a similar campaign but then, due to higher labor costs, made do with fewer workers when some left their jobs.
While Friedman would disagree with Olsen's assertion that government welfare programs are the best solution to the problem of University employees living below the poverty line, it seems to me that the voluntary implementation of a living wage would also be problematic, especially since the University is the "largest employer in Charlottesville."  Even though it would not really be government intervention, it would interfere with the wage market in the area.  Clearly UVA employees should be able live and support their families, and I agree that it is not a good representation of the importance we place on honor that so many live below the poverty line, but from my limited research it's unclear to me how best to solve the problem because there are negatives that come with government intervention as well as a living wage.

I Would Have Named it the Sabre Center

This Washington Post article discusses the enormous cost of building John Paul Jones Arena at our beloved University. Everything about the stadium is state of the art, least of which the price:

The building's total cost of $191 million includes about $130 million to build the center, nearly $14.5 million to outfit the dining, audio-visual and other areas, about $5 million for fundraising costs and $42 million to pay interest on bonds to finance the building over 20 years, according to Virginia executive vice president and chief operating officer Leonard W. Sandridge. Private donations, suite leases and sponsorships will cover all but $9.6 million, which comes from student fees to be paid over the life of the bonds, he said.

Only five percent of the cost is coming from public funding, which is astounding for a public university. A great deal of the cost is being burdened by private donations, even though they are certainly to be in the minority of people using the stadium. What could possibly motivate someone to put forth money when they could wait around and use it for free? Chapter 7 of the Gruber textbook highlights the main reason why someone would do so; the warm glow model:

Individuals care about both the total amount of the public good and their particular contributions as well. Perhaps they get a plaque with their name on it from making contributions, or maybe their contributions are known publicly so that their friends praise them for their generosity, or maybe they get a psychological benefit from knowing they helped a worthy cause.

Certain donor levels did get recognized for their contribution to the project. And for the paltry sum of 35 million dollars, you can have a state of the art basketball stadium named after your father.