Boulder County walks back minimum wage increases, will soon be outpaced by City of Boulder – The Boulder Reporting Lab

Report on Boulder County’s Minimum Wage Ordinance Amendment and its Implications for Sustainable Development Goals

1.0 Executive Summary

On November 20, Boulder County Commissioners approved a new ordinance altering the trajectory of minimum wage increases for unincorporated areas of the county. The 2-1 decision slows the rate of wage growth, a move that has significant implications for the region’s progress toward several United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth), SDG 1 (No Poverty), and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities). The decision reflects a complex balancing act between ensuring business viability and providing a living wage for workers, highlighting inherent tensions in local economic policy and its alignment with global sustainability targets.

2.0 Decision Details and Rationale

The Board of County Commissioners voted to amend a previously established minimum wage schedule. This decision directly impacts approximately 22,000 workers in unincorporated Boulder County.

1. Previous Schedule: The minimum wage was set to increase by over $3 annually, reaching a target of $25 per hour by 2030. This aggressive schedule was aligned with efforts to provide a living wage, contributing to SDG 1 (No Poverty).
2. New Ordinance: The revised plan slows the pace of increases considerably. It will match the county’s minimum wage to the City of Boulder’s wage in 2026 and subsequently adjust for inflation. Annual increases are now projected to be less than $1.
3. Stated Rationale: The majority vote was influenced by testimony from local farmers and business owners who argued that the rapid wage increases threatened their economic viability, impacting local food production (SDG 2: Zero Hunger) and the sustainability of small enterprises, a key component of SDG 8.

3.0 Analysis of Impact on Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

The policy shift creates a direct conflict between different targets within the SDG framework, primarily pitting the economic growth aspect of SDG 8 against its decent work component.

3.1 SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth

• Decent Work Component: Advocates for workers argued that the rollback undermines the goal of providing decent work for all. The previous wage schedule was seen as a mechanism to ensure wages kept pace with the high cost of living, a core tenet of decent work.
• Economic Growth Component: Business owners, particularly in the agricultural sector, contended that the original wage schedule jeopardized sustainable economic growth by creating unmanageable labor costs, which they stated were already 50-55% of revenue. They argued the new, slower schedule is essential for their survival and ability to contribute to the local economy.

3.2 SDG 1: No Poverty & SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

• Poverty Alleviation: Opponents of the new ordinance highlighted that the county’s minimum wage is already approximately $10 below the calculated local living wage. Slowing wage growth is seen as a setback for SDG 1, potentially increasing the number of working individuals unable to meet basic needs without assistance.
• Income Inequality: Minimum wage policies are a primary tool for addressing SDG 10. Commissioner Stolzmann, in her dissenting vote, argued that increasing the minimum wage is a powerful tool to support economic equity. The decision to slow increases may exacerbate income disparities within the county.

3.3 SDG 2: Zero Hunger & SDG 11: Sustainable Communities

• Local Food Systems: The Community Farmers Alliance president stated the revised schedule gives local farms “a realistic chance to survive.” This supports the goal of maintaining local food production systems, which is integral to SDG 2 and building resilient, sustainable communities under SDG 11.
• Community Sustainability: The debate touches on the core of SDG 11, which aims to make communities inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable. The challenge lies in balancing the economic sustainability of local businesses with the financial sustainability of the workforce that supports them.

4.0 Stakeholder Perspectives

4.1 Arguments in Favor of the Slower Wage Increase

• Business Viability: Farmers and small business owners reported that rising labor costs could price them out of the county, making it difficult to compete with operations in other regions with lower wage standards.
• Incremental Progress: Commissioner Loachamin noted that the county’s minimum wage remains higher than the state’s, framing the decision not as a reversal but as a more sustainable pace of progress.
• Targeted Impact: Commissioner Levy argued that the original ordinance did not benefit workers within incorporated cities and that the concerns of businesses operating in good faith could not be ignored.

4.2 Arguments Against the Slower Wage Increase

• Living Wage Gap: Workers’ advocates emphasized the significant gap between the current minimum wage and the local living wage, arguing the decision exacerbates financial hardship amid rising costs and cuts to social safety nets.
• Economic Stimulus: Commissioner Stolzmann argued that higher wages act as an economic stimulant, benefiting businesses and demonstrating a commitment to the future success of young people, aligning with goals for inclusive economic growth (SDG 8).
• Procedural and Institutional Integrity (SDG 16): Concerns were raised regarding the process. Commissioner Stolzmann alleged a failure to follow state law requiring consultation with surrounding local governments. Labor groups also accused commissioners of failing to adequately meet with labor interests, raising questions about inclusive decision-making processes, a key aspect of SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions).

5.0 Conclusion

The Boulder County Commissioners’ decision to moderate minimum wage increases represents a significant policy choice that prioritizes the expressed needs of local businesses for economic sustainability over the accelerated pursuit of a living wage for workers. This action places the objectives of economic growth and decent work (SDG 8) in direct tension and has clear, divergent impacts on the county’s path toward achieving SDG 1 (No Poverty) and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities). The debate also underscores the critical importance of inclusive and transparent governance (SDG 16) in navigating complex socio-economic issues that define the sustainability of a community.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

1. SDG 1: No Poverty
   • The article’s central theme is the minimum wage, which is a critical tool for poverty reduction. The debate revolves around whether the wage is sufficient to live on, with advocates arguing the current wage is already a “living wage” deficit, directly linking to the goal of ending poverty in all its forms.
2. SDG 2: Zero Hunger
   • The article highlights the concerns of farmers who argue that rising labor costs threaten their ability to operate. The owner of Kilt Farm states the new wage schedule gives “farms and small businesses, the people who help feed this county… a realistic chance to survive.” This connects the wage debate to the sustainability of local food production and the viability of small-scale food producers.
3. SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth
   • This goal is directly addressed through the discussion of fair wages, employment, and the economic health of local businesses. The conflict between providing a “living wage” for workers (decent work) and the financial pressures on small businesses and farms (economic growth) is the core issue. One commissioner argued that increasing the minimum wage is “the most powerful thing we could do to thwart a recession” and “help businesses,” linking wage policy directly to economic health.
4. SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities
   • The article touches on inequality by focusing on the income of the lowest-paid workers. The push for a higher minimum wage is an effort to reduce the gap between wages and the high cost of living in Boulder County. The mention that the current minimum wage is “$10 less than the local living wage” highlights the income inequality faced by these workers.
5. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
   • The article discusses the governance and decision-making process. A commissioner raised concerns that the county “had not followed state law requiring local governments to consult with surrounding local governments and engage stakeholders.” Additionally, criticism was leveled at the timing of the public comment period, which made it “difficult for affected workers to comment,” questioning the inclusivity and responsiveness of the institution.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. Target 1.2: By 2030, reduce at least by half the proportion of men, women and children of all ages living in poverty in all its dimensions according to national definitions.
   • The debate over setting a minimum wage that aligns with a “living wage” is a direct attempt to ensure workers earn enough to stay out of poverty, thus addressing this target at a local level.
2. Target 2.3: By 2030, double the agricultural productivity and incomes of small-scale food producers…
   • The farmers’ argument that high labor costs could “price them out of the county” and threaten their survival directly relates to this target. The decision to slow wage increases was made, in part, to protect the incomes and viability of these local food producers.
3. Target 8.5: By 2030, achieve full and productive employment and decent work for all women and men… and equal pay for work of equal value.
   • The entire discussion is about what constitutes a fair and “decent” wage for workers in Boulder County. The reference to the “living wage” is a benchmark for what is considered decent pay that allows a person to support themselves.
4. Target 10.4: Adopt policies, especially fiscal, wage and social protection policies, and progressively achieve greater equality.
   • A minimum wage ordinance is a clear example of a “wage policy” aimed at influencing income distribution. The debate between a faster or slower pace of wage increases is a debate about how aggressively to use this policy to achieve greater equality for low-wage workers.
5. Target 16.7: Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels.
   • This target is reflected in the criticism of the county’s process. The complaints about the timing of the public meeting (“in the middle of the workday”), the alleged failure to consult with other local governments as required by state law, and the accusation that commissioners failed to meet with labor interests all point to concerns about whether the decision-making was fully inclusive, participatory, and responsive.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

1. Wage Levels and Disparities:
   • The article provides several quantitative indicators: the state minimum wage ($14.81), the previous plan to reach $25/hour by 2030, the old annual increase (over $3), and the new annual increase (unlikely to be more than $1). The gap between the minimum wage and the “living wage” (stated as about “$10 less”) is a key indicator of poverty and inequality.
2. Business Operating Costs:
   • A specific indicator for the economic pressure on farms is mentioned: “labor already accounts for 50 to 55% of our revenue — that is nearly twice the national average for small businesses.” This metric can be used to track the impact of wage policies on the viability of local agricultural businesses.
3. Number of Affected Individuals:
   • The article states that the county minimum wage affects “about 22,000 of the county’s total 194,000 workers,” providing a clear indicator of the scale and reach of the policy.
4. Indicators of Institutional Process:
   • Implied indicators for measuring participatory governance include the accessibility of public meetings (timing and location), the balance of stakeholder consultations (meetings with business owners vs. labor groups), and adherence to legal requirements for inter-governmental consultation before enacting policy changes.

4. Create a table with three columns titled ‘SDGs, Targets and Indicators” to present the findings from analyzing the article.

Source: boulderreportinglab.org