Tag Archives: jobs

More Thoughts on Minimum Wage

Posted on by
1

And actual data. Econbrowser pointed out a quasi-controlled study by PhD candidate Michael Wither and Professor Jeffrey Clemens that compared populations of workers in states that had minimum wage laws with higher minimum requirements than Federally passed wage requirements at the time the Federal legislation was enacted with populations of workers in states that did not. They also compared populations of workers starting out with wages higher than the new mandates with populations of workers with wages lower than the new mandates (workers with wages less than $7.50/hr and workers with wages between $7.50 and $10.00 at the time of a then-newly Federally mandated minimum wage of $7.25) over the three years following the Federal mandate.

This figure is from Econbrowser‘s summary of the study:ProbabilityOfEmployment

Dynamic estimates of the effects of minimum wage on low-skilled workers. Green x’s denote difference in probability of having a low-wage job between states with low minimum wages and those with high minimum wages. Blue dots indicate difference in probability of being employed between states with low minimum wages and those with high minimum wages, with accompanying 95% confidence intervals. Source: Clemens and Wither (2014).

In other words, a low-skilled worker in a low minimum wage state was more likely to have a job at all than was his counterpart in a high minimum wage state. Moreover, while jobs in high minimum wage states got raises as a result of the Federal minimum wage mandate, workers were less likely to be hired into those jobs.

As Clemens and Wither put it,

Over the late 2000s, the average effective minimum wage rose by 30% across the United States. We estimate that these minimum wage increases reduced the national employment-to-population ratio by 0.7 percentage point.

Clemens and Wither also had this:

We also present evidence of the minimum wage’s effects on low-skilled workers’ economic mobility. We find that binding minimum wage increases significantly reduced the likelihood that low-skilled workers rose to what we characterize as lower middle class earnings. This curtailment of transitions into lower middle class earnings began to emerge roughly one year following initial declines in low wage employment. Reductions in upward mobility thus appear to follow reductions in access to opportunities for accumulating work experience.

But Progressive Democrats know better. Facts are for the little people—you and me.

Another Disregard for Congress

Posted on by
Reply

Congress passed the Fair Labor Standards Act in 1938, and it last was amended in 2007. Among other things, the FLSA allows the Labor Department to define who, in a business, is a manager and who is not.

There are two problems with this, either of which alone is sufficient to demonstrate the need for a further amendment. One problem is that it lets government dictate to business owners—private citizens—how they will run their businesses by dictating to them who they may have on their management teams.

The other problem, the one of interest in this post, is that Labor’s definition of who can be a manager is determined by the man’s salary and not by what he does. This definition matters because managers are “exempt employees,” that is, businesses do not have to pay them overtime for working more than full-time hours (nominally, 40 hours per week or 80 hours per two-week periods; although Obamacare muddles that definition).

Sean Higgins, of The Washington Examiner, had some thoughts on that earlier. I’ll just comment on a couple of them here; RTWT.

The president and administration officials have indicated they plan to increase the $23,000 minimum amount a worker must make before his employer can opt to exempt him from federal overtime rules….

Groups such as the liberal Center for American Progress, which has close ties to the White House, have called for the threshold to be raised to $50,000.

That’s the set up.

Higgins then quoted Joshua Parkhurst, a New York labor rights lawyer:

A fast-food restaurant can slap an “assistant manager” title on someone and…that exempts them from overtime. The white-collar exemption is far and away the most litigated issue under the act.

I’ll ignore the fee-generating litigation Parkhurst alluded to; the “error” is his implication that being an assistant manager is, of necessity, a bogus status. How many managers does a fast-food restaurant (or other small business) need? Exactly one. Who’s in charge on the shifts where the manager isn’t working? Somebody? Anyone? Answer: the assistant manager. Businesses doing 24-hour operations need at least three assistant managers—one for each shift (because the day shift’s manager would benefit from the help, and so the business would), plus one (or more) to fill in when someone gets sick or goes on vacation. How many more properly is a business decision, not a government one.

Doubling the threshold, the Center for American Progress argues, would force businesses to pay workers the overtime they are due or force employers to raise salaries to meet that level. “The average worker works 11% more hours than he or she did in 1975. If we as a nation could afford overtime rights then, we can afford them now,” center policy analyst Brendan Duke wrote….

This, of course, is nonsense. Raising the threshold (not even doubling it) would not at all force businesses to pay overtime or to raise wages. Businesses also have the option of restricting their business hours. They also have the option of restricting those workers’ hours and hiring temporary, part-time help. The former could harm the business, but it’s a business decision whether the higher labor costs or the reduced business hours would be the less harmful. The latter would be good for the temporary hires, albeit their hours and income would be uncertain. It would harm the existing workers, though, by capping them, ending their upward mobility and limiting their ability to build resume material for later, better jobs. This is what most of the workers in this sort of business are doing anyway—getting work experience and looking to improve themselves.

Or, the businesses could (and this is the most likely alternative) simply cut back on the benefits provided in order to compensate for the increase in labor cost from government’s redefinition of “manager.”

And the pseudo-logic that, just because “we as a nation could afford overtime rights” 40 years ago when we worked less, we surely can afford to pay increased costs today is breathtaking to hear from an “analyst.” Or maybe not.

Finally, here’s Parkhurst, again:

The point is, if you are shifting someone back and forth from administrative tasks to manual labor, they aren’t a manager. And slapping a title on them doesn’t change that.

This, too, is nonsense. By Parkhurst’s logic, “if you are shifting someone back and forth from administrative tasks to manual labor, they aren’t a” laborer. And calling him that doesn’t change that.

This gets to the crux of the matter. What makes a man an assistant manager is what he does, not how much he’s paid. And what he does is a matter for business to determine, not government. Or a “labor rights” litigator.

The FLSA would benefit from one more amendment, and so would the country.

The Taxpayer and Union Pensions

Posted on by
Reply

Here’s the state of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, a Federal government entity set up to insure union-negotiated pension plans.

Overall, the PBGC has total assets of $90 billion and total liabilities of $152 billion.

The multiemployer subset of that, the section of the PBGC that “guarantees” union-sponsored pension plans to which groups of companies belong, has total assets of $1.8 billion and total liabilities of $44 billion.

The single employer subset, the PBGC section that “guarantees” the pensions of individual companies, has total assets of $88 billion and total liabilities of $107 billion.

The reason for this is that what are being insured are not just any old pension plans, but defined benefit pensions in particular. Recall that these are the plans that guarantee a pensioner a set amount of money every month for life, regardless of how much money the pension plan actually has in it. Somebody has to make up the difference and make the payments, or the plan goes bust, and the pensioner gets nothing. With the PBGC, that guarantor is you and I: us taxpayers.

Of course, the PBGC proclaims that it has never taken a penny of taxpayer money, and that’s true. But the PBGC has never been in worse shape, either, and it’s deteriorating rapidly. Last year, the PBGC was in the hole only $36 billion, compared to this year’s $63 billion pit.

The PBGC also proudly proclaims its mission is to

encourage the continuation and maintenance of private-sector defined benefit plans.

Fine. Congress, as part of the budget bill it will pass next winter, should cut us taxpayers out of this corporation altogether. Congress should spin off the PBGC into a wholly private sector insurance corporation with no ties to the Federal government at all. Let the new company prosper or fail entirely on the private sector merits of encouraging and insuring private-sector defined benefit plans.

Pass the Bill, Anyway

Posted on by
Reply

…and force President Barack Obama to sign it or to veto it. On the record. Either way, it shapes the 2016 elections, and if Obama actually signs, it’ll be good for the country.

Obama has said he’ll veto

a potential agreement to permanently enact tax breaks on business investments in new equipment and research and development as part of a plan that would renew dozens of expired tax breaks for businesses and individuals both.

Obama threatened his veto even before any such plan actually has been developed and floated. Because you have to veto the bill before you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the bill writing.

Obama said, through his Deputy White House Press Secretary, Jennifer Friedman, that he would

veto the proposed deal because it would provide permanent tax breaks to help well-connected corporations while neglecting working families[.]

This, of course, is nonsense. Corporations don’t pay a lot of taxes, anyway; they pass what they pay on to their customers, including working families and unemployed families, in the form of higher prices. Contra Obama, the best way to help families is to leave more money in their pockets through lower taxes and to put more money in their pockets by getting government out of the way of the economy, so that growth can occur, hiring can occur, pay raises can occur.

Pass the bill, and force Obama to do something besides talk.

Illinois and Money

Posted on by
Reply

The government of Illinois—a Democratic Party-controlled government at the time—reduced the cost of its public pension programs by passing a law reducing future cost growth, specifically, by reducing the size of future increases in pension payouts, without eliminating those increases.

Illinois’ Constitution has this to say on the matter of public pensions:

Membership in any pension or retirement system of the State, any unit of local government or school district, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, shall be an enforceable contractual relationship, the benefits of which shall not be diminished or impaired.

Illinois State Judge John Belz decided that the enacted law was a violation of Illinois’ constitution and struck the law.

The state of Illinois made a constitutionally protected promise to its employees concerning their pension benefits[.]

And

[I]t is clear that if something qualifies as a benefit of the enforceable contractual relationship resulting from membership in one of the State’s pension or retirement systems, it cannot be diminished or impaired.

Yet what “qualifies as a benefit” is a matter of statutory definition, a matter set by the Illinois’ legislature. Belz’ ruling indicates that these legislative definitions are, in fact, amendments to Illinois’ constitution—else those definitions must be changeable at legislative initiative, as the law Belz has struck did.

Among his objections is this:

The Act adds new language to the Pension Code….

Now the whole Pension Code, enacted by the legislature and not by constitutional convention, is suddenly a part of the State’s constitution.

Belz’ ruling goes on in that vein.

Belz also seems to have misunderstood what the legislature has done in concrete terms. As he clearly understands, the legislature acted to reduce the size of future pension payouts, changing, for instance, the way a (future) pensioner’s 3% annual increase in pension payment is calculated. The pensioner still gets an increase, though. A smaller increase, as any third grade pupil in arithmetic easily understands, still is an increase. A pensioner’s pension in no way is diminished or impaired, by the definition of increase.

Finally, a practical question: a State’s police powers are an assertion that the State can use its governance offices to act to protect public safety and welfare—to prevent a State from being unable to honor its financial commitments and defaulting altogether, for instance. Thus, if Illinois’ government is unable to act to pay its pension obligations, how does Belz propose those obligations be met?

The judge screwed up, and the State is appealing.

 

Belz’ summary judgment order can be read here.