Tag Archives: jobs

Helping the Low Wage Worker

Posted on by
Reply

There are lots of sources for this help; I’m only going to talk about how government can help (yes, we can and should help the least among us, and yes, Conservatives, government does have a role, if limited: there are things government can do, even here, better than the private sector).  The trick here is to prevent government mission creep and an ever-increasing government role—a difficulty that in itself makes a powerful, and not entirely illegitimate, argument against any government role at all.

Who are the low-wage workers in America?  They’re our younger teenagers, just starting out; our college students looking for part-time work while trying to remain full-time students for their longer term benefit; the parent looking for part-time work to flesh out the family income, while also needing to take care of children still at home; the high school graduate, or drop-out, trapped by that level of education in a dead-end job.  In short, they’re far and away low-skilled workers, and they’re workers with jobs whose output has very little value to the employer, even if the employer needs that work done to some degree.

So how do we—how does government—help these folks?  One solution proffered lately is the Earned Income Tax Credit as a supplement to those low wages.  The EITC even is “enjoying” a push to expand its reach.  Glenn Hubbard, writing in The Wall Street Journal, is one of those pushing this idea:

The Earned Income Tax Credit, which supplements the income of low-wage workers as they earn more, is supported by many conservatives and liberals alike.  Expanding this program’s payments for single workers (that is, beyond workers with families)—or using an alternative low-wage subsidy—would create more powerful work incentives.

He also favors means testing this aid, but on a shallower slope in order to “reduc[e] the marginal tax rate on work as the support phases out.”  The problem with this last—means testing—is that it still leaves in place that added tax on work.  I’ve written elsewhere of the doom that means testing spells for any welfare program.

Means testing welfare generally actively discourages, if not work itself, then looking for higher-paying jobs, even when the individual is qualified for that better job and it’s available—that’s the outcome of the welfare cliffs that the Pennsylvania Secretary of Public Welfare was describing in my earlier post.  We can’t means test.  Either the individual is eligible for welfare, or he is not.  Full stop.

The larger problem, though, with an EITC form of aid is that, while it might indeed encourage more folks to look for work rather than welfare, it won’t encourage employers to offer that work, and a wage subsidy actively encourages employers to suppress the wages offered for the work they do have—after all, government will make up the difference with its EITC.  Thus, there’s no help for getting out of the bottom levels.

Rather than means testing or open-endedly subsidizing, we should be applying an upper bound on the amount of subsidy offered.  A couple of examples will illustrate.

During the Clinton years, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families was enacted, replacing Aid to Families with Dependent Children, and this program had both a work requirement for aid eligibility and a maximum lifetime duration of that eligibility.  Under that program, folks went back to work, child poverty rates fell sharply, and income sources for the affected families shifted from a 33% from earned income/40% from AFDC split in 1991 to a split of roughly 60% from earned income/9% from TANF by 2000.

The GI Bill, used to educate our veterans—whether the very generous program under which I got two advanced degrees, or the current still-generous program that provides funding for four years of college at sound (if not very expensive) schools—and which benefit was earned by our military service, offers another example of a limited, finite training subsidy.  It’s overkill for initial training, but it demonstrates in a different venue the efficacy of limiting handouts and providing a hand up instead.

The subsidy also needs to be aimed at helping the low-wage worker—or the wholly unemployed—improve his situation so he can get a better job, or a job at all; it should not be just an unfocused handout of money.

Given the reason for those low wages—low value work and lack of training—the better way to help our low-wage workers (we’re not going to increase the value of work that is inherently low-value) is to facilitate their ability to get initial training either for an entry-level job (so as to potentiate getting that first job) or for moving up from a low value job to higher value one.  This can be done by any combination of subsidizing the worker as he seeks that initial training, or by paying the employer (prospective or current) that subsidy.  Subsequent training then can and should be provided by the employer (consistent with business needs) as he recognizes the value of that now known worker or sought by the worker as he looks to change directions in his working career.

In either event, a training subsidy can’t be open-ended, nor can it be means tested to be effective.  The subsidy must have an upper bound either on the total amount paid out—use it wisely—or on the time available for its use—don’t dither—or it must have both limits, and the clock must start on first use (rather than first eligibility).

Jobs Mandates

Posted on by
Reply

Nearby is a post concerning the jobs impact of Obamacare costs being imposed on employers.  Two other labor costs being considered for imposition by our Know Better, Progressive administration are minimum wage increases, and now an increase in the “minimum” wage of salaried managers.

Never mind what such a thing would do to productive company cultures:

…making more people eligible for overtime pay could remove the inherent incentive for lower-level managers to hustle to earn a promotion.

“You work hard, develop the maturity for a salaried position, and then move up,” [Emo Pentermann, owner of Bell ATM Service Inc] says.  “It takes away that whole level of maturity and freedom of choosing to get the job done in the time allotted.  So for all practical purposes, they just might as well be on a time card.”

Or, regarding that last, especially:

…a workplace environment that de-emphasizes keeping up with a time clock.  For instance, employees can take time off work to attend a child’s performance in school.  [Jeffrey Harris, owner of Inte Q] says his employees are more productive as a result of that flexibility.

He had plans to adopt a new, more formal policy this year where he would tell his salaried employees: “You know what your job is.  You’re responsible for it.  Take off when you need to, and we’re not necessarily watching day by day what you’re doing.”

But when he heard about the proposal, he said he immediately thought it would affect the type of work culture that has yielded results for him in both profits and employee retention.

Because our employers don’t have enough barriers for job creation or for business growth—and job creation.

Obamacare Jobs Impact

Posted on by
1

The American Health Policy Institute has some data [emphasis in the original].  Although their study concerned itself primarily with the cost impact of Obamacare to large employers—those with 10,000 or more employees—the study’s outcome has implications for our economy’s jobs picture.

  • The cost of the ACA…is estimated to be between $4,800 to $5,900 per employee.
  • These large employers will see overall ACA-related cost hikes of…4.3 percent in 2016 and 8.4 percent in 2023 over and above what they would otherwise be spending.
  • The total cost of the ACA to all large US employers over the next ten years is estimated to be from $151 billion to $186 billion.

This comes after a downward trend in employer cost increases—to no and nearly no increase just prior to Obamacare’s passage—for employee health care benefits has been completely reversed by Obamacare, as this graph from the study demonstrates:

Now for those implications:

At the US median annual wage of $51,000 in 2013 (a decrease from 2012, an added bonus of President Barack Obama’s economic policies), and just taking the lower bound of the 10-year cost range, those $151 billion in added dollar costs work out to a jobs cost of nearly 3 million jobs over that decade—300,000 jobs per year—in a static analysis that ignores the economy’s response to the loss of those jobs: a loss that would increase by some amount each succeeding year as the economy actually responded.

Alternatively, that $151 billion cost is money not being spent on R&D or product development.  To put this in perspective, US companies spent some $424 billion on R&D in 2013; at $15.1 billion/year over the decade, that works out to a 3.6% cut in R&D.  This is a very large drop in a company expense that’s already very low in an increasingly competitive global economy (if not particularly competitive anymore in the US)—Apple’s R&D spending, for instance, amounted to just 3% of net sales in 2013; IBM and GM spent just 5-6% of total revenue on R&D.  This reduction leads directly to a commensurate cut in company profitability, with its own cascade effect on jobs in the US.

Of course, the true outcome will be somewhere in between—a loss of fewer than 3 million jobs, but still a large loss, and a cut in R&D of less than 3.6%, but still a significant cut—each and both with still significant cascade effects in future job losses.

Unionizing College Sports

Posted on by
Reply

In light of the NLRB’s ruling that Northwestern football players can join a union, I have a number of questions and concerns.

How many other college semipro sports will unionize?  Will athletic departments survive the costs of unionization?  Will ticket sales?

What will the NLRB’s ruling do vis-à-vis Title IX?

How will the vast majority of college and university programs that don’t make money from their athletic departments will survive?  How will those programs within athletic departments that don’t make money survive–will the “football” union be willing to subsidize them?  Even were they willing, will they have the money to do so for all?

Will academic students now be forced to pay union dues, since they “benefit” from the “football” union’s…bargaining?  Will other student athletes in other sports?

Unionized semi-pro athletes who happen to attend college represent a fertile training ground for future union membership.  This ruling sets up that farm system.

And as The Wall Street Journal cites NLRB’s Peter Sung Ohr [emphasis added]:

[C]ollege players aren’t student athletes who get an academic scholarship in return for competing in a sport. They are “employees” and thus eligible to have a union collectively bargain with their university employer.  Mr Ohr explains that college players spend 40-50 hours a week at their sport during the season, often more than on class work, and that they are essentially paid for their work via a scholarship that covers tuition, fees and room and board worth about $61,000 a year.

Not a trace of irony there.  No, Sir.

The WSJ added this parting point:

Don’t look for the football players to give up their gourmet training tables in solidarity with the geeks majoring in pre-med.

Be all right with me if colleges shut down their athletic programs, converted them all to IMs, converted existing athletic scholarships to academic scholarships of the same value, and stopped offering athletic scholarships altogether.  Put the “student” back in “student athlete.”

False Premises

Posted on by
Reply

Bill Gates had a thought on how to help workers, especially low-skilled workers facing automation.  However, he’s operating from a number of false premises.

I think tax structures will have to move away from taxing payroll.  …  Software substitution—whether it’s for drivers or waiters, nurses…it’s progressing.  And that’s going to force us to rethink how these tax structures work in order to maximize employment given that capitalism in general over time will create more inequality, and technology over time will reduce demand for jobs, particularly at the lower end of the skill set.  …  Twenty years from now, labor demand for lots of skill sets will be substantially lower, and I don’t think people have that in their mental model.  …  Economists would have said a progressive consumption tax is a better construct at any point in history.  But what I am saying is that it’s even more important as we go forward because…I want to distort in the favor of labor.  …  When people say we should raise the minimum wage—I know some economists disagree—but I worry about what that does to job creation.  The idea that through the Earned Income Tax Credit you would end up with a certain minimum wage that you would receive, that I understand better than intentionally dampening demand in the part of the labor spectrum that I’m most worried about.

The first, and prior, false premise is that taxes should be used to achieve social engineering goals—whether government’s or any others’.  No.  Taxes are for funding the government so it can carry out the tasks for which we’ve hired it.  Our Constitution lays out the sole purposes of spending at the Federal level: paying our nation’s debt, funding our national defense, and the general welfare—which is explicitly enumerated in the 18 Clauses of Article I, Section 8.  Nowhere in there is spending for social engineering listed.  Taxes, then, can only be used to raise funds for those three spending purposes, and not for social engineering.

Gates’ second false premise is that a free market is somehow a zero sum game.  In a free market economy, two men freely arrive at terms of an exchange (e.g., a good for an amount of labor, either of those for an amount of money, etc) and make the exchange.  After that exchange, both men are better off than they were before it, since each man now has something of value to him that he didn’t have before—and that thing did not cost him more than it was worth to him, with the possibility that each man got slightly more than he paid as evidenced by his willingness (now hypothetically) to have paid slightly more than he actually did.  Plainly, a free market economy is a positive sum game.

His third false premise is that “technology over time will reduce demand for jobs.”  Like technology reduced employment when car manufacturing replaced horse buggy manufacturing.  Like Henry Ford’s assembly line technology reduced manufacturing employment.  Like computers have reduced employment.  Again, no.  Technology over time changes the kinds of jobs that have value, but it doesn’t reduce the number of jobs available.

His fourth false premise is that government subsidy (minimum wage or EITC or anything else) somehow makes labor less costly—at least to the employers.  Again, no.  Whether those labor subsidies are paid for by taxes or by borrowing, they’re paid for by taxes: all government borrowing does is shift the taxes onto later generations (and without their being in a position impudently to protest the matter).  Those taxes come out of the citizenry’s pockets, and (under present tax structures) out of the revenues earned by businesses.  Costs to the citizens and to the businesses thus are increased, and they’re increased by an excess amount derived from the difference between the actual value of the man’s labor and the subsidized price paid him for that labor.  Ultimately, too, that excess amount works through the economy in the form of higher prices—inflation—and the man is no better off in the end than he was at the pre-subsidy start.

Finally, there’s the matter of wealth/income inequality about which Gates worries.  Bill Gates, however, is the modern poster boy for that sort of inequality.  That inequality, though, is neither good, nor bad; it just is, like money generally.  It’s a tool, and like any tool, it can be used for good or ill, or it can be left on the shelf to rust.

Gates, in fact, has been enormously generous with his wealth, far more so than any of the rest of us could be, and to a degree that is utterly impossible without the enormous (unequal) wealth that Gates has and the enormously unequal income he earns with which to accumulate that wealth.  As have been the Carnegies, the Rockefellers, et al., of our capitalist nation.

I’ll leave off the mechanics of a “progressive consumption tax” and the inevitably byzantine nature of the sales tax code developed to implement this.  I’d be curious to see how Gates would implement such a thing: a customer in WalMart, at the cash register imputing (in some verifiable manner) his income, and the cash register calculating his sales tax accordingly (oh, wait—there’s that technology putting a cashier out of a job…)?

We all get sales tax refunds on 16 April according to our incomes and the amount of sales taxes we paid through the year?  How will the man living in the region of the Federal Poverty Guideline live on his sales tax-reduced income before he gets his refund?

 

h/t AEIdeas