A New Minimum Wage

November 20, 2018

by Steve Stofka

Several readers had questions about the minimum wage article a few days ago. Why did I suggest 40% of the average wage? Why not 80%? How much of a difference is there between the average and median wage?

In May 2017, the annual BLS occupational survey found the average wages of all workers was a third higher than the median (Note #1). This survey is conducted only once a year and published six months after completion. I suggested 40% of the average regional wage. That would equal 53% of the median wage. I am not saying that 40% is a livable wage. Only that it might be a practical benchmark that moderates of both parties could support.

In 2015, the BLS estimated that there were 870,000 people making minimum wage. Over one million earned below minimum wage because they were in occupations where tipping is customary, and they have their own lower minimum wage. 870,000 workers out of 150 million is ½ of one percent. So why all the brouhaha about the minimum wage?

Approximately 42% of all workers make less than $15 an hour (Note #2). The percentage is closer to half of workers when adding union workers whose contract wages, particularly starting wages, are pegged to the minimum wage. A 2015 Forbes article quotes the UFCW:
“But the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union says that pegging its wages to the federal minimum is commonplace. On its website, the UFCW notes that ‘oftentimes, union contracts are triggered to implement wage hikes in the case of minimum wage increases.’ ” (Note #3)

I like several aspects of the Raise the Wage Act (Note #4) put forth by Bernie Sanders and Patty Murray. I like the gradual nature of the increases and the indexing of the wage. This is something that economists have been suggesting for decades. The summary published on Bernie’s web site (Note #4) is an embarrassment of errors:

“The Raise the Wage Act is front loaded to provide the biggest impact to workers. Upon enactment, the federal minimum wage would be increased from $7.25 to $9.25. The following increases are: $10.10 (2018); $11 (2019); $12 (2020); $13 (2012); $13.50 (2013); $14.20 (2023); $15.00 (2024).” They can’t even get their date sequence correct. Their calculations of the aggregate raise in wages is half of my estimate using BLS and BEA data (Note #5). Large companies like Wal-Mart are sure to lobby against the 14% cut in profits.

As the Slate op-ed notes, a national minimum wage of $15 is an “economic gamble” in a global economy that beckons business owners with lower cost labor. I am suggesting a compromise between Bernie Sanders’ proposal and the current policy.

///////////////////////
Notes:
1. BLS Occupational Survey
2. Slate article on raising the minimum wage.
3. Forbes article
4. Sumary of the Raise the Wage Act
5. My estimate: The summary of the Raise the Wage Act says “Increasing the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2024 would give workers $144 billion in additional wages by 2024.” The Bureau of Economic Analysis’ current estimate of wages and salaries is almost $9 trillion. Using a low estimate of 2% annual wage growth would equal $10 trillion in 2024. There are currently 150 million workers. Estimating low employment growth of just one million workers a year gives an average of $64,000 per year. Let’s say that the 42% of wage earners who will be affected by a higher minimum wage make only 40% of that average, or $25,600 a year. That averages $12.80 an hour. The total wages that will be affected equals almost $1.7 trillion. The Raise the Wage Act is estimating that the average effect will be 8.5%. Using the estimates above gives us an effect twice that size, or 17.2% – close to $300 billion annually. That only includes the wages. Add in 25% in taxes and mandatory employer insurance costs equals $375 billion. Corporate profits after tax are currently $2 trillion. Estimating that they increase by 5% per year produces an estimate of $2.7 trillion in profits. $370 billion in additional costs is 14% of profits. Large companies like Wal-Mart are sure to lobby against such a bill.

A Real Minimum Wage

November 18, 2018

by Steve Stofka

Near the top of the Democratic agenda in the new Congress is a minimum wage of $15. The bill is unlikely to pass the Senate, but it will signal to the voters that the Democratic House is meeting campaign promises. The states with the most solid Democratic support are those on the west coast and northeast coast where the cost of living is much higher. A single minimum wage for the entire country is not appropriate. Republicans control the Senate and they are from states with much lower costs of living. They will reject an ambitious minimum wage that is one-size fits all.

Housing is the largest monthly expense for most families. Below is a graph of home prices in several western metropolitan areas (MSAs) and the national average of twenty large MSAs. Home prices in Dallas and Phoenix are a 1/3 less than Los Angeles and San Francisco. Housing costs in many smaller cities will be below Dallas and Phoenix.

CaseShillerComps

Why isn’t the minimum wage indexed to inflation? Because politicians of both parties, but particularly Democrats, have used it as a wedge issue to gain voter support. If the House Democrats wanted to pass bi-partisan legislation on a minimum wage, they could use a flexible minimum wage that is indexed to the average wages for each region within the country. These are published regularly by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the same agency that publishes the monthly report of job gains and the unemployment rate. I’ve charted the annual figures for those same cities.

HourlyEarnComp

A $15 minimum wage is 40% of the average wage in San Francisco, and a bit more than half of the average wage in Los Angeles. It is almost 60% of the national average. The current minimum of $7.25 is 28% of the national average.

If the House passed a minimum wage bill that set the wage to 40% of the average wage for each region, Senate Republicans might at least consider it. In Denver and L.A., the minimum wage would be about $11.50. In Dallas and Phoenix, it would be about $10.60. Democrats could show that they are in Washington to pass legislation for working families, not pound some ideological stump as Republicans did for eight years with the repeal of Obamacare.

//////////////////////

Stocks and Taxes

There is a close correlation between stock prices and corporate tax collections. The tax bill passed last December lowered corporate tax revenues in the hope that businesses would invest more in the U.S. The divergence between prices and collections has to correct. Either tax collections increase because of greater profitability or stock prices come down.

StocksVTaxes
/////////////////////////
Income Growth

The financial crisis severely undercut income growth. Real, or inflation-adjusted, per capita income after taxes decreased for three years from 2008 through 2010, and again in 2014. It is the longest period of negative growth since the 1930s Depression.

IncomeRealPerCapGrowth

Promises Made and Unpaid

November 11, 2018

by Steve Stofka

A tip of the hat to veterans on this holiday.

The Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) regularly updates their map of the states that have not expanded Medicaid under Obamacare (Note #1). Here’s a screen shot.

KaiserMap
All the non-expansion states except for Wyoming had per capital personal incomes below the national average.

PerCapPersIncByState

Since these states have less per capita income, it is likely that more of the residents in those states qualify for Medicaid. During the initial phase of Obamacare, the Federal government picked up the tab for the additional costs. That share will gradually decrease to 90% in 2020, when the states will have to foot 10% of the expansion costs.

A ten percent share seems light. Why don’t these states expand their Medicaid eligibility? Let’s look beyond accusations of prejudice, which exists in every state.

The populations in most of these states are older. Poor seniors living in nursing homes qualify for traditional Medicaid, which costs each state much more than expansion Medicaid. The national average of state costs is 38%; the Federal government picks up an average of 62% of traditional Medicaid spending. Wyoming pays almost 50%, far above the average. Texas and South Dakota pay 44% and 41%. Oklahoma and Florida pay the average of 38% and the rest of the non-expansion states pay below average (Note #2).

The financial crisis ten years ago crippled state finances for several years and some have still not recovered. Since 2000, average per capita real income in the U.S. has grown only 1.2% per year. Medicaid spending has grown at more than three times that rate (Note #3). Residents in these poorer states have fared worse than the average. Revenues in those state have barely kept up with obligations. Officials in poorer states with older populations anticipate that funding difficulties will continue now that the first of the Boomer generation has turned 70. Given the political pressure to expand, how much longer will some of these states resist expansion?

Thirteen states that have expanded coverage have adopted new revenue sources to fund the additional costs (Note #4). Most states fund their Medicaid spending, original and expansion, out of general revenues which are falling behind state promises. These include infrastructure repairs – roads, bridges, improvements and repairs to schools and other government buildings – as well as pension obligations. Officials of state and local governments made these promises decades ago, when per capita incomes were growing more than 2%. Annualized growth over a twenty-year period has not been above 2% since 2001.

PerCapIncReal

Tax the rich is one solution offered, but that is a short-term solution. In the long-term, higher income growth is the sustainable solution. Until Democratic politicians can craft a coherent policy message that promises to promote stronger economic growth in these states, the voters will reject them.

/////////////////////

Notes:
1. KFF’s map of states that have turned down Medicaid expansion.
2. KFF’s breakdown of Medicaid costs per state.
3. A summary of inflation adjusted Medicaid spending from 2000-2012 showed a 4.1% annual growth rate – pg. 4. A state by state breakdown is on page 35. A 49 page report from Pew Charitable Trust.
4. A recent article showing the various sources of funding that expansion states are using.

Voter’s Guide

November 4, 2018

by Steve Stofka

This week – a break from personal finance and economics to bring you a voting guide for Independent voters who make up more than a third of the electorate. Circle which position you favor in each category below. Add up the choices. Vote for whichever party gets the most circles.

Role of Federal Government
If you believe that the Federal government has too much power over individual lives, Vote Republican.
If you believe that the Federal government should have more power to promote an egalitarian society, Vote Democrat.
////////////////

Political Structure
If you want to change the existing political structure to a democratically elected Parliamentary Republic, Vote Democrat.
If you like the existing system of a Constitutional Republic of democratically elected state legislatures, Vote Republican.
///////////////////

Regulation
If you think that regulation should be primarily left up to state and local agencies who will be more responsive to the people of that district or state, Vote Republican.
If you prefer federal regulation because you distrust the ability of state and local agencies to apply regulations fairly and evenly, Vote Democrat.
/////////////

Family Planning
If you think state and local agencies acting as agents of God’s will should control your family planning decisions, Vote Republican.
If you believe in personal autonomy in family planning decisions, Vote Democrat.
///////////////

Equality of Social Contracts
If you believe that all people should have equal rights to make legal contracts regardless of their social or sexual identity, Vote Democrat.
If you believe that an elected government has a right to restrict access to legal contracts to promote certain moral values and behaviors, Vote Republican.
/////////////////

Defense
If you believe that national defense is the primary legitimate function of a Federal government, Vote Republican.
If you believe that the Federal government should provide a safe environment for all citizens, and that defense is just one part of that safety net, vote Democrat.
/////////////////

Taxes
If you believe that taxes for common benefits should be applied more evenly so that everyone has “skin in the game,” Vote Republican.
If you believe in progressive taxation, that the Federal government has a right to take more from you, so it can give more to someone else, Vote Democrat.
///////////////////

Immigration
If you believe that we are a nation of laws and that foreigners coming into our country should respect our laws, vote Republican.
If you believe that the administration of immigration law must respond to the plight of human beings seeking a secure home for their family, vote Democrat.
////////////////////

Environment
If you believe that there is not yet enough actionable evidence for climate change caused by human activity, Vote Republican.
If you believe that we should pursue policies that limit activities which promote climate change, Vote Democrat.
/////////////////////

Social Welfare
If you believe that government has a responsibility for the welfare of all Americans, Vote Democrat.
If you believe that state and local governments have a responsibility to act with charity toward those who cannot care for themselves through no fault of their own, Vote Republican.
////////////////

There are many particular issues, some of which are sub-genres of these categories, at https://www.isidewith.com/polls.