JohnTommasi.com: The Economics of Unintended Consequences & Common Sense
  • Home
  • Murder Outside the Back Door
  • Murder at the Front Door
  • Danger Zone
  • About/Contact
  • Blog
  • Stock Pick of the week
  • FED Speak
  • Murder by the Bathhouse Door

Higher Unemployment as a result of Minimum Wages Increases and Extended Unemployment Benefits

3/3/2013

20 Comments

 
Picture
In 1938, The Fair Labors and Standard Act was passed that established the nations 1st minimum wage at 25 cents/hour, taking inflation into account, this amounts to about $4.00/hour in 2013 dollars.  This was one of 121 bills that President Roosevelt signed into legislation on June, 25, 1938 in order to avoid a pocket veto and was an essential part of his New Deal program.  Today, the current Federal Minimum Wage is $7.25/hour(individual states may legislate a higher minimum wage) and President Obama would like to raise it to $9.00/hour.  There are mainly two groups that want this to occur.  Groups/persons with a vested interest, such as labor unions and legislators who want to get re-elected, and “do-gooders” who actually believe that an increase in minimum wage contributes to a better standard of living and lowers the poverty level.  In actuality, increases in minimum wage have no positive effect on the poverty level, increases unemployment and force small businesses out of business.  In order to explain this, we first need an introductory lesson in economics.

            To the economist, life is very simple, benefits and costs.  If the benefit of purchasing a good or service is greater than the cost, a rational individual will make the transaction.  Taking a simple example, that coffee you bought this morning at Dunkin Donuts that you paid $1.60; would you have paid $1.61?  If the answer is yes, then the benefit exceeded the cost.  Let’s now extend that example to work.  Intrinsic benefit notwithstanding (the joy of work), the benefit you get from work is your hourly pay.  What then is the cost? Simply put, foregone leisure.  So the rational individual will work as long as the hourly wage is greater than the leisure time he/she is foregoing.  If someone is willing to work for say $6/hour, the benefits he's getting outways the cost of foregone leisure.  It also has the additional benefit of keeping prices low to the consumer.

            Let’s now look at businesses.  The rational businessman is not in business to breakeven or incur a loss.  He is in business  to realize a profit, so he will hire a worker as long as the cost of hiring someone is less than the revenue they are producing.  In other words, if it costs me to hire a worker at $7.25/hour, and that person makes $8.00 every hour for the business, I’ll hire him (obviously payroll taxes, workman’s comp etc. have not been considered to simplify the example).  The minimum wage now increases to $9.00/hour.  What happens to the workers who are producing less than that in revenue, they get laid off and unemployment increases; or if it is a small business that employs primarily minimum wage workers (think landscaping), the business goes out of business.  But what else happens when the minimum wage increases, so to does prices, and the costs are passed on to the consumer.  This is known as a wage price spiral or cost-push inflation.  As a result, the effects of minimum wage have just the opposite effect of those intended by society’s “do-gooders”, an increase in unemployment amongst those it intends to help, the less skilled and uneducated, and no change in the poverty level, or quite possibly, a slight increase in poverty.


Picture
During the most recent recession, the average United Auto worker made $74/hour with benefits.  A function of good negotiating on their part, increases in minimum wages and a perception that Detroit would always be the dominant power in the automobile industry.  This is a significant increase from $500/week base pay rate in 1980 (source: sbaer.uca.edu/research/allie...003/organization/new/06.pdf).  As a result, Detroit found it cheaper and more profitable to substitute caital for labor, and hence, the decline of the auto worker.

Picture
Considering more empirical evidence, if you look at the poverty rate for the past 50 years, you will see that after a dramatic decline in the early 1960’s as a result of Medicare and Medicaid being implemented, the poverty rate has fluctuated in the United States between 11 and 15 percent since the 60’s.  It increases during and right after recessions, because this is when unemployment increases and peaks, and gets lower post recessions when the economy is doing well.  Simply, the poverty rate in the US is a function of the business cycle and not minimum wage.


Picture
But wait.  Didn’t I previously imply that increases in minimum wage can increase poverty?  If you look at the chart at the left, you will see that most minimum wage increases occur prior to recessions.  I am not saying that increases in minimum wage cause recessions, but they can significantly contribute to their severity and length.  The 90’s is a very notable exception.  Very simply, the 90’s was the best decade economically of the 20th century which was powered by huge technological increases in information technology.  Prior and during the most recent “Great Recession,” we had a minimum wage increase of 40% in a three year period.  There is no doubt, that this increased unemployment and contributed to the recession’s severity, especially the teenage unemployment rate since it is their group that has the least education and productivity.


Picture
We currently have an unemployment rate in the United States of 7.9%, and in his recent address before Congress, FED Chairman Ben Bernanke, predicted that we would not reach a more acceptable unemployment rate of 6% until 2016.  A dismal recovery that has been exacerbated by questionable fiscal policies; one specifically being extended unemployment benefits that can last up to 99 weeks.  What’s particularly disconcerting is the long term unemployment rate, those people who are unemployed for more than 6 months, is three times more than any other recession and almost twice that of the double dip recession of the early 1980’s.  In some states, such as Massachusetts, Maine and RI, to mention a few, these benefits are well in excess of $500/week.  Where is the impetus and motivation to go back to work?  To give an indication of the severity and longevity of the post recession recovery, we were above 8% unemployment for 43 months.  By contrast, after the Reagan stimulus was implemented, the unemployment rate went from 10.8% to 7.2% in 16 months.

    If President Obama gets his way and is allowed to increase the minimum wage, someone please explain to me how someone(particularly teenagers) is better off unemployed at $9.00/hour as opposed to being gainfully employed at $7.25/hour.

      If I could change 3 laws to help the economy, I would eliminate the minimum wage law, discontinue extended unemployment benefits and do away with Obamacare known as the Affordable care Act(which will be anything but affordable), but that’s for another blog.

The expressed opinions of this blog are mine and mine alone and do not represent the opinions of Bentley University.


20 Comments
Carol Halpin
3/5/2013 09:16:03 am

I only wish more people would listen to this common sense. Well done John...

Reply
Dave Gulley
3/5/2013 11:22:11 pm

John,

A very well thought out post. If one intent of policy actions is to reduce poverty rates, increases in the minimum wage are both ineffective and costly. Other methods, such as the EITC, are much better suited to targeting the poor for assistance.

Reply
Arcadia Sparrow
3/6/2013 02:33:34 am

Sorry, but I find this study a bit more compelling than your weak, unsupported and highly confounded associations.

http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/min-wage-2013-02.pdf

Reply
John Tommasi link
3/6/2013 02:42:23 am

I believe the associations are anything but confounded. Poverty goes up during recessions and falls during periods of high GDP. Detroit is making more cars now than 1979 and yet employment is lower. Why? Cheaper to substitute capital for labor. There is no doubt that economics is not an exact science, but one of the few concepts that all pretty much agree upon, is that as price goes up, demand goes down, and that's what happens to the demand for labor given a minimum wage increase.
Please feel free to direct me to studies that show different results
Best
John

Reply
Tracey Lane
7/26/2013 12:09:18 pm

The US is steadily coming out of recession, Obama's policies have stimulated the economy and those of us with money to invest are doing quite well, are we not?
The irony is that President Obama's platform was not to grow the wealth gap, but that is what he has done - hell look at the dow, look at the profits at Fannie & Freddie, they're paying down the national debt.
So if for no other reason, and there are many great ones, we need to absolutely increase the federal minimum wage to over $9 an hour, and help to balance the playing field. A society out of balance will eventually lose.

Arcadia Sparrow
3/6/2013 02:39:04 am

Some more corrective reading for Dave, especially.

http://emlab.berkeley.edu/~saez/lee-saezJan10minwage.pdf

Honestly, people, this stuff has been studied and discredited to death. This is not rocket science!

Reply
John Tommasi link
3/6/2013 02:49:27 am

try this one and absolutely, it is not rocket science.
http://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/2013/02/13/higher-minimum-wage-higher-unemployment/

Reply
Arcadia Sparrow
3/6/2013 04:50:22 am

It's not a one to one relationship. It's been shown over and over again that modest increases in minimum wage have little if any affect on employment. You can't model workers as if they are commodities. I might agree with you if they were proposing to double minimum wage, but a modest hike to 9 dollars (still not a living wage in many places) will not produce the effects you're warning about. Again, this has been shown numerous times. There are plenty of examples in that first review link.

And while EITC is great, its even better when combined with a minimum wage hike.

Reply
John Tommasi
3/6/2013 05:06:55 am

An increase from $7.25 to $9.00 is more than 24%. I don't consider that modest and I wonder what you would think of that raise if you ran a business. On top of that add 6.2% FICA, 2.9%medicaid and workers comp. That is anything but modest and it meets my definition of myopic.

Reply
Lowell Riverhawk
3/6/2013 05:09:01 am

seriously arcadia sparrow, a study from Berkeley no liberal bias there!

Reply
John Tommasi
3/6/2013 05:29:02 am

Make that Medicare of 2.9%and workers comp rates differ by state

Reply
Chuck Rage
4/23/2013 11:19:18 am

Is it not true that many union contracts are increased based on the minimum wage? So this is a payback to unions!

Reply
John Tommasi
4/23/2013 09:06:30 pm

Hi Chuck
You're absolutely right. Unions are a big proponent of increases in minimum wage and it often comes back to bite them in the rear. If you look at the UAW in Detroit, the big three auto makers had more than 1 million workers in 1979 and now they are down to about 350,000. It was cheaper to substitute caital for labor in the long run and more fully automate the assembly lines.
Full disclosure: I have been and am still a member of a union including 5 years as president of a local union.

Reply
Tracey Lane
7/26/2013 11:59:28 am

Nonsense! No Union auto worker was ever making over $70 an hour before, during or after the great recession, the actual average pay rate was $29 an hour.
The ridiculous figures that conservatives latched onto included all of the pension costs to retiree and their spouses - and don't knock pensions to those who worked for them, and rely on them to live on, and cycle the economy on !!! If there wasn't these pensions prior to self-directed retirement accounts like 401Ks and 403 bs then millions more people would be on welfare or crammed into homeless shelters.

Reply
John Tommasi
7/26/2013 10:57:01 pm

ps I fail to see where I'm knocking 401/403 accounts, I have one currently in addition to a pension from the police department. Also if the president's stimulus was a true stimulus and not a liberal agenda in stimulus clothing, we would have an unemployment rate much lower than the current 7.6%. After the Reagan stimulus, a true stimulus that targeted business investment and hence employment, we went from 10.8% to 7.2% in 16 months, and that recession was much worse. With Obama, after 40 months, we've gone from 10.2% to 7.6%. All I can say is thank God for the FED

Reply
John Tommasi
7/26/2013 10:49:56 pm

Hi Tracy
What's nonsense is you not doing your homework or reading the blog correctly. The blog said $74 with benefits. To go a step further, $1500 on the price of every GM car went towards employee retirement benefits. As to a $9 minimum wage, read my comments to Arcadia sparrow. If someone wants to make more money, have the drive and motivation to get an education. Anyone can get an education in this country, it may not be an ivy league education, but the unemployment rate of those with an education is half that of those with a GED or simply HS diploma.

Reply
Tracey Lane
7/27/2013 11:48:12 pm

$74 with benefits infers that each employee is receiving just that - which they were not as that amount included the benefits of everyone alive or their spouse whom had retired, it is misleading and was a pitch of union busting conservatives.
I wasn't knocking self-directed retirement accounts, I was explaining that they weren't always around, they are from the eighties, and many retired auto workers had pensions alone, and those pensions are rightfully theirs and if that means 1500 comes from each vehicle to pay those pensions than there is nothing wrong with that.

Reagan stimulated the rich, and set the foundation for the growing wealth gap. Further, after he lowered the tax rate enough to bankrupt America he instituted the largest tax rate hike ever to correct his mistake - an actor with no business running a country was elected.

Reply
John Tommasi
7/28/2013 11:59:30 am

Good grief. What Reagan did is stimulate businesses which bought capital equipment and hired workers. Stocks increased in value and it is not only the rich who own stock; over 50% of households have some form of stock ownership which can be in the form of PENSIONS, life insurance, mutual funds etc. Bankrupt the nation? You are suffering from a lack of relevant information and mental myopia. Please do your homework before your next post. The current debt is $17 trillion, it was 10 when Obama took office and the debt to GDP ratio is approaching 120, it was half that under Reagan, and yes, after 5 years we still have an unemployment rate of 7.6%.. If you're going to preach socialism and criticize, accurate facts would be nice.

Reply
Tracey Lane
7/28/2013 12:29:52 pm

The Adam Smith tie will strangle you, I suggest removing that tie.

Reagan took back at least half of the tax break he gave in 1982, by using euphemisms to fool the people, and the fact he is still fooling conservatives baffles me.

Currently, Obama is rewarding the rich by subsidizing through the tax system and the fed. It's all fun for the bulls on Wall st. Obama, ironically is the rich man's president. He's your man John :))))

We really don't need to get into what Obama inherited.

His little trick 6 months ago to change the rules of the Fannie/freddie "conservatorship" by taking all the dividends and profits as payback for the bailout then claiming that FNF still have to pay the whole 160 billion back was a stroke of GENIUS and it's helping the national debt - though the courts may decide otherwise.

Reply
John Tommasi
7/29/2013 10:37:59 am

Reagan didn't take any tax cuts back, he eliminated deductions such as interest on outstanding credit card balances and he was the only president (to my knowledge) to reduce the tax code by 2000 pages. It was 55,000 at the time, it is currently over 72,000 pages. You really need to tell me how I'm being rewarded by my tax rate increasing from 35% to over 39%.




Leave a Reply.

    Author

    John Tommasi is a retired Senior Lecturer of Economics & Finance from Bentley University and  the University of New Hampshire.

    Archives

    February 2023
    January 2023
    May 2020
    April 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    October 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    March 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    September 2018
    July 2018
    May 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    September 2017
    July 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    August 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013

    Categories

    All

    RSS Feed

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.
Photo from simone.brunozzi