It would be easy to sign a petition stating in the strongest
terms that you support the idea that all minimum wage workers should be able to
make a living. I want that and at the
same time, when employers say that the market value of their minimum wage
workers’ labor is not even minimum wage, I believe them. Any minimum wage worker who quits or is fired
for cause can be replaced in an afternoon.
I can accept that as a fact.
With little persuasion, I think I can accept that raising
minimum wage to a living wage would cause more problems than it solves. What would that be, any way; doubling it as the hapless McDonalds workers in New York
are demanding? Working minimum wage full-time
equals about $15000 a year. So, OK,
yeah, doubling it.
There are plenty of arguments in favor of it, simple justice
being one of them. Robert Reich points out that McDonalds’ CEO made 800 times what a McDonalds worker makes and
Walmart’s CEO makes 1000 times what a Walmart worker makes. Even a comfortably vested shareholder should
have trouble with those numbers. That
comes out of the company’s earnings with commensurately less flow-through to
the stockholders in the form of dividends or capital gains. At 13.8 to 20.7 million dollars a year,
respectively, each of those guys must be really, really smart and very good
managers.
Paul Krugman points out that minimum wage has not kept up
with inflation. In real (inflation adjusted) terms it should be above $10/hour. Furthermore, in that time, worker
productivity has doubled. Fairness says
it’s time for a raise.
I don’t shed a lot of tears for corporations and CEOs. But if we are talking about fairness, I don’t
think we should force employers to swim upstream through the raging rapids of ineluctable market forces. It is not their personal or
collective responsibility to guarantee a living wage to individual employees. Then whose is it? Oh-h-h, now we are treading on thin ice –
smells like Socialism!
Low wage workers, like all workers, need to pay bills, raise their kids, protect their health, all of that. The Earned Income Tax Credit – basically a
taxpayer subsidy of low wage workers - is one fair and equitable vehicle toward
achieving that goal. And I’m piling onto
the bandwagon with Reich who also adds childcare, good schools, health
insurance, and union rights.
Many young new workers do not know about "right to work" and the reason behind the contention and emotion that goes with a discussion about "right to work". A longish explanation is provided by Mother Jones. This one, provided here in full, covers the basics:
“Right to Work” Laws Explained
Thursday, 27 December 2012 10:04By se smith, Care2 | Report
The phrase “right to work,” which appears to date to 1902, sure seems catchy; it sounds like a guarantee of employment, right? In fact, it has nothing to do with whether you’re guaranteed to have and hold a job. Since it’s been in the news a lot in 2012, when the number of right to work states rose to 24, it’s worth taking a closer look at what this term means as well as the history behind it. All sides of the right to work debate are heating up, and it may be another critical labor issue in 2013.
To put it simply, a right to work law states that employees cannot be compelled to pay union fees and dues, even if they are covered under a union contract. The idea is that even if a union is operating in a given workplace, people shouldn’t be forced to join to keep their jobs, or ordered to join the union if other workers want to organize. Proponents of these laws say they protect the freedom of association, allowing people to opt out of union membership if they’re not interested.
Before 1947, right to work laws weren’t possible, but that changed with the passage of the Taft-Hartley Act, which outlawed the so-called “closed shop.” Closed shops restricted employment to union members only, requiring membership as a term of employment. People are also protected if they want to join unions, under open shop rules, which allow people to decide if they want to join unions and work regardless of union membership.
The Wall Street Journal, among other publications with a somewhat conservative lean, suggests that right to work laws promote job growth, but correlation is not causation. If there is a link, it may have to do with the fact that such laws are often used to entice business away from states without such laws with promises of lower wages; even the Journal has to admit that right to work states tend to have lower wages and less favorable employment contracts, because the collective bargaining power of unions is diluted.
Meanwhile, opponents of such laws argue that they create a bit of a free rider problem. Administering unions can be a costly endeavor, and the process of negotiating contracts can be painstaking and expensive, as can providing benefits for union members. If everyone in the union pays dues, costs can be kept lower for all members, and every worker is equally invested in the union. If some people aren’t paying, it creates an imbalance, and when union and non-union employees are covered under the same negotiated contract, it means that some people effectively get some of the benefits of union membership for free.
For labor organizers, such laws can represent part of an attack on organizing and union membership, making it harder for unions to promote the welfare of their members and workers in general. In the larger picture, less money also makes it more difficult for unions to engage in advocacy, political lobbying and other activities to protect workers and raise public awareness. For employers, such laws can reduce labor costs, as a weak union can struggle to assert itself at the bargaining table. As for workers, a strong union can make for better working conditions, a safer workplace, better benefits and more pay, and unions are stronger with more dues-paying members.
I read Dennis Richardson’s August 26 newsletter. He is a legislator from the 4th
District of the Oregon House of Representatives. I didn’t know much about him. Now I know he is a Republican and a declared
candidate to run for Governor. I also
read about Richardson
in an August
19 post on a conservative blog, The Governed | NW Politics. The Governed reveals that Richardson hasn’t a chance because he has
betrayed his conservative roots. With
that confident assertion in mind, I’d guess that The Governed is probably
correct. Richardson also isn’t making good friends with
another group that is usually considered to be outside that first group. That leaves a rapidly shrinking middle.
Richardson manages to
demonize, in double-digit percentages, big slices of a big group, Oregon workers. He’s railed against PERS (Public Employee
Retirement System) and presumably the beneficiaries who do, or hope to, participate
in promised PERS benefits. And he names
three big public sector unions in Oregon
– OEA, AFSCME, and SEIU. All of them,
according to Richardson, are responsible for
various evils that have befallen Oregon.
You can follow along with the back-of-the-envelope
calculations in the spreadsheet provided (for illustration only, dates from different
samples may not match by a couple of years).
In a nutshell, there are about 1,670,000 workers in Oregon – 100% of the workforce. Non-retired PERS workers are about 13% of the
workforce. Retired PERS workers – 118000
of them – are not part of the work force but they are probably sensitive to
schemes to tamper with their fixed income.
The three big unions make up 7% of Oregon workers.
The question remains, whom
exactly does Richardson
represent? Like Richardson, I can name names (I already have).
A number of them don’t even live in Oregon but their money
and their influence do. They share an
activist agenda with a few very wealthy Oregonians. That agenda includes “right to work” (suppressing collective
bargaining and collective union action), tax cuts for business and the wealthy, and
cutting support for expensive services like schools, public safety, and human
services.
More important than Richardson or his
candidacy is how emblematic his position is: ideological and simplistic (the cure
for unemployment is more jobs). He
offers less than nothing because his “solutions” come at the expense of social
services, schools, workers, retirees and poor people.
The Sequester is the ultimate IED rigged
to rip the foundation from the lives of Americans wherever they take for
granted any services from the federal government. This post will not explain
the Sequester but merely point to it.
On the face of it, the government will suffer a thousand cuts to the
tune of $109 billion a year for ten years.
We’ve seen or heard of some of them and fidgeted a little in our seats
from the sound of it. But this is just
the first round. There will be cuts upon
cuts upon cuts. We are not talking about
cutting fat. We are talking about
amputations, and sick surgery, doing away with redundant kidneys, lobes of
liver, all teeth and a small amount of jaw bone.
I have no desire to be the Cassandra of the blogosphere. I will not harp on the Sequester by describing
color and texture, as the quicksand rises to our nostrils. Neither will I ignore it. I’m opening up a new page on this blog
entirely dedicated to the Sequester. I
will mostly re-blog without comment by providing links.
For reasons of space I can't include this entire article from Salon. It is about yet another attack on public schools by state administrations, this time by rogue idealogue Governor Tom Corbett of Pennsylvania. I urge you to read it. MONDAY, AUG 19, 2013 04:01 PM PDT
There is a website called ShadowStats.com published by John
Williams which criticizes government methodology in processing economic data,
particularly in regard to the unemployment rate which, ostensibly, is grossly
understated. Such a mission is
automatically open to skepticism: What is the agenda here? Is the reporter an anti-government crank or
conspiracy theorist? I think in this
case that such a perfunctory dismissal is undeserved. The posted unemployment rate, whether at a
national or regional level, is hugely misunderstood and therefore, hugely
misleading.
On the face of it, the idea of an unemployment rate is
relatively simple. A rate or percentage is
a fractional part of some “whole thing” expressed as a decimal fraction (part
of a hundred - %). The “whole thing” of
the unemployment rate is only that
part of the population that is available – ready, willing, and able to
work. That’s the population that is
actively working or actively looking for work.
They are called the Total Civilian Labor Force. The fractional part of
that “whole thing” is the group of actively-searching potential workers who are
currently unsuccessful at finding a job. They are Unemployed.
Here are some counter-examples: a 38-year old, stay-at-home mom with a PhD in
immunology who resigned her $100,000/yr job 4 months ago is not
unemployed. She is unavailable and not
counted. A homeless veteran who fights PTSD
every day, refuses benefits and services, and lives off his route of trash cans
and dumpsters is identically not unemployed.
If you are below the radar, you are not unemployed.
There is a vast army of people who are not working and who
are not in the same boat. “Discouraged
workers” want desperately to have a job but they have stopped looking. The profile and circumstances are unique for
each individual. What they have in
common is that they fit the usual criteria for being unemployed but they are
under the radar and they are not
counted. They are not in the “whole thing” of the available labor force; they
are not part of the posted percentage rate.
Discouraged workers render the official unemployment rate a poor
reflector – not only the state of the
economy – but of the plight and prospects of millions trying to participate and
provide for themselves or their families.
An unemployment number that includes all the people who
would go to work this afternoon if you offered them a job will range between
13% and 24%. The difference depends on
how alarmist or conspiratorial you want to be.
The Bureau of
Labor Statistics number, U6, is “total unemployed, plus all persons
marginally attached to the labor force, plus total employed part time for
economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons
marginally attached to the labor force.”
For July 2013 that number (seasonally adjusted) is 14% - down from 14.9
in July 2012. John Williams of
ShadowStats, after some massaging of the data, comes up with a rate of 23.3% for
June 2013.
Especially if you are one of the “marginally attached”, the
argument of which number is right is totally irrelevant. Objectively it is a true statement that both
numbers are at Depression levels. I
guess it’s also irrelevant that a more inclusive unemployment rate report was
discontinued in 1994.
There are a handful of gloomy clouds that darken the horizon
for the long-term unemployed. Two them
have been mentioned
here before – globalization and technology.
Globalization means that labor costs are cheaper somewhere else and
that’s where a lot of the jobs go.
Technology provides state-of-the-art workplace solutions that make
workers in living-wage jobs obsolete – even jobs that traditionally weren’t
touched by robots: think accounting, the postal service, numerous
middle-management functions or a full range of face-to-face or voice-to-voice
personal services.
Possibly worse than either of these two is an employer bias
against hiring someone who has been out of a job for more than six months. The conventional
wisdom is that “the longer a worker is unemployed, the more difficult it
may become to find a job” because “over time, people who are unemployed tend to
lose human capital and attachment to networks that could help them find work.” (Apparently human capital means workplace
skills.) Whether or not this is revealed
truth (and
it may not be) it is an exceptionally high barrier for a hobbled job-seeker
to jump over.
Recession is a technical term that refers to at least two
consecutive quarters of a shrinking GDP. So
the recession (with a small “r”) ended in 2009.
Corporate profits are way up, especially because of diminished labor
costs. A few people are doing very, very
well. This is cold comfort for somewhere
between a tenth to a quarter of the American workforce.
Globalization has opened markets and increased trade. Technology has increased productivity and provided a universe of solutions and possibilities. But there are winners and losers. Corporations, CEOs and investors - big thumbs up. The middle class - thumbs down. Read this article in The Alantic to find out how and why.
Profits have never been higher. Wages have never been lower.
Okay, that sounds like an awfully oversimplified analysis of the frustrating recovery. And it is sort of simplified. It's also sort of true.
Go back to 1960, and corporate profits have never been higher while salary income has never been lower, as a share of GDP. Take a look here (graph via Floyd Norris):
This isn't a new trend, but something really did change in the last generation. Here's a graph of the growth in corporate profits, labor income, and GDP since 1970. As you can see, corporate profits took off in the 1990s, returned to earth after the tech bubble burst and then, in the 2000s, started jumping around like a bouncy ball dropped from a helicopter. Meanwhile, labor income fell further and further behind overall growth.
Sky-high corporate profit and stagnant wages aren't juxtaposing stories. They're the same story. And the main characters of that story are the familiar twin forces of globalization and technology, both of which have accelerated since the early 1990s.
In a sentence: Globalization (in particular, increased trade with China) has opened the doors to more consumers and more cheap workers while labor-saving technology has created more efficient ways to serve those consumers. As a result, the businesses are bigger, but the workers' share is getting smaller. Fifty years ago, the four most valuable U.S. companies employed an average of 430,000 people with an average market cap of $180 billion. These days, the largest U.S. companies have about 2X the market cap of their 1964 counterparts with one-fourth of the employees. That's what doing more with less looks like.
In macro explanations of the economy, globalizationandtechnology are often served up together in one big mixture, like another G&T you might know. But they don't have a monolithic effect. These are two distinct forces with distinct implications for distinct cities, according to new research by David Autor, David Dorn, and Gordon Hanson.
You have to define something to measure it, so they isolated hundreds of "commuting zones" (sort of like metro areas) and used the growth of Chinese imports as a proxy of globalization. Technological change they took as the decline in a city area's routine-intensive jobs -- e.g.: bookkeeping -- which are easily replaced by computers.
Here's the bumper sticker version of their conclusion: Globalization increases unemployment; technology increases inequality.
Globalization: The authors found that metros with more exposure to Chinese trade -- mostly concentrated in the swoosh of states extending from Indiana down to the Gulf of Mexico and up through North Carolina -- saw significant job losses, both in manufacturing and overall. For every $1,000 increase in imports per worker, the share of people with jobs declined by 0.7 percentage points -- and more for non-college grads. As manufacturing jobs declined, demand for local services would decline, and thus job losses could extend into areas like retail and hotels.
Technology: The computerization of certain tasks hasn't reduced employment, the authors find. But it has reduced the availability of decent-paying, routine-heavy jobs. Middle-class jobs, like clerks and sales people and administration support, have disappeared as computers gradually learned to perform their routines more efficiently. But as those jobs disappeared, cities saw an increase in both high-skill work and lower-paid service sector work, leading to little overall change in employment.
Back to the top two graphs. With globalization replacing American workers with Chinese labor and computers replacing middle-class workers with software programs, labor costs have fallen for companies while demand has grown all over the world. The result has been higher profits, not just for the finance companies who make up a growing share of domestic corporate earnings, but also for manufacturing companies and other multinational firms. It's a sad, inescapable truth that many international companies are thriving, not despite the incredible shrinking American worker, but because of him.
It is a little disingenuous for the Oregonian to call out
public sector unions for “ballot box bullying” or riding on a “sea of labor cash”. For unionized workers, the hoards
of cash and ballot-box assaults arrayed against them from those with infinitely
deep pockets are precisely the reasons why those unions are so uppity in the
first place.
If you are lucky enough to be immune to cuts in public services and underfunded
schools, then anything on the ballot that looks like a tax increase is going to be viewed as a “threat” to you. Families with children in the public
schools or the citizens in southern Oregon who are cutting their police departments might feel differently about a shortage of state revenue. It's rather self -centered to take a proposed tax increase so personally. There might be other reasons for a tax increase than an opportunity to "shake a fist" at high-income earners.
The argument that union dues paycheck deduction is a
freedom-of-choice issue is also specious and disingenuous. Most people who rely on a paycheck for a
living will be annoyed, if nothing else, by deductions for state and federal
income tax, union dues, payroll tax, their share of health benefits, and all
the rest. But we pay them and accept them.
The people who pour money into the various right-to-work initiatives care nothing about civil rights or First Amendment protection. To paraphrase Obama, they just want to make sure
that you have the right to work for less money.
In Oregon, if you're looking for the cynical moneybags threatening the rights of workers, look instead at Andrew Miller, Freres Lumber and Loren Parks. Art Pope is cutting a wide swath in North Carolina. For a national agenda look to the Koch Brothers and ALEC.
This post is a re-blog, in it’s entirety, about attacks on
public education in North Carolina. Names are mentioned: the Koch brothers and a
regional one, Art Pope who “owns the republican party” in North Carolina. I’m guessing none of them have children in
the public schools.
Fighting Budget Cuts, North Carolina Educators Dig In For the Long
Haul
August 6, 2013
By
Brenda Álvarez
Schools may still be
out for the summer in North Carolina,
but thousands of educators in the Tar Heel State have spent much of July and
August rallying in opposition to devastating cuts to public education.
Teachers, support staff, parents, and school administrators have come out in
droves in massive public protests, and many have gone tojailover it, too.
Governor Pat McCrory’s
state budget guts half a billion dollars from schools, leaving fewer teachers,
textbooks, supplies and school busses to support a growing student population,
and—without a pay increase—a faltering education profession.
“Education cuts never
heal,” said Amy Harrison, a special education teacher in GuilfordCounty.
“We may not see the immediate effects of these cuts this year or the next, but
10 to 15 years down the road when students are in college or entering the
workforce that’s when we’ll see them.”
What will be immediate
are the 9,000 education positions that will be purged, along with the cap on
class sizes and more than 10,000 Pre-K slots and the cap on class sizes.
Protests have been
organized by the NAACP every Monday since late April. Called Moral Mondays,
these marches have drawn thousands of people from across the state and have
given educators a platform to tell the governor and the conservative legislature
that they’re destroying public education.
North Carolina has enjoyed a long
history of innovative and progressive policies that served as a catalyst for
great public schools. But with McCrory’s new budget, the state is kowtowing to
the likes of the Koch brothers and other special interest groups that have done
little to improve public education for every student—similar to what is
happening in Wisconsin, Florida,
and Indiana.
“We as North Carolinians voted in a governor that we thought
would be moderate. His decision and legislation thus far has mirrored
everything that is bad for public education,” said Chuck Hennessee, a teacher
from Chapel Hill. He added that the governor
has been taking counsel from theJohn Locke Foundation, a conservative
think tank, and Art Pope, budget director for the governor. Both are known to
follow the extreme agenda of the Koch brothers.
The budget is set to
eliminate textbook funding by $77.4 million, classroom supply funding by $45.7
million and limited English proficiency by $6 million. Moreover, $50 million
will go toward private school vouchers, leaving too many students behind, as
public schools make a commitment toallchildren
while private schools pick the crème de la crème.
The budget also squanders away resources meant to attract and retain highly
effective educators.
The Teaching Fellows
Program, for example, will no longer be funded. This program was once
considered a national model for recruiting teachers into the classroom. Brad
Rhew, a third year science and social studies in ForsythCounty,
is a graduate of the program. He says it was a great way to stay in North Carolina and go
into the teaching profession, primed and ready.
“You were put into
some intensive trainings and workshops and given classroom experience,” he
said. “I felt so prepared to go into the profession when I graduated because of
the program. However, our government decided that the program wasn’t needed.”
Adding insult to
injury, educators will go another year without a pay raise. The governor
insists educators have seen an increase when they earned a 1 percent pay hike
last year. But when you factor in inflation and rising insurance premiums, the
pay increase didn’t amount to much.
In fact, North Carolina’s
teaching salary has been spiraling toward the bottom for years. In 2005-2006,
the state ranked27thin the nation in teacher pay at
$43,922, according to the National Education Association’s Rankings and
Estimates. Last year, it dropped to46thplace at $45,947.
And the insult comes
here: In January, soon after McCrory was sworn into office, he gave top cabinet
officials a hefty salary increase. The governor said to theNewsObserver,
“I’m trying to make it at least where they can afford to live while running
multibillion-dollar departments.”
Yet, many North Carolina educators
work two jobs to make ends meet. Harrison is
one of them.
“We haven’t had a
substantial pay raise since 2008. I work a second job. I’m going to have to
look at my finances and see if I have to work more [hours] at my second job,”
she said. “I understand the need to be fiscally responsible, but at the same
time you can’t say, ‘Oh we’re going to be fiscally responsible with education,
but not with other things.’ It needs to be fair.”
It’s reasonably safe
to say, educators are smart people. And because of their smarts, they don’t
like to be duped, which is what many say the governor is trying to do.
Nashonda Cooke, an
elementary school teacher in Durham,
said, “There’s a hidden agenda. What our governor is doing is the very
beginning steps of privatizing education. He’s trying to make it difficult for
us to be successful in the classroom.”
What’s next for the
Tar Heel State? They’re taking it to the polls.
“It’s like a giant who
doesn’t feel it has any opposition until the opposition shows up,” said Rhew.
“This isn’t going away. There are going to be people protesting until the next
election. Hopefully, most of the people who pushed this through will not have a
nice, comfy seat in Raleigh.”
The tax on capital gains taxes the profit or gain that you
realize when you sell an asset (stocks, bonds, a painting, a collector car)
that has appreciated in value. Sometimes
it’s called passive income because you don’t “do anything” (like work) to generate
the income. Capital gains have
traditionally been taxed at a lower rate than regular income (like for
working).
The reasons are certainly what the late John Kenneth
Galbraith would have characterized as “conventional wisdom” – values or
opinions that have been an unquestioned fixture for so long that they are
recognized as revealed truth. Such as:
·Capital gains are a form of savings and you
should not provide a disincentive to save in favor of immediate
consumption.
·Capital gains derive from the risk of investing:
Risk-taking and capital formation drive a productive economy:(Again) you should not provide a disincentive
to take risks.
·With inflation, taxing a capital gain unfairly taxes a
gain from inflation.A lower rate
compensates for this distortion.
·More revenue is collected when capital gains are taxed at a lower rate than when they are taxed at a higher rate.
Here’s the news: None
of these are demonstrated truth. They
are assumptions about how the economy works with only tenuous relations to research,data, and a consensus of scholarly opinion.
Warren
Buffet says, “The idea that higher tax rates will stifle investment
and productivity is bunk. The ultrarich, including me, will forever pursue
investment opportunities.”
What is clear is that these assumptions are self-serving for
the group of people who benefit from them the most. With a tidy nest egg, you
do not have to work for a living (marginal tax rate 35%). You can live very well off the passive income
from your investments including interest but especially dividends and long-term
capital gains (marginal tax rate 15%,
2008-2012) . That’s why Romney’s effective tax rate in 2011 was 14.1%. Warren Buffet's was 11.06% for 2010.
It’s easy to see where this is going. President Obama and Buffet himself are
calling for a tax reform which would follow the “Buffet rule” – put simply,
that zillionaires should pay taxes at a higher rate than their secretaries and
plumbers. At present, our ostensibly "progressive" income tax is regressive when taxing our highest income earners.
