November 22, 2024

Economix Blog: Casey B. Mulligan: Hidden Costs of the Minimum Wage

DESCRIPTION

Casey B. Mulligan is an economics professor at the University of Chicago. He is the author of “The Redistribution Recession: How Labor Market Distortions Contracted the Economy.”

The current federal minimum wage of $7.55 an hour is increasingly creating economic damage that needs to be considered with the benefits it might offer the poor.

Today’s Economist

Perspectives from expert contributors.

Democrats are now proposing to increase the federal minimum wage to $9 an hour. News organizations have repeatedly noted that economists do not agree on the employment effects of historical minimum-wage changes (the more recent federal changes in 2007, 2008 and 2009 have not yet been studied enough for us to agree or disagree on results specific to those episodes) and do not agree on whether minimum wage increases confer benefits on the poor.

That doesn’t mean that we economists disagree on every aspect of the minimum wage. We agree that minimum wages do some economic damage, although reasonable economists sometimes believe that the damage can be offset and even outweighed by benefits.

More important, we agree that the extent of that damage increases with the gap between the minimum wage and the market wage that would prevail without the minimum. A $10 minimum wage does less damage in an economy in which market wages would have been $9 than it would in an economy in which market wages would have been $2.

Moreover, elevating the wage $2 above the market does more than twice the damage of elevating the wage $1 above the market. (Employers can more easily adjust to the first dollar by asking employees to take more responsibility or taking steps to reduce turnover, steps that get progressively harder.) That’s why economists who favor small minimum wage increases do not call for, say, a $100 minimum wage, because at that point the damage would far outweigh the benefits.

Market wages normally tend to increase over time with inflation and as workers become more productive. As long as the minimum wage is a fixed dollar amount, the tendency for market wages to increase over time means that economic damage from the minimum wage is shrinking. That’s one reason that economists who see benefits of minimum wages would like to see minimum wages indexed to inflation, allowing the minimum wage to increase automatically as the economic damages fell.

But these are not normal times. The least-skilled workers are seeing their wages fall over time, largely because they are out of work and failing to acquire the skills that come with working. Moreover, the new health care regulations going into effect in January are expected to reduce cash wages, as many employers of low-skill workers are hit with per-employee fines of about $3,000 per employee per year, as the law mandates new fringe benefits for other employers and low-skill workers have to compete with others for the part-time jobs that are a popular loophole in the new legislation. (The minimum wage law restricts flexibility on cash wages, by establishing a floor, but makes no rule on fringe benefits.)

To keep constant the damage from the federal minimum wage, the federal minimum wage needs not an increase but an automatic reduction over the next couple of years in order for it to stay in parallel with market wages.

Article source: http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/13/hidden-costs-of-the-minimum-wage/?partner=rss&emc=rss

Dockworkers Strike Threatens to Close East Coast Ports

The dockworkers are flexing their muscles again, threatening a strike beginning Sunday that would shut seaports from Massachusetts to Texas. It would be the first such coastwide strike since a two-month walkout in 1977 paralyzed the flow of tens of billions of dollars of imports — and the nation’s retailers and other businesses fear a painful replay if the 14,500 dockworkers make good on their threats.

“Unless something miraculous happens, I think we’re looking at a strike,” said Kevin M. Burke, president of the American Apparel and Footwear Association, which represents an industry that imports $72 billion in dresses, shoes and other goods each year through the East Coast and Gulf Coast ports facing a possible shutdown.

“Our companies are preparing for the worst,” Mr. Burke said, “but hoping for the best.”

The strike threat has so alarmed corporate America that more than 100 business groups wrote to President Obama last week to urge him to intervene to push the two sides to settle — and, if need be, to invoke his emergency powers under the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act to bar a strike. President George W. Bush invoked the act in 2002 to end a lockout at ports on the West Coast, where a different union represents dockworkers.

Despite their small numbers, the East Coast dockworkers have outsize influence. Many of them, like the crane operators who transfer containers from ships to the docks, are highly skilled and cannot be easily replaced. And because they control the loading and unloading of goods in most of the nation’s ports, a strike could cause extensive economic damage at a time when the economy is already weak.

“They’re in a crucial place in the flow of goods,” said Richard W. Hurd, an industrial relations professor at Cornell University.

The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey estimates that a strike would cost the region $136 million a week in personal income and $110 million in economic output.

The dockworkers union, the International Longshoremen’s Association, opposes presidential intervention, and labor specialists say Mr. Obama, like previous union-friendly Democrats, may be reluctant to enjoin a strike. On the other hand, the economy already faces a potential blow from tax increases and federal budget cuts scheduled to begin on Jan. 1, and a strike would cause further damage.

“The last thing the nation needs right now is a strike that would shut down the East Coast and Gulf Coast ports,” said Jonathan Gold, the National Retail Federation’s vice president for supply chain policy. “This will have a huge ripple effect throughout the economy.”

The 14 ports threatened with a strike — including Boston; New York-New Jersey; Baltimore; Charleston, S.C.; Savannah, Ga.; Miami; and Houston — handled 110 million tons of cargo last year.

The contract negotiations, which have continued fitfully for nine months, broke off on Dec. 18. At the behest of a federal mediator, the two sides are planning to resume talks this week to try to reach a deal before the deadline of 12:01 a.m. Sunday.

Although several issues need to be resolved, the two sides are deadlocked over one point in particular. The United States Maritime Alliance, an association of shipping companies and terminal owners, is demanding concessions on “container royalty payments,” which the companies share with union members for each ton of cargo handled. The companies want to freeze those payments for current longshoremen and eliminate them for future hires.

The maritime alliance, known as USMX, says it paid $211 million in container royalties to the longshoremen last year, averaging $15,500 per eligible worker. James A. Capo, the alliance’s chairman, said that came to $10 an hour, on top of what he said were already generous wages.

“This issue seems to have dwarfed anything else,” Mr. Capo said. “All it does is make the union more uncompetitive than it already is.”

The alliance says that, including the royalties, the longshoremen earn $124,000 a year on average in wages and benefits. Union officials say those figures are misleading and put average annual wages at $75,000 before benefits — still far more than most union members earn.

The container payments were created in the 1960s to compensate the longshoremen as ports embraced automation and the use of standardized, 40-foot-long containers to ship goods. That caused a big decrease in jobs and working hours. Employment of longshoremen in the Port of New York and New Jersey has dropped to 3,500 from 35,000 in the 1960s.

The shipping companies see the royalty payments as a relic of decades past, while the union still sees them as a core part of wages and as an important way to share productivity gains with members.

The dockworkers union is digging in on the issue.

“We have repeatedly asked them to leave this item alone,” said Harold J. Daggett, the union’s president.

Last week, a federal mediator asked the two sides to extend their contract until Feb. 1. But Mr. Daggett ruled out an extension unless USMX dropped its demands on the royalty payments.

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/27/business/dockworkers-strike-threatens-to-close-east-coast-ports.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Natural Disasters Hinder Progress in Asia, Development Bank Says

HONG KONG — Asia’s rapid economic progress risks being undermined by the rising number of floods, landslides and other natural disasters that hit the region, according to a new report by the Asian Development Bank, published on Tuesday.

Coming just two weeks after a massive storm battered the east coast of the United States, wreaking havoc in New York and surrounding areas, the development bank’s study provided a stark reminder that Asia and its many densely populated and rapidly expanding coastal cities are particularly vulnerable to weather-related disasters such as storms and floods.

“The region has borne the brunt of the physical and economic damage of the sharp rise in natural disasters since the 1980s,” the bank wrote. “Its people are four times more likely to be affected by natural disaster than in Africa and 25 times more than in Europe or North America.”

Disaster-related losses could top $19 billion a year, and the increasing frequency and severity of natural disasters can “slash economic growth and development,” the report commented.

Weeks of flooding in low-lying areas of Thailand, for example, inundated homes and factories, paralyzed much the country’s manufacturing sector and caused many billions of dollars in damages late last year.

Similarly, floods and landslides cost the China some $18 billion in 2010 alone, the bank said.

“We have thought for too long that natural disasters come and go, that they are just an interruption to development, and that they can be dealt with after they strike,” commented Vinod Thomas, the director general of the Independent Evaluation department, which evaluates the policies and strategies of the A.D.B and compiled the report.

In developing Asia, rapid and often chaotic urbanization, poorly managed rural land use and deforestation exacerbate the impact of storms and rising sea levels.

In a bid to dull the impact of future disasters, more emphasis should be placed on disaster prevention, rather than post-disaster recovery, the study recommended. By some measures, the report said, “one dollar invested today in reducing disaster risk saves at least four dollars in future relief and rehabilitation costs.”

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/14/business/global/14iht-report14.html?partner=rss&emc=rss