Tag Archives: minimum wage

A high minimum wage killed Detroit, perhaps Seattle and NYC too.

Leave a reply

In July, eitght years ago, Detroit filed for bankruptcy protection. The US was well into an economic expansion, but the expansion had largely bypassed Detroit. The Detroit area unemployment rate was 9.7%, and the Detroit city rate was 17%, among the highest in the nation. Tax income was not sufficient to pay retirement or current employees. The city was riven by corruption and crime, and attendance in school was dismal, less that 25% in some districts, about 55% as an overall average. Kids no longer saw a value in education. After bankruptcy, things started to improve dramatically.

Detroit area unemployment rate, 2005 to 2021.

The largest cause of the problem, and of the solution, in my opinion, was a high Detroit minimum wage that applied before bankruptcy and that was voided by bankruptcy. It was called a “living wage”. In 2013 it was $16/ hour and applied to any business that dealt with the city and did not offer health insurance (see more on the specifics here).The stated purpose was to insure that all workers could support a family of four in some middle-class standard, by one wage-earner working 40 hours per week. It was a view of Detroit family life and economic need that didn’t match Detroit reality. In practice most of Detroit were not 4 person, one wage-earner households. It meant that most Detroiters could not find jobs, since most companies worked in some way with the city. The only workers who could find jobs were those with special skills or political connections. The alternative was criminal business including drug sales, prostitution and burglary. The unemployment rate was 70% among Detroit’s teenagers.

The high minimum wage bought loyalty for Detroit’s political bosses; they gave out jobs for kickbacks, and some went to jail, including the mayor. Most Detroiters could not find jobs, though, and this especially hurt those looking for their first job: the job that would demonstrate that math and spelling were important; that you had to show up on time, dressed clean, and that you were not to insult the customers. High unemployment meant low tax revenue, made worse by high city employment costs for basic services: janitors, secretaries, and mail room personnel. The city was a mess.

When Detroit went bankrupt, among the first changes was to eliminate the $!6/hour living wage for employees and others doing business with the city. This helped bring the city budget into balance, and it brought in residents, businesses, and developers. By January 2020 Detroit’s unemployment rate had fallen to 6%, and Detroit metro unemployment had fallen to 4.2%, the lowest rates on record. Employment gives a motivation to stay in Detroit and to stay in school: there are jobs to be had for those who could add and spell. I covered these improvements here.

Seattle are unemployment rate 2015 to 2021. Seattle’s unemployment rate is now higher than Detroit’s.

Meanwhile, Seattle voted to raise their minimum wage to $15, with the change law taking effect in stages. The law fully came into effect three months ago, in January, 2021. New York voted for similar changes more recently. It is hard to be sure of the effect of the high minimum wage but already it seems to have hit employment. By the latest data, Seattle’s unemployment rate has risen to 6.9%. That’s higher than in Detroit, a real reversal. While unemployment in New York City has yet to rise much, they have seen a drop in rent rates while Detroit has seen a rise. New York’s are also moving to be more out of balance, something that leads to corruption and bankruptcy. We’ll see how this works out.

Robert Buxbaum, March 25, 2021. Among my first blog posts were complaints about Detroit’s high “living wage”, see here for example. As Puerto Rico slid into bankruptcy, I complained about the same thing.

The wealth of nations in beer

Leave a reply

We generally compare the wealth of nations in dollars per capita, but this is a false comparison. You can not eat dollars, and even if dollars can be exchanged for products or other countries’ currencies with minimum cost, the same is not true for their products. A sack of rice in America costs more than in India; you can not easily buy it at the Indian price. Nonetheless we generally measure the wealth of a county as if all products cost the same everywhere. Based on this, we declare that the citizens of Lichtenstein are the richest on the planet, followed by Norway and Denmark. US citizens not far behind, vastly richer than the people of Africa who we picture living on pennies per day. But pennies in Africa buy more than pennies in America; wealth is spent locally, and things are expensive where people have money.

GDP for various countries in pints of beer per person per year in main city bar or restaurant

GDP for various countries in pints of beer per person per year in main city bar or restaurant

To correct for this local value of money effect, some economists modify consider the ratio of per-capita GDP by relation to the cost of a basket of goods. This is called purchasing power parity, or ppp. By this measure, American’s are not as much richer than Africans, but the problem remains that people don’t all buy the same basket of goods. The Economist magazine has thus suggested correcting ppp by choosing a single consumable, the MacDonald’s Big Mac, a standard product available world-wide. The Economist’s “Big Mac Index” is quite good in my opinion, but it could be better, and I decided to make it better by using beer instead of Big Macs.

It strikes me that typical Africans don’t eat Big Macs — the price is out of range. Meanwhile, in rich countries mostly it’s the poor who eat MacDonald’s (and Donald Trump). The advantage of using beer to measure the wealth of nations is it’s something most-everyone consumes across all social strata. A country is wealthy in terms of many pints of beer a person can buy based on his or her, per-capita GDP.

Shown at left is the top countries from a table I made by dividing the GDP per capita by the price of a pint (or half-liter) of local beer as served in a tavern or restaurant of the major city. Measured this way I find Lichtenstein is still the richest country on earth, now followed by Saudi Arabia and the Czech Republic. Norway is no longer among the richest countries — beer is expensive there, as is labor. The Czech Republic, normally considered a middle-to-poor country, is number 3 because of the low cost of its excellent beer. The US is several stages down, just below Denmark, and barely above Hungary and Kazakhstan. The socialist countries: Russia, Cuba, and Venezuela are as poor in beer as they are in dollars. Socialism distributes wealth without creating it.

Number of beers one can buy on a month's minimum wage in Europe

Number of beers one can buy on a month’s minimum wage in Europe, by Reddit:adilu.

By now you’re wondering about my use of per-capita GDP. Perhaps a better comparison — one where socialism looks better would involve the minimum wage. At right I show a map of Europe in terms of the number of beers one can buy per month based on 40 hour weeks at the minimum wage. Several countries are greyed out: Italy, Austria, Sweden, Finland, Lichtenstein, etc. These are mostly rich countries bu have no minimum wage. Based on the data, Belgium’s working classes are the best off, with Ireland and England not far behind. Germany’s workers look like they are doing well, but they don’t really have a minimum wage (the chart, by Reddit editor adieu assumes one based on a proposal). The United States’s minimum worker is poorer in beer (327/month) based on a minimum wage of $7.85 and an average cost of beer about $4/pint (bar + supermarket). He is richer than the French, Poles, Italians, Norwegians, Danes, Austrians and Swedes in beer, and better off than the Turks and Russians too. It’s clear that high minimum wages harm community wealth and job prospects. Though some at the bottom of the work scale are left dry at the bar.

Robert Buxbaum, July 18, 2018. I write these blogs to help me think. If you’d like to see more of the wealth of nations in beer, I’ll be happy to provide.

Puerto Rico’s minimum wage and statehood

2 Replies

Puerto Rico is in deep trouble and it’s getting worse. Unemployment is at 12%, double the next worst state or territory (Alaska), tourism is down, and poverty is at 41%. Tourists have begun to go elsewhere in the Caribbean: Bermuda, Haiti, Jamaica and Cuba. The island is effectively bankrupt and would have filed for bankruptcy last year except that they legally can’t. But neither can they pay their bills. The territory will go into default in less than 2 weeks, on July 1, 2016 unless congress creates a new funding mechanism for them before then. Statehood would allow Puerto Rico to go bankrupt, but there is no way for statehood to be achieved by July 1.

Puerto Rico's minimum wage is vastly too high; here it is compared with other US states.

Puerto Rico’s minimum wage is vastly too high for its median wage. From Preston Cooper, Economics21.

While bankruptcy might help Puerto Rico short-term, as would a new line of credit, it is worthwhile to ask why Puerto Rico is in this bad shape. Why are they worse off than Guam, for example; Guam is far more isolated. Puerto Rico isn’t run particularly well, but it’s no worse than Guam or  Illinois. My first thought of what Puerto Rico should do differently is that they need to lower their minimum wage.

As the chart on the right shows, the wage of the average working Puerto Rican is very nearly the minimum wage. This is because, Puerto Rico’s economy is essentially tourism, and it competes for tourists with lower-wage Caribbean countries, Jamaica, Haiti, and Cuba. Neither Alaska nor Guam compete for tourist dollars with low cost alternatives. And Guam, in particular has a strong military presence; those are their main tourists. Competing for tourist dollars is a disaster for Puerto Rico that they could solve if they could lower their minimum wage. And a lower minimum would not cause people undue suffering because Puerto Rico is a place one can live cheaply. A single person may need to earn $8.50/ hour to live minimally well in Michigan, but his Puerto Rican cousin can get by on far less in Puerto Rico. With a lower minimum wage, tourism would be more attractive, and the government would not spend so much because they could pay their minimal-skill workers less. The net result is more Puerto Ricans would be able to find jobs, and the government would have a better chance to balance its books.

What prevents the territory from lowering its minimum wage is that it’s part of the US, and we set the minimum at $7.25/hour. Many people might prefer to work for less, but they can’t unless the federal government grants them an exemption. Without it, there is no obvious way for Puerto Rico to ever pay its bills.

Four years ago, in my first blog post, I suggested that Detroit should lower its $15/hour ‘living wage‘, a wage unduly burdened the city budget, and added to Detroit’s rampant unemployment and corruption. A year later, the city removed this barrier as part of bankruptcy, and saw significant improvements. I’m not alone in suggesting a lower minimum wage. The alternative is state-hood followed by immediate bankruptcy.

Robert Buxbaum, June 19, 2016.

The mystery of American productivity

3 Replies

Americans are among the richest and best paid people in the world. On a yearly basis, Americans produce and earn about 20% more than Britons and about 30% more than Japanese. On an hourly basis, counter to what you might expect, American workers produce about 30% more than Britons or Canadians, and about 50% more than the vaunted Japanese.

Per hour worker productivity, from the Economist. We do OK for backward hicks.

Per hour worker productivity, from the Economist. We do OK for backward hicks.

French and German workers produce about as much as we do, per hour, but tend to work fewer hours. Still, the differences are not quite what you might expect. French workers take many more hours off than we do and are still so much more productive than the British that it appears they could take an extra month off and still beat them in yearly output. Japanese workers meanwhile produce only as much as the French, per year, but take far more hours to do it. One thought is that it’s all the vacation time that makes French so productive and it’s perhaps the lack of vacations that causes the Japanese to be relatively unproductive.

Not that vacation time alone explains our high productivity, nor that of the Germans or Italians relative to the Canadians and Britons. One part of an answer, I suspect, is that we put fewer roadblocks to workers becoming business owners, and to running things their own way. Another thought is that US and Germany have a low minimum wage, comparatively, and Italy has no minimum wage at all; Germany had no minimum wage in 2013, the time of the productivity comparison. In countries like this, there is a larger profit to be had by clever individuals who work hard, think, and start their own businesses. With minimal requirement on how much to pay, the business owner can bring to bear a mix of low-wage, minimally productive workers with labor-saving innovation, allowing them to become rich while decreasing unemployment. It also allows them to serve otherwise under-served parts of the market and profit from it. And profit is a powerful motivator. As Friedrich Nietzsche said, “a why beats a how.” 

The nine European countries with no minimum wage are among the richest on the continent, and among those with the lowest unemployment: Iceland, Lichtenstein, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Austria, Italy, and Switzerland. By contrast, England, Canada, and Japan have relative high minimum wages and relatively high unemployment. There are also some poor countries with no minimum wage (Egypt, Zimbabwe, Rwanda…) but these countries suffer from other issues, like rampant crime. I’ve argued that the high “Living Wage” in Detroit is a major cause of Detroit’s high unemployment and bankruptcy. If low minimum wage is a major source of American worker productivity and wealth, it would be a real mistake to raise it.

Worker productivity is the best single predictor of long-term national success. As such, the long-term prediction for Britain, Canada, and Japan is not good. Unless something changes in these countries, we may expect to see them off to a long, dark tea-time of declining significance. Perhaps, it is a fear of this that was behind the resounding defeat of the Labour party in British elections last week. The Labour government oversaw England’s last big drop in productivity.

R.E. Buxbaum, May 28, 2015. It’s also possible (unlikely) that US universities are really good, or at least not as bad as thought. We don’t seem to quite beat the enthusiasm out of our students, though we do drug them quite a lot. Here’s a Forbes article on minimum wage.

High minimum wages hurt the poor; try a negative tax

2 Replies

It is generally thought (correctly I suspect) that welfare is a poor way to help the poor as it robs them of the dignity of work. Something like welfare is needed to keep the poor from starving, and the something that’s generally chosen in a living wage — a minimum wage set high enough that even a minimally skilled worker should be able to support a family of 4. This may be better than welfare, but I’d like to propose something better still — and a way to pay for it — a negative tax.

I suspect that a high minimum wage hurts the poor and middle class in a few ways. For one, by flattening the wage structure, it hurts the ego of higher skilled workers and reduces their incentive to improve. A senior worker should make more than an unskilled beginner, but a high minimum wage dampens this. What’s more, a high minimum wage cuts the lower rungs off of the employment ladder, making it harder for young folks, and unskilled folks to be productively employed. There may be some worthwhile minimum, but not everyone lives independently (or should) and not every job deserves to support a family of four, if only because not every unskilled worker is supporting a family of four. Many minimum wage earners are living at home or are heads of double-income couples, and only a few have the skills to justify the wage on a value added basis. A high minimum wage is thus needlessly costly for many workers. People accept the cost because it’s borne by the company (and companies are seen as evil). But passing the burden has limits, and a high minimum wage creates high unemployment in low skill areas, as employees are reluctant to pay a lot for low skill work. In Detroit before bankruptcy, the living wage was set so high that companies could not compete. Many went bankrupt and the others hired so selectively that the unskilled were basically unemployable. Even the city couldn’t pay the wage and its bills.

Even with the highest minimum wage, there is always a need for welfare, as some workers will be unemployable — because of disability, because of lack of skill, or from an ingrained desire to not work. The punishments a community can mete out are limited, and sooner or later some communities stop working and stop learning as they see no advantage.

The difficulties of taking care of the genuinely needy and disabled while the lazy and unskilled has gotten even some communist to reconsider wealth as a motivator. The Chinese have come to realize that workers work better at all levels if there is a financial reward to experience and skill at all levels. But that still leaves the question of who should pay to help those in need and how.  Currently the welfare system only helps the disabled and the “looking” unemployed, but I suspect they should do more replacing some of the burden that our minimum wage laws places on the employers of unskilled labor. But I suspect the payment formula should be such that the worker ends up richer for every additional hour of work. That is, each dollar earned by a welfare recipient should result in less than one dollar reduction in welfare payment. Welfare would thus be set up as a negative tax that would continue to all levels of salary and need so that there is no sudden jump when the worker suddenly starts having to pay taxes. The current and proposed tax / welfare structure is shown below:

Currently someone's welfare check decreases by $1 for each dollar earned. I propose a system of negative tax (less than 100%) so each dollar earned puts a good fraction in his/her pocket.

Currently (black) someone’s welfare check decreases by $1 for each dollar earned, then he enters a stage of no tax — one keeps all he earns, and then a graduated tax. I propose a system of negative tax (red) so each dollar earned adds real income.

The system I propose (red line) would treat identically someone who is  incapacitated as someone who decided not to work, or to work at a job that paid $0/hr (e.g. working for a church). In the current system treats them differently, but there seems to be so much law and case-work and phony doctor reports involved in getting around it all that it hardly seems worth it. I’d use money as the sole motivator (all theoretical, and it may not work, but hang with me for now).

In the proposed system, a person who does not work would get some minimal income based on family need (there is still some need for case workers). If they are employed the employer would not have to pay minimum wage (or there would be a low minimum wage — $3/hr) but the employer would have to report the income and deduct, for every dollar earned some fraction in tax — 40¢ say. The net result would be that the amount of government subsidy received by the worker (disabled or not) would decrease by, for 40¢ for every dollar earned. At some salary the worker would discover that he/she was paying net tax and no longer receiving anything from the state. With this system, there is always an incentive to work more hours or develop more skills. If the minimum wage were removed too, there would be no penalty to hiring a completely unskilled worker.

At this point you may ask where the extra money will come from. In the long run, I hope the benefit comes from the reduced welfare rolls, but in the short-term, let me suggest tariffs. Tariffs can raise income and promote on-shore production. Up until 1900 or so, they were the main source of revenue for the USA. As an experiment, to see if this system works, it could be applied to enterprise zones, e.g. in Detroit.

R. E. Buxbaum, June 27, 2014. I worked out the math for this while daydreaming in an economics lecture. It strikes me as bizarre, by the way, that can contract with someone for barter, e.g. to help you move for a pizza, but you can’t contract for less than the minimum wage $7.45/hr. If you hire the worker for less you can go to jail. In Canada they have something even more bizarre, equal wages for equal skills — a cook and a manager must earn the same, independent of how well the cook cooks. No wonder violent crime is higher in Canada.

 

Detroit: maximum punishment

4 Replies

Some moths ago, I argued that getting rid of its extra-high minimum wage was perhaps the single best thing that Detroit could do to improve its bankrupt finances and to provide jobs for its youth. I argued that this living wage of $11 or $14/hr, depending on whether healthcare was provided, was too much for the city to pay for it’s minimal skill workers. I also argued that a lower minimum wage would help the city finances, and would allow the unskilled of Detroit to find jobs: it would provide the first rung of a ladder. Well, sort-of good news: Detroit’s living wage has been declared unenforceable by the Michigan Supreme court.

Unenforceable does not mean that wages will lower immediately: anyone working for the city will keep their high salary job, so the finances of the city will remain strained. Also, private companies can not lower anyone’s contracted wages. The only difference is that workers on non-city jobs who agree to be paid $7.50 to $14/hr, can no longer sue to recover additional dollars to meet Detroit’s “living wage.” Bit by bit I expect that more low-skilled workers will be hired, and that their wages will stabilize downward to a free-market value.

The next big things that are needed are reduced crime and increased population who are employed in businesses other than selling drugs or themselves. One way to reduce crime, I think is to have less-stiff minimum penalties for non-violent crimes like drug possession and driving with a suspended license. Currently the penalty for possession runs to 15-20 years. No one who spends that much time in prison will fit back into society. Let’s do them and ourselves a favor by reducing minimum sentences so that the normal sentence is only 1-5 years (ideally with < 1 oz marijuana possession punished by a fine).

Another horror is the penalty for driving with a suspended license. It’s $3000 for a start (a reasonable amount, I think), but then the state adds a $4000 per year penalty for the next 3 years: a total of $15,000. That’s too much for a minimum-wage earner to pay, but the minimum wage earner needs a car to get to work. So he/she can’t work, or he/she drives without a license or insurance. Is this what we want? Lets give a second chance and lower the penalty to produce more working, law-abiding citizens. There is nothing wrong with Detroit that could not be fixed by 200,000 more, law-abiding, employed Detroiters.

R.E. Buxbaum owns REB Research, a maker of hydrogen purifiers and hydrogen generators. We used to be located in Detroit, but are now in Oakland county, 1/2 mile north of the Detroit border.

Detroit economics and the minimum wage

11 Replies

A cause of Detroit’s financial problems, it seems to me, is that Detroit has an uncommonly high minimum wage, $13.75/hr for all employees in any company that contracts with the city and does not provide free health care; or $10.50/hr for companies that provide healthcare. This minimum, called a living wage, is about double the state minimum wage of $7.40.

Although the city is financially bankrupt, the city can not hire janitors and pay less than this, nor hire accountants from a company that pays its janitors less than this. Besides the burden on Detroit’s budget, this puts a burden on its unemployment system. Many in Detroit don’t possess the education or skills to justify jobs at this wage. This high minimum wage effectively cuts them from the bottom rung of jobs at these companies — jobs at the bottom of the ladder of success. Many businesses find innovative ways around the law, using corruption and bribes to skirt enforcement, if the recent trials of the mayor are any indication, but a system of corruption is not good for the city.

As these wages are far above standard, most employed workers for the city get their jobs by corruption and connections, and most everyone knows they got their jobs this way rather than skill. As a result, workers have no incentive to improve at their job. In a corrupt system like this, there is no likelihood that  a raise would come with improved performance.

The justification for the living wage is the cost to support a family of 4 or 5, but Detroit is a much cheaper place to live than most, and not all workers are supporting families of 4 or 5. It therefore makes little sense to force all potential workers to refuse entry-level employment at $8.00/hour, a wage that would allow a single, motivated individual a decent living and a chance to climb as his/her needs and skills grew. Instead of promoting hard work and merit, this ordinance fosters corruption and cronyism; it makes it expensive for the city to hire contractors, makes it hard for workers to get their first jobs, and removes the benefits that normally come with improved skills. It’s a disaster, I suspect, and a reason the city is bankrupt.

Dr. Robert E. Buxbaum is a self-employed curmudgeon who tries to speak the truth as he sees it.