Sunday, January 24, 2021

States, Localities, Tribal Nations, Territories Need More Federal Aid [feedly]

States, Localities, Tribal Nations, Territories Need More Federal Aid
https://www.cbpp.org/research/state-budget-and-tax/states-localities-tribal-nations-territories-need-more-federal-aid

The sizeable revenue shortfalls and added costs that states, localities, tribal nations, and territories face due to COVID-19 call for added federal aid that's temporary but significant, as President Biden's emergency relief plan proposed.[1] Congress should act quickly to provide it or risk more public-sector layoffs and cuts in services for families and businesses as states balance their budgets.

By the end of this week, 44 states plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico will have begun their first full legislative sessions since COVID-19 struck. Lawmakers' primary jobs will be to balance their budget for this fiscal year (which runs through June in most states) and write next year's budget. Without more federal aid, lawmakers facing hard budget choices due to the pandemic will impose another round of cuts — the last thing the country needs right now.

"WITHOUT MORE FEDERAL AID, LAWMAKERS FACING HARD BUDGET CHOICES DUE TO THE PANDEMIC WILL IMPOSE ANOTHER ROUND OF CUTS — THE LAST THING THE COUNTRY NEEDS RIGHT NOW."

States and localities already have shed 1.4 million jobs since last February — nearly double the 750,000 lost in the aftermath of the Great Recession — as social distancing measures have made some jobs temporarily unnecessary (like bus drivers) and as state and local spending cuts have forced layoffs. Most of these jobs were lost last spring, but states and localities laid off another 177,000 people in the last quarter of 2020.

The Biden plan includes $350 billion in grants to help states, localities, and U.S. territories like Puerto Rico deal with these shortfalls and avoid additional layoffs, plus $20 billion to help tribal governments address the pandemic's exceptional damage to their finances and $170 billion for K-12 and higher education.

These amounts would likely be sufficient, based on our present estimate of state budget shortfalls and what we know about local, tribal, and territorial shortfalls, though state budget forecasts are highly uncertain right now. The more accurately federal policymakers target the aid to the places most in need, the more likely it will actually prove adequate.

The Biden plan's targeting of additional aid to schools and colleges will help those educational institutions respond to extraordinary, unexpected costs imposed by the pandemic, such as educating students safely for the rest of this school year, making up for learning losses during the pandemic, supporting students who have dealt with depression and other serious emotional issues this year, and helping reconnect students to schools. Lengthening this school year and next to compensate for learning losses and providing tutors to a quarter of students would cost about $100 billion, the Learning Policy Institute estimates.[2] Colleges and universities also face significant additional needs. The precise amount is difficult to determine, but the American Council on Education estimated they needed $120 billion before the December relief package, which provided $23 billion to colleges and universities.[3]

Governments Face Revenue Losses Plus Unexpected Costs

A survey last fall by the National Association of State Budget Officers found that state revenues for this fiscal year were coming in 10.8 percent below pre-COVID projections, a very large drop — especially since it accounted for the substantial federal stimulus enacted earlier in 2020.[4] The situation has improved somewhat since then, though it's not clear by how much. We estimate revenues are still roughly 7.8 percent below pre-COVID projections, though the virus' resurgence complicates these estimates considerably.

These revenue losses caused many states to scale back previous plans for this year. For example, Florida reversed course on a pay raise for teachers, and Maryland scrapped a school funding plan that would have greatly improved the educational experiences of low-income students and children of color. Some of those new investments were built on pre-COVID projections of relatively strong revenue growth; the pandemic upended those projections, leaving states with revenues below what they need simply to cover existing payroll and services, let alone cover their increased costs.

Setting aside the lost investments and looking only at these more fundamental fiscal effects, we estimate that states, localities, tribal nations, and U.S. territories currently face total shortfalls of about $300 billion through fiscal year 2022, after subtracting federal aid provided to date.[5] If states fully spend the roughly $75 billion in reserves they held heading into the pandemic, that estimate drops to $225 billion. To be clear, these estimates only account for revenue losses resulting from the pandemic plus normal cost increases states face, such as wage inflation, population growth, and increased Medicaid costs as more people turn to that program in a recession.

Our estimates don't include states' and localities' costs to continue fighting COVID-19 (including the more contagious new strain of the virus), such as personal protective equipment, testing, contact tracing, and increasing public health awareness. Nor do they include the added costs of providing services effectively and safely during a pandemic, such as training and equipping public employees who must regularly interact with other people.

Our estimates also don't include states' costs to help people and businesses facing extreme hardship due to the pandemic.[6] Nearly 1 in 5 adult renters are behind on rent and more than 1 in 3 adults are having trouble paying for usual household expenses, with rates especially high among people of color, according to the latest data. While federal aid to jobless workers and others has helped, the large share of adults still struggling to meet basic needs makes clear that it hasn't been enough. The Biden plan would increase temporary federal food and housing assistance, but given the magnitude of the crisis, states and localities likely would still need to provide additional aid to help individuals and families get through the crisis and recover from it. Indeed, given gaps in federal relief measures, some states and localities have stepped in over the last ten months with measures such as creating emergency assistance programs to help families avert eviction, further straining their budgets for the year.

Finally, very little data are available yet on how the virus' recent resurgence is affecting revenues for states, localities, tribal nations, and territories, but it can't have reduced their challenges. Federal policymakers would do well to keep that in mind as they determine how much aid to provide.

End Notes

[1] CBPP, "Parrott: President-Elect Biden's Relief Plan Meets Urgency of Health and Economic Crisis," January 14, 2021, https://www.cbpp.org/press/statements/parrott-president-elect-bidens-relief-plan-meets-urgency-of-health-and-economic.

[2] Michael Griffith, Jessica Cardichon, and Michael A. DiNapoli Jr., "Learning in the Time of COVID-19," Learning Policy Institute, December 28, 2020, https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/blog/covid-second-round-federal-relief.

[3] American Council on Education, "Statement by ACE President Ted Mitchell on COVID-19 Relief Package Higher Education Funding," December 21, 2021, https://www.acenet.edu/News-Room/Pages/Statement-by-ACE-President-Ted-Mitchell-on-COVID-19-Relief-Package-Higher-Education-Funding.aspx.

[4] National Association of State Budget Officers, "The Fiscal Survey of the States Fall 2020," https://higherlogicdownload.s3.amazonaws.com/NASBO/9d2d2db1-c943-4f1b-b750-0fca152d64c2/UploadedImages/Fiscal%20Survey/NASBO_Fall_2020_Fiscal_Survey_of_States_S.pdf.

[5] Our shortfall estimates begin with the National Association of State Budget Officers' survey of each state's updated revenue projections. We made adjustments to reflect state budget announcements after the survey and to incorporate shortfalls resulting from certain rising costs, like increased Medicaid caseloads and normal cost increases due to inflation and population growth (though we didn't incorporate cost increases due directly to fighting COVID and mitigating its effects). We also added estimates of shortfalls faced by cities, counties, tribal nations, and U.S. territories. We then subtracted federal aid provided to date that states can use to cover revenue losses in their general fund.

[6] CBPP, "Tracking the COVID-19 Recession's Effects on Food, Housing, and Employment Hardships," updated January 21, 2021, https://www.cbpp.org/research/poverty-and-inequality/tracking-the-covid-19-recessions-effects-on-food-housing-and.


 -- via my feedly newsfeed

Biden-Harris Child Tax Credit Expansion Would Lift 10 Million Children Above or Closer to Poverty Line [feedly]

Biden-Harris Child Tax Credit Expansion Would Lift 10 Million Children Above or Closer to Poverty Line
https://www.cbpp.org/blog/biden-harris-child-tax-credit-expansion-would-lift-10-million-children-above-or-closer-to

 -- via my feedly newsfeed

President Biden inherits a weak labor market due to inadequate COVID-19 response: Biden and Congress must make stimulus its first priority [feedly]

President Biden inherits a weak labor market due to inadequate COVID-19 response: Biden and Congress must make stimulus its first priority
https://www.epi.org/blog/president-biden-inherits-a-weak-labor-market-due-to-inadequate-covid-19-response-biden-and-congress-must-make-stimulus-its-first-priority/

This morning, the Department of Labor (DOL) released some of the last unemployment insurance (UI) claims data of the Trump era. That means this release helps us understand the economy President Biden just inherited. Here's what it shows.

Another 1.3 million people applied for UI benefits last week, including 900,000 people who applied for regular state UI and 424,000 who applied for Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA). The 1.3 million who applied for UI last week was an increase of 113,000 from the prior week. The increase underscores that layoffs are increasing as the virus surges. The four-week moving average of total initial claims is now back to where it was in mid-October.

Last week was the 44th straight week total initial claims were greater than the worst week of the Great Recession. (If that comparison is restricted to regular state claims—because we didn't have PUA in the Great Recession—initial claims last week were still greater than the worst week of the Great Recession.) I should note that throughout this post I use seasonally adjusted data where I can, but for comparisons to the Great Recession I use not-seasonally-adjusted data, since DOL's improved seasonal adjustments aren't available before the week ending August 29, 2020.

Most states provide just 26 weeks of regular benefits, so many workers are exhausting their regular state UI benefits. In the most recent data (the week ending January 9), continuing claims for regular state benefits dropped by 127,000.After a worker exhausts regular state benefits, they can move onto Pandemic Emergency Unemployment Compensation (PEUC), which is an additional 24 weeks of regular state UI (the December COVID-19 relief bill increased the number of weeks of PEUC eligibility by 11, from 13 to 24).

However, in the most recent data available for PEUC, the week ending January 2nd, PEUC claims dropped by 1.1 million. I expect that to reverse in coming weeks. Why? Over 3.5 million people had exhausted the original 13 weeks of PEUC by the end of December (see column C43 in form ETA 5159 for PEUC here). These workers are eligible for the additional 11 weeks, but they need to recertify. PEUC numbers will swell dramatically as this occurs. It's worth noting that in some states, if workers had exhausted their original 13 weeks of PEUC, they could get on yet another program, Extended Benefits (EB). In the latest data, the number of workers on EB increased by 83,000. Workers on EB will stay on EB until they exhaust their EB benefits before switching back to PEUC for the additional 11 weeks of PEUC eligibility.

Continuing claims for PUA also dropped dramatically—by 1.7 million—in the latest data, the week ending January 2nd. This drop can also be expected to reverse in coming weeks. The December COVID-19 relief bill extended the total weeks of eligibility for PUA by 11, from 39 to 50 weeks. As workers who saw a temporary lapse in PUA get back on the program, we can expect the PUA numbers to swell.

The 11-week extensions of PEUC and PUA just kick the can down the road—they are not long enough. Congress must provide longer extensions, or millions will exhaust benefits in mid-March, when the virus will still be surging and the labor market will still be weak.

Figure A shows continuing claims in all programs over time (the latest data are for January 2nd). Continuing claims are still nearly 14 million above where they were a year ago, even with recent the temporary lapses in PUA and PEUC occurring during the time period covered by this chart.

Figure A

There are now 26.8 million workers who are either unemployed, otherwise out of work because of the virus, or have seen a drop in hours and pay because of the pandemic. Further, we started losing jobs again in December; layoffs are rising and the virus is surging. More relief is desperately needed. A key reason more relief is so important is that this crisis is greatly exacerbating racial inequality. Due to the impact of historic and current systemic racism, Black and Latinx workers have seen more job loss in this pandemic, and have less wealth to fall back on. To get the economy back on track in a reasonable timeframe, we need policymakers to pass an additional roughly $2 trillion in fiscal support. In particular, it is crucial that Congress provide substantial aid to state and local governments. Without this aid, austerity by state and local governments will result in cuts to essential public services and the loss of millions of jobs in both the public and private sector.

President Biden announced a relief and recovery package last week that gets the economics right; his proposal is at the scale of the economic challenge we are facing and is a clear break from the mistakes we have made in past recoveries, when we hobbled the economy by not doing enough. And with their new majority in the Senate, Democrats will now be able to get more relief measures through reconciliation. Top priorities are aid to state and local governments, additional weeks of UI, and increased UI benefits.


 -- via my feedly newsfeed

Thursday, January 21, 2021

Enlighten Radio:Talking Socialism: Socialism and the Biden adminstration

The Red Caboose has sent you a link to a blog:



Blog: Enlighten Radio
Post: Talking Socialism: Socialism and the Biden adminstration
Link: https://www.enlightenradio.org/2021/01/talking-socialism-socialism-and-biden.html

--
Powered by Blogger
https://www.blogger.com/

Wednesday, January 20, 2021

Tim Taylor: The Broken Promises of the Freedman's Savings Bank: 1865-1874 [feedly]

Tim Taylor reviews a racially tainted, but very revealing study of a publicly sponsored private bank targeted at a specific community. The North Dakota public state bank is often held as a quasi socialist banking model. It has the virtue of discouraging speculation but difficult to compete outside of its agricultural origins. Corruption killed Freedman's bank, even though it did initially permit African American workers and soldiers to get paid, and accumulate some wealth. 

Be interesting to see if, in the wake of Glass-Steagall, credit unions could be transformed into micro-investment banks. Might be especially beneficial in rural areas, like West Virginia!

The Broken Promises of the Freedman's Savings Bank: 1865-1874

https://conversableeconomist.blogspot.com/2021/01/the-broken-promises-of-freedmans.html

The Freedman's Savings Bank lasted from 1865 to 1874. It was founded by the US government to provide financial services to former slaves: in particular, there was concern that if black veterans of the Union army did not have bank accounts, they would not be able to receive their pay. In terms of setting up branches and receiving deposits, the bank was a considerable success. However, the management of the bank ranged from uninvolved to corrupt, and together with the Panic of 1873, the combination proved lethal for the bank, and tens of thousands of depositors lost most of their money. 

Luke C.D. Stein and Constantine Yannelis offer some recent research on lessons the grim experience in "Financial Inclusion, Human Capital, and Wealth Accumulation: Evidence from the Freedman's Savings Bank" (Review of Financial Studies, 33:11, November 2020, pp. 5333–5377, subscription requiredhttps://academic.oup.com/rfs/article-abstract/33/11/5333/5732662). Also, Áine Doris offers a readable overview in the Chicago Booth Review (August 10, 2020). 

Stein and Yanellis note: 
The Freedman's Savings Bank was an early government-sponsored private enterprise that was created by Congress to provide financial services to formerly enslaved African Americans. ... The bank spread rapidly, and at one point had more interstate branches than any other U.S. financial institution, and approximately one in eight Blacks in the South lived in a family that held an account with the bank. ... We obtain novel data on Freedman's Savings Bank account holders from 27 branches with surviving bank records. These 107,197 account records include names of main account holders and their family members, totaling 483,082 non-unique individuals, roughly 12% of the 1870 Black population in the American South. 
The main focus on the paper is that authors match the actual names of these depositors to data from the 1870 census, and then carry out a variety of calculations: for example, those who lived in the same county or within 50 miles of a branch of the bank, and those who did not. They can compare those who lived in areas where a branch was actually established, and those in similar areas where a branch was planned but never established. The result of these and other comparisons makes a persuasive case that access to a bank account had a clearly positive effect: "We find that individuals in families that hold Freedman's Savings Bank accounts are more likely to attend school, are more likely to be literate, are more likely to work, and have higher income and real estate wealth." For example, the freed slaves with access to banks and savings were more able to buy land, start businesses, and build and attend schools (at the time, many adult freed slaves immediately sought to become literate and numerate). 

Stein and Yanellis also offer some suggestive evidence that the failure of the Freedman's Savings Bank had long-lasting intergenerational effects on black attitudes about banking. They write: 
Historians, notably Osthaus (1976), have long noted that the collapse  of Freedman's Savings Bank—which many African Americans thought was fully backed by the federal government—and loss of savings led to a lack of trust in financial institutions by African Americans, and at least in part explains persistent gaps in utilization of financial services. The FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked Households concludes that African-American households are considerably more likely to be unbanked: 2015 survey results indicate that 18.2% of African-American households were unbanked, compared with 3.1% of white households. Almost one-third of households indicate a lack of trust in banks as the primary reason that they did not have bank accounts, with this explanation more common among African Americans. ... [W]e show that African Americans in the present day who live in counties that once had a Freedman's Savings Bank branch are more likely to list mistrust of financial institutions as a reason for being unbanked; this association is not present for Whites.

I dug back a little bit to get more information on what why the Freedman's Savings Bank collapsed. The US Office of the Comptroller of the Currency has a website with a smattering of details.  Although the OCC had been founded in 1863 to provide oversight to banks and limit risk-taking that would put deposits at risk, but the Freeman's Savings Bank was exempted from OCC oversight and instead was to be overseen by Congress. The result was a lesson in the potential for dysfunction of boards, with a takeover by the corrupt.  

For those who would like heart-breaking and angry-making details of how the Freedman's Savings Bank was mismanaged, I found especially useful the account of historian Walter Fleming, "The Freedmen's Savings Bank," published in the Yale Review, May 1906, pp. 40-76, and available via the magic of HathiTrust).

I should note that Fleming's essay has the curious trait of making occasional racist statements about black Americans, and then going on to provide evidence that the racist statements are not actually correct--without apparently noticing the contradiction. For example, Fleming states early in the paper: "Before the close of the war several experiments in the way of savings banks had been made among the negro soldiers for the purpose of preventing them from squandering their pay and bounty money, as it is the nature of the race to do." But  a few pages later, Fleming is writing about how black Americans flocked to deposit money in the bank. He writes: "The negroes, believing that their deposits would be secure in these banks, which they understood were supported by the government, eagerly availed themselves of the opportunity to lay up small sums for the future." 

But even with his prejudices hanging out in the open, Fleming provides a useful step-by-step overview of what happened with the bank. The law did not specify that the bank was allowed to open branches, but several of those involved in passing the law clearly saw it as part of the mission. They travelled around the South together with officials of the Freedman's Bureau (which was not legally connected to the bank) talking to those who had run military savings banks, many of which became the basis for branches, as well as those in prominent black communities.  Those who deposited money in the bank had often been led to believe that the federal government stood behind the bank. Bank officials wore US uniforms. Depositors were given a passbook, which had pictures of Lincoln, Grant, the US flag on the cover. The version of the passbook used in New York City had printed on the cover: "The Government of the United States has made this bank perfectly safe." In Fleming's words: 
The negroes were given to understand that the bank was absolutely safe, being under the guarantee of Congress, and having the funds invested in United States securities, which were safe as long as the government should last, and that it was a benevolent scheme solely for the benefit of the blacks. The profits, they were told, would be returned to the depositors as interest, or would be expended for negro education.
Many of the early discussions of the banks at the time were quite positive. The bank branches offered a safe haven for funds, and education on savings and accumulation of interest. As Fleming writes: 
In the branch banks and at Washington, after 1868, an efficient body of negro business men was being trained. There was a sentiment that, since the bank was for the benefit of the negroes, the latter should be its officers as much as possible, and about one-half the employees were colored. At nearly all of the branches, especially after 1870, when some of the branch banks were allowed to do a regular banking business, there was an advisory board, or board of directors, of responsible colored property holders. These men were very proud of the Freedmen's Bank and of their position in connection with it. They took a deep interest in all that pertained to the institution, advised in regard to loans and investments, and promoted in every way the habit of saving on the part of their people.
But the inner workings of the bank went badly. Some of it was incompetence, a lot of it was corruption, but the underlying issue was that far too many people viewed the money in the bank as a large pot of honey, just waiting for them to scoop up what they could. Fleming describes a range of problems. Expenses were high, including $260,000 for building a pricey new headquarters building in Washington, DC. State governments often disliked the bank because the deposits were flowing to US securities, and out of their influence. Many of the employees were deeply inexperienced,  and the financial accounts were a mess. There was one inspector who was supposed to cover all the branches. 

Although the branches of the banks were not supposed to make loans before 1870, when a prominent community leader wanted to draw out more money than was in his account, the cashiers often found it hard to say "no"--and hard to get the money back later. Then the banks were allowed to make loans under supposedly strict conditions, but many of of them. After 1870, Fleming writes:   
As soon as the authority was given to the cashiers to make loans, they were besieged by a dangerous class of borrowers, who would have received scant consideration at the ordinary bank. Often the law of 1870, requiring that loans be made only on property worth double the loan, was violated and the cashiers proceeded to make investments on their own responsibility. Some of them loaned funds on the worthless script issued by the carpet-bag State and local governments; others loaned on cotton; some even made loans on perishable crops. The Jacksonville branch put money on everything that offered, from saw-mills out in the woods to shadowy claims on property. ... Most of the incompetent officials, it seems, were blacks; most of the corrupt ones were white. There was a belief, often expressed after the failure of the bank, that when a white cashier had stolen funds and involved the accounts of a branch, a negro official would be put in his place to serve as a scapegoat. The white clergymen who were cashiers proved to be quite unable to withstand the temptations offered by the presence of the cash in the vaults. One of the trustees (Purvis) afterwards said: "The cashiers at most of the branches were a set of scoundrels and thieves—and made no bones about it—but they were all pious men, and some of them were ministers."
Bt the real coup-de-grace for the bank was a result of what should have been criminal actions, even under the laws of the time, at the top levels of management.  As Fleming points out, the original bill named the 50 people who would be trustees of the institution. In his telling, the original 50 were (white) businessmen of good character. They were to meet at least once a month. However, it only needed nine members (one of whom had to be the president or vice president) to form a quorum, and a decision could be made with support of seven out of those nine. The trustees were to receive no compensation, and were not allowed to borrow funds from the bank. The original bill said that deposits would be invested in US securities only, except for an amount to be held as an "available fund" for withdrawals and current expenses. But then the headquarters of the bank moved from New York to Washington, DC, and the board turned over. Fleming tells the story in some detail of how the "hoarded deposits of the Freedmen's Bank drew the attention of the speculators in Washington," and how the new trustees stripped the banks of assets, but here's a quick sense of the kind of thing that went on: 
The places on the board [after the move to Washington DC] were somewhat difficult to fill, and it came about that most of those who were put in were incompetent persons elected simply to fill up the lists. They had little business capacity, no business connections, no property. The incapable ones were controlled by the few capables, who, after 1869-1870, were the District of Columbia members. These latter formed a kind of a "ring" for their mutual benefit. They were involved in other schemes that made their connection with the bank of great use to them. They were at once officials of the bank, and officers of the Bureau or of the army or of the government of the District of Columbia. Howard, Balloch, Alvord, and Smith were bureau officials and were connected with Howard University, and extensive borrowers from the bank; Cooke and Huntington were officials in another bank that put its bad loans off on the Freedmen's Bank; Cooke, Eaton, Huntington, Balloch, and Richards were officials of the notorious District government; Howard, Alvord, Eaton, Stickney, Kilbourn, Latta, Clephane, Huntington, Cooke, and Richards were connected with firms that borrowed large sums from the bank, notwithstanding the fact that officials were prohibited by law from using the funds of the bank, directly or indirectly. 

The trustees were under no penalties for the proper execution of their trust. They were not required to make any deposits in the bank. The law fixed as a quorum nine out of fifty trustees, and further required the affirmative vote of at least five on money matters. The trustees provided in the by-laws for a finance committee of five, of whom three should be a quorum. Thus three could and did habitually dispose of the financial business of the bank when the law required at least five. Often two trustees, or one, or even the actuary (cashier), negotiated important loans without reference to the trustees. 
When this situation was followed by the Panic of 1873 and crash in real estate values, there wasn't much left.  Pretty much no one was prosecuted or held responsible. Fleming tells hard-to-read stories of working people who faithfully put money in the branches for years, only to find that it had all been taken. As Stein and Yannellis write: "In June 1874, the Freedman's Savings Bank was forced to suspend operations with only 50 cents to cover obligations per depositor. The failure of a bank catering to former slaves, and the loss of their savings, led to general public concern and sympathy for the fate of depositors. Following a congressional investigation, Congress created a program to reimburse up to 62% of savings, but many depositors were never compensated." 

 -- via my feedly newsfeed

Yellen tells Congress that raising the federal minimum wage to $15 would have 'minimal' impact on jobs [feedly]

Yellen tells Congress that raising the federal minimum wage to $15 would have 'minimal' impact on jobs
https://www.businessinsider.com/minimum-wage-increase-minimal-effect-on-jobs-yellen-says-2021-1?utm_source=feedly&utm_medium=webfeeds

Former Federal Reserve Chair, Janet L. Yellen, President- elect Joe Biden pick to be Treasury Secretary

Washington Post/Getty Images

  • Treasury Secretary nominee Janet Yellen said during her confirmation hearing that raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour would minimally effect jobs, if at all.
  • Republican lawmakers argue that raising the minimum wage would cost the country millions of jobs.
  • Democrats support raising the minimum wage to provide relief to workers who suffered from the pandemic, but it remains a partisan issue due to its potential effects on the economy.
  • Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories.

Treasury Secretary nominee Janet Yellen said that a $15 minimum wage increase will not have significant effects on the job market, responding to concerns from Republican lawmakers.

In her confirmation hearing on Tuesday, Yellen addressed President-elect Joe Biden's announcement to increase the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour in his stimulus plan. Although the plan was widely supported by Democrats and a majority of the public, conservatives said that raising the minimum wage would be detrimental to the economy and labor markets across the country. Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina said during the hearing that increasing the minimum wage would "shutter somewhere around 3.7 million jobs on the high end, a minimum of 1.3 million jobs in our economy."

"How do we grapple with parts of this package that really are philosophical in nature and denies the practical reality that comes from it?" Scott asked.

The $15 minimum wage increase has been argued over by lawmakers and economists, with conservative economists citing the same concerns as Scott, Insider previously reported

But Yellen said that economic literature has shown that a minimum wage increase will only have minimal effects on job loss, overall benefitting the economy.

"Researchers often look at what happens if one state raises its minimum wage and a neighboring state leaves it alone to see how businesses fare in the two different places with different treatments, and the findings are that job loss is very minimal, if anything," Yellen said.

As a part of Biden's $1.9 trillion stimulus plan unveiled last week, raising the minimum wage remains a largely disputed issue and will be a component of the plan that will likely encounter further debate.

Overall, Yellen and Democratic lawmakers support the increase as an attempt to provide relief to families who have suffered from the pandemic. 

"Right now, we have millions of American workers who are putting their lives on the line to keep their communities functioning, and sometimes even working multiple jobs and aren't earning enough to put food on the table." Yellen said. "...They're suffering in countless ways, especially during this pandemic and really struggling to get by, and raising the minimum wage would really help many of those workers."

Read the original article on Business Insider

 -- via my feedly newsfeed

Sunday, January 17, 2021

Broad structural change is needed to boost wages in a U.S. economy that is more equitable to produce strong, sustainable economic growth [feedly]

Broad structural change is needed to boost wages in a U.S. economy that is more equitable to produce strong, sustainable economic growth
https://equitablegrowth.org/broad-structural-change-is-needed-to-boost-wages-in-a-u-s-economy-that-is-more-equitable-to-produce-strong-sustainable-economic-growth/

Overview

The U.S. labor market is shackled by decades of wage stagnation for the majority of workers, persistent wage disparities by race, ethnicity, and gender, and sluggish economic growth. The steady increase of income inequality since the 1970s leaves generations of U.S. workers and their families unable to cope with the daily costs of living, let alone save for emergencies or invest in their futures—conditions that have left many families ill-prepared for the "stress test" of the coronavirus recession.

These labor market ills particularly affect women and workers of color due to decades of gender inequality and structural racism erecting barriers to opportunities. There is increasing evidence that broad structural inequality leads to a misallocation of talent and the undervaluation of different types of work, which contributes to anemic economic growth and slower productivity gains.

Boosting Wages for U.S. Workers in the New Economy

Creating an economy that works for everyone and serves those who are historically marginalized requires addressing underlying economic structures that form the foundation for U.S. labor market policies. These unequal structures entrench barriers to opportunity based on race, ethnicity, and gender, and exacerbate the power imbalances that allow employers to undercut wages and allow gains of growth to accrue to the few while stifling a robust, dynamic U.S. economy.

Existing efforts to address wage stagnation and persistent disparities tend to be limited to two narrow approaches: minimum wages and educational investments. Both are critically important, but neither are sufficient to overcome the unequal structures in the U.S. labor market. Minimum wages reach only the bottom of the wage distribution, while increasing education as a response to stagnating or falling wages at each education level amounts to asking workers to run faster on a treadmill, making little progress against the overall deterioration of worker compensation.

This book, a joint effort of the Washington Center for Equitable Growth and the Institute for Research on Labor and Employment at the University of California, Berkeley, presents a series of essays from leading economic thinkers, who explore alternative policies for boosting wages and living standards, rooted in different structures that contribute to stagnant and unequal wages. The essays cover a variety of strategies, from far-reaching topics such as the U.S. social safety net and tax policies to more targeted efforts emphasizing laws governing American Indian tribal communities and the barriers facing women and workers of color in the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields.

These essays demonstrate that efforts to improve workers' access to good jobs do not need to be limited to traditional labor policy. Labor income is still how most Americans achieve security and stability, but the determination of those earnings does not take place in a vacuum. Policies relating to macroeconomics, to social services, and to market concentration also have direct relevance to wage levels and inequality, and can be useful tools for addressing them.

We divide the essays presented in this book into three broad themes:

  • Worker power
  • Worker well-being
  • Equitable wages

Here are brief synopses of each of these themes.

Worker power

In recent decades, worker compensation has failed to keep up with economic growth and productivity. This is, in large part, a reflection of eroding worker bargaining power, which has not been strong enough to ensure that workers receive their fair share of the gains. Decades of declining unionization, poorly enforced labor market protections, and competition policy biased toward corporations have eroded worker bargaining power in the United States. A critical part of boosting workers' earnings is to reverse this erosion and ensure that workers have the bargaining power to claim their share of employer profits.

A first step to boosting wages is making sure that legal protections and statutory minimum wages already on the books are enforced. In their essay titled "Strategic enforcement and co-enforcement of U.S. labor standards are needed to protect workers through the coronavirus recession," Janice Fine, Daniel Galvin, Jenn Round, and Hana Shepherd at Rutgers University's School of Management and Labor Relations highlight novel evidence on the prevalence of wage theft. This occurs when employers violate minimum wage or overtime pay statutes, essentially stealing the wages to which workers are legally entitled.

Unfortunately, workers have little recourse against this wage theft. The enforcement of these laws requires workers to file claims of their own accord, an expensive and risky proposition that is generally out of reach for exactly the groups of workers most at risk of wage theft. Fine and her co-authors propose strategic enforcement for likely violators, such as targeting wage theft investigations for employers in industries with higher rates of wage theft, and co-enforcement with organizations that are more effective at identifying violations, such as worker centers embedded within economically marginalized communities.

But the enforcement of labor standards takes place in an increasingly fissured and global economy. Work is increasingly outsourced from large companies to small contractors, where the large employer may control the work process but can disclaim responsibility for the treatment of workers. This depresses wages and reduces workers' ability to claim the benefits of their productivity.

Economist Susan Helper at Case Western Reserve University discusses what she calls "supply chain dysfunction," or when the outsourced company has little power against the outsourcing company so they must manage supply chain inefficiencies by cutting their own costs, which exerts a further downward pressure on wages. In her essay, "Transforming U.S. supply chains to create good jobs," Helper examines how production is connected across companies and space. She proposes a new industrial policy that addresses the power imbalances of production in the United States. Small companies need to be able to share in the value created by supply chains so they can provide quality jobs, and collaboration and partnership must be promoted, so that supply chain ecosystems across manufacturing and service industries create dynamic and healthy labor markets.

Another, related factor influencing worker bargaining power is the increasing concentration of the economy into a small number of large, dominant employers that are able to exert substantial wage-setting power. In neoclassical models, the fact that many employers are competing for each worker's labor ensures that workers will be compensated in proportion to their contributions, but when employment is concentrated (known as "monopsony"), this assurance falls apart. In "Boosting wages when U.S. labor markets are not competitive," Ioana Marinescu at the University of Pennsylvania's School of Social Policy and Practice reviews the evidence relating labor market concentration to wages, and proposes antitrust enforcement and increasing worker power as two tools to offset the wage-setting power that comes from further concentration.

It is not only microeconomists who are grappling with the growing disconnect between productivity and wages. This is also an important challenge to standard macroeconomic models. In "Collective bargaining as a path to more equitable wage growth in the United," economist Benjamin Schoefer at the University of California, Berkeley reviews the macroeconomic literature on the presumptions and evidence for how the macroeconomy works, and finds various policies that promote worker bargaining power, such as sectoral wage determination, may help workers share in the fruits of their own productivity growth.

The policies in any of these essays work in tandem with fostering worker voice. Growing attention on fostering worker power is evident in initiatives such as the clean slate for worker power agenda from Harvard Law School's Labor and Worklife Program. The proposals in the clean slate agenda would boost the effectiveness of each of the topics in this series, including a pathway toward sectoral bargaining and more protections for workers on-the-job.

Worker well-being

The second group of essays considers ways to improve worker well-being, given existing bargaining relationships. In "U.S. labor markets require a new approach to higher education," economist Andria Smythe at Howard University points to universities—anchors of local economic activity and innovation—as key institutions that can contribute to worker well-being. She demonstrates that broad policies that increase access to education also support the higher education industry, which, in turn, fosters an innovative U.S. economy, creating a virtuous cycle that links individual skill-building to local economic activity to a more equitable U.S. economy across cities and regions of the nation.

Furthermore, Smythe details how accessible higher education tightens labor markets by eliminating the need for students to work while in school, which often both limits their engagement with school and takes jobs that might otherwise go to nonstudents. More accessible higher education would increase demand for workers and increase worker bargaining power.

Another policy approach is to adopt labor market policies that enable workers' compensation to go further. An essay by one of the authors of this introduction, Jesse Rothstein at the University of California, Berkeley, and Columbia University's Sandra Black, titled "Public investments in social insurance, education, and child care can overcome market failures to promote family and economic well-being," demonstrates how rising costs of key necessities, such as higher education and medical and child care, as well as increasing risk faced by workers, erodes worker well-being and thus their effective wages.

Rothstein and Black argue that the public provision of early childhood education, the alleviation of student debt, and the provision of comprehensive social insurance such as Unemployment Insurance, retirement security, health insurance, and long-term care insurance would all help build the foundation for workers to have a lower cost of living and security to invest in their economic futures. This kind of social safety net would mitigate downside risks while also fostering a more resilient economy, in which economic shocks and business cycles will be less likely to lead to permanent negative consequences for workers and families.

Another aspect of promoting wage growth for workers are tax policies that influence corporate investment and sharing the gains of productivity growth. In an essay titled "Targeting business tax incentives to realize U.S. wage growth," economist Juan Carlos Suárez Serrato of Duke University describes the different ways that corporations respond to tax cuts. Do they take them as windfalls to distribute to shareholders, with no benefit for workers, or do they use them to invest in productivity enhancements that would lead to increased worker compensation? He suggests that the design of the tax cuts influences their allocation, and proposes that tax cuts need to be linked to wage gains for workers to ensure that companies share gains with workers to improve the well-being of their employees and their families.

Equitable wages

The third group of essays considers strategies for reducing wage disparities to create more equitable wage structures across the U.S. labor market for all U.S. workers. A labor market in which workers from historically marginalized backgrounds are able to access equitable opportunities is a labor market that works for everyone.

In her essay on racial and gender inclusion in the so-called STEM fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, titled "Addressing gender and racial disparities in the U.S. labor market to boost wages and power innovation," economist Lisa Cook at Michigan State University demonstrates how marginalized groups, particularly women and Black workers, face barriers at each stage of the innovation pipeline, limiting economic growth and prosperity for all. Cook argues for investments, mentoring support, and other practices to not only open the doors to STEM education and research for underrepresented groups, but also to allow Black and women innovators to share in the gains from their work.

Sociologist Robert Manduca at the University of Michigan demonstrates that a great deal of wage inequality ranges across geographic regions. In his essay, "Place-conscious federal policies to reduce regional economic disparities in the United States," he proposes place-conscious universal policies to address geographic wage inequality. Increasing geographic inequality is exacerbated by deregulation in the transportation and communications industries and by weak antitrust enforcement, which favors increasingly powerful companies and well-connected urban areas. Manduca points out that the enforcement of national antitrust policy is especially important in those locations where there are dominant employers, such as those described in Marinescu's essay. Universal programs, such as a broader social safety net and creating jobs through direct public investment and employment, can help boost wages in communities that have been left behind, increasing economic security for workers and families located in these economically depressed regions of the nation.

This book closes with an essay examining one of the most marginalized groups in the U.S. labor market, Native Americans, who face extremely high rates of poverty and unemployment due to myriad economic, social, and political injustices inflicted over centuries of oppression. In his essay, "Sovereignty and improved economic outcomes for American Indians: Building on the gains made since 1990," Randall Akee at the University of California, Los Angeles reviews the current status of tribal communities across the United States. He considers what is needed to create structures, including improving infrastructure and education, that allow for economic growth and prosperity after centuries of marginalization, oppression, and genocide.

Policies that address structural economic issues in tribal reservations can also impact economic inequality in the surrounding regions, particularly in states in the West and Southwest, where American Indians make up larger shares of the population. Akee writes that the specific historical and cultural context of tribal sovereignty is a critical aspect of boosting wages for workers from these communities. He also calls for improving outcomes in tribal communities by  improving data collection and researching the barriers to economic development.

Worker empowerment matters for all policies

A theme that runs across all of these essays is that worker empowerment is crucial to ensuring wage equality and financial security across the U.S. labor market. The essays provide a set of roadmaps for encouraging wage growth and reducing wage inequality by the creation of underlying economic structures that allow workers, particularly those who face the greatest barriers, to advance in their careers, contribute to productivity growth, and share in the gains of a robust and resilient economy.

As the U.S. economy eventually recovers from the coronavirus recession and progresses into another period of economic growth, the policies developed by top academics in this series of essays provide a pathway for more equitable growth. Dealing with the baleful economic consequences of economic inequality now, which the current pandemic has laid bare, would result in stronger and more sustainable economic growth in the years and decades ahead.


 -- via my feedly newsfeed