Economics

In America, Cities Are Increasingly for the Rich

Welcome to the city! Pay me.

Welcome to the city! Pay me.

Sometimes you bump into two news pieces that seem as though they’re the flip side of one story. Today was one of those days for me. First, I read this Atlantic piece by Derek Thompson about how people moving to cities are white, child-free, wealthy, and in their 20s and 30s:

If the U.S. is returning to any previous period, it’s looking like another Gilded Age—one based on geography. The richest 10 percent of households were most likely to move into dense urban areas between 2000 and 2014. The poorest 10 percent fled cities the fastest. Meanwhile, the U.S. is becoming much more urban for the white childless elite, and much more suburban for everybody else. The fastest growing suburbs are the most prototypically suburban: They have the lowest density, the greatest need for cars, and the most single-family neighborhoods. Meanwhile, the fastest growing urban areas among this privileged demographic are the most dense—places like Manhattan and Brooklyn, San Francisco, Boston, Washington, D.C.

And then I ran across this Vox story by Soo Oh about how low-income Americans can no longer afford food, transportation, and, most importantly, housing:

A new Pew Charitable Trusts analysis of data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that in 2013, low-income Americans spent a median of $6,897 on housing. In 2014, that rose to $9,178 — the biggest jump in housing spending for the 19-year period of data that Pew studied.

This is why raising the minimum wage to livable levels is important, especially in urban areas: inequality has tipped over to a point where cities have become a battleground between the wealthy few and everyone else. Further, cities are losing diversity and catering to a shrinking pool of high-income spenders. This is antithetical to what a city is: cities, by definition, need lots of people. They cannot be exclusive; cities need lots of people from diverse backgrounds in order to survive and thrive. Right now, poor Americans are being forced out into the suburbs, where transportation is difficult and sparse. By paying them more, we’re helping to bring them—and their newfound spending power—back inside city limits.

What Happens in California Stays in California; Why $15 Will Boost Employment Statewide

A promotional image from Sony Picture's 2012, which imagined the total devastation California might suffer from a $15 minimum wage.

A promotional image from Sony Picture’s 2012, which imagined the total devastation California might suffer from a $15 minimum wage.

Experienced bloggers know that if you provide a block quote, few readers will click through the cited link — a rule of thumb that less scrupulous bloggers sometimes exploit to devious effect.

For example, take this recent post from Forbes economic blogger Tim Worstall: “California’s $15 Minimum Wage Deal Will Cause Unemployment–And We Have Proof Of This.” Worstall’s claim (as always!) is that a $15 minimum wage will cost many low-wage workers their jobs. Only this time, he kvells, he’s got a lefty economist to back him up:

And we actually do have proof of this: a report about what a $15 minimum wage will do to employment in Los Angeles City. This is not, by the way, a report by some from market fundamentalist like myself. This is from Michael Reich et al at Berkeley, stout supporters of a rise to $15. And yet even their report states that the net effect will be fewer jobs.

Go ahead. Click through the link above and read this Worstall quote in its full context. The “proof” mentioned in Worstall’s headline, that $15 “will cause unemployment,” is a cited study by Berkeley economist Michael Reich. That is the main thesis of Worstall’s post. There is absolutely nothing misleading or unscrupulous about my block quote.

Alas, the same can’t be said for Worstall’s out-of-context quoting of Professor Reich:

Los Angeles City: Combining costs and benefits and taking into account multiplier effects,we estimate a cumulative net reduction in GDP of $135 million by 2017 and $315 million by 2019, or 0.1 percent compared to a scenario with no city minimum wage increase.

These effects on the level of economic activity correspond to a cumulative net reduction in employment in Los Angeles City of 1,552 jobs by 2017 and 3,472 jobs by 2019, or 0.1 and 0.2 percent of all employment, respectively.

Yes, according to Reich’s model, it is true that a $15 minimum wage hike — in the City of Los Angeles — would result in less growth and fewer jobs — in the City of Los Angeles — than there might have otherwise been had the city not raised its minimum wage. But if you click through the provided link and read the Reich quote within its full context (as Worstall presumed you wouldn’t), you’d come to a very different conclusion about the State of California as a whole:

  • The costs of the proposed minimum wage law will be concentrated in Los Angeles City, but the full benefits will be realized throughout Los Angeles County, because more than half of the affected workers live, and therefore spend most of their increased earnings, outside the city.
    1. Los Angeles City: Combining costs and benefits and taking into account multiplier effects, we estimate a cumulative net reduction in GDP of $135 million by 2017 and $315 million by 2019, or 0.1 percent compared to a scenario with no city minimum wage increase.
      These effects on the level of economic activity correspond to a cumulative net reduction in employment in Los Angeles City of 1,552 jobs by 2017 and 3,472 jobs by 2019, or 0.1 and 0.2 percent of all employment, respectively. These employment changes are quite small when compared to projected job growth of 2.5 percent a year in the city.
    2. Los Angeles County: Combining costs and benefits and taking into account multiplier effects, we estimate a cumulative net increase in employment of 3,666 jobs by 2017 and 5,262 jobs by 2019 at the county level.

That’s actually a net increase of jobs throughout Los Angeles County that more than offsets the tiny projected loss within the city proper!

What Reich is describing above is a kind of economic “leakage,” in which the costs of higher wages are borne entirely within the city while the benefits are shared countywide. This is especially pronounced due to Los Angeles’ relatively high concentration of low-wage jobs. The smaller and more local the minimum wage jurisdiction, the greater the potential leakage effect might be.

But California as a whole is a virtual economic island with none of its job centers a reasonable commute from state borders; almost every minimum-wager who works in California lives in California. There would be little if any economic leakage from a statewide $15 minimum wage. Indeed, as Reich explains: “Just as minimum wage increases in Los Angeles will benefit surrounding areas, higher minimum wage levels in those areas would also boost economic activity within the city, allowing Los Angeles to realize its full share of the benefits of a minimum wage increase.”

What Worstall has done is cleverly deceptive: he selectively quotes a study on Los Angeles as “proof” that $15 “will cause unemployment” statewide. But Reich’s model actually suggests the opposite: a statewide $15 minimum wage would provide an economic boost to Los Angeles proper and to California as a whole.

Say What? Trump Criticizes Scott Walker for NOT Raising Taxes

If you would have sat me down a year ago and told me that the Republican frontrunner for president would be lambasting another Republican for not raising taxes, well, I would have questioned your political acumen. Yet here’s a headline I awoke to:

Screen Shot 2016-03-29 at 9.45.38 AM

giphy

Yes, this is actually happening. The very party that told you that raising taxes was a confirmed “job killer” is now under the sway of a man who is deriding others for not raising taxes enough. Here’s what the frontrunner had to say about Walker’s trickle-down tenure in full:

There’s a $2.2bn deficit and the schools were going begging and everything was going begging because he didn’t want to raise taxes ’cause he was going to run for president. So instead of raising taxes, he cut back on schools, he cut back on highways, he cut back on a lot of things …

So what does this mean for the future of trickle down economics? Before I get into that, let me first define what I mean by trickle down. This is how we define it here at Civic Skunk Works:

1

Trump’s criticism, therefore, signals that it is no longer popular for a Republican presidential candidate to openly run on the first aspect of a trickle down economic platform. (Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for #2 and #3.) Certainly, Trump is still intending to perpetuate obscene tax cuts for the rich, but he’s just not telling people about it. As a member of the one percent, he clearly has a vested interest in continuing favorable tax rates for the wealthy. However, he’s not dumb enough to actually be caught peddling this stuff during an era of pitchforks. After all, it’s tough to sell tax cuts for the rich when over 60 percent of Americans believe we are still in a recession. Just ask Mitt Romney and Jeb Bush. So Trump has repackaged the platform—and done so brilliantly.

Nick Hanauer and Nicholas Confessore have both recently identified this sleight of hand from Trump, noting that he is superficially distancing himself from the Republicans’ old economic program stubbornly “centered on tax cuts for the affluent.” Unlike establishment figures, Trump recognizes that if you’re going to run on trickle down in the 21st century, you need to at least veil it with economic populism and nationalism. And by not being honest with his constituents, he is demonstrating that he can read the mood of Americans better than any conservative politician today.

Trump’s Janus-faced approach could very well be the next trick used by conservatives to package trickle down nonsense. Which is a victory for liberals. At least we have progressed past the stage in American politics where a presidential candidate could honestly run on this BS. However, if liberals are to stay ahead of the opponent, we must acknowledge their change of tactics and devise new ways to unveil their tricks and lies.

NEW PODCAST EPISODE: Secure Scheduling

Scheduling practices today are frankly appalling. Employees are given schedules which make it impossible to plan for the most basic elements of daily life – whether it’s child care, a dentist appointment, or family dinner. That’s why we here at Civic Skunk Works recorded an episode devoted to secure scheduling. Seattle led the nation on the $15 minimum wage, and now we’re leading the nation when it comes to protecting a worker’s right to secure scheduling. Tune in to the newest episode of The Other Washington and tell us what you think!

Spoiler: It’s Not Higher Wages That’s Making The CEO of Carl’s Jr. Threaten Automation

carls' jr automation

I’m going to come right out and say something plainly: Andy Puzder, the CEO of CKE Restaurants, Inc (the parent company for Carl’s Jr.) is not a good dude.

He’s an elite-level sexist—”I like our ads. I like beautiful women eating burgers in bikinis. I think it’s very American”—who, despite himself earning over $17,000 per day, has railed against paying overtime to salaried fast food managers because “what they lose in overtime pay they gain in the stature and sense of accomplishment.” He’s claimed that the existence of social services actually make people more poor, completely neglecting to note that the poverty wages he pays is actually the reason the working poor are reliant on social services, and seems to have a fundamental misunderstanding of how poverty actually works.

So imagine my surprise when this Not Good Dude with a history of getting it wrong on basically everything having to do with labor and wages for the lowest earners makes a comment about automation and everyone—even sensible people!—point to it and say “See? See? We knew it!”

In a Business Insider piece last week, Puzder said he’d like to try a fully automated restaurant because it would be cheaper. But it’s clear from him other quotes that it’s not just wages and the cost of health care that are making him look at robots—the man clearly just doesn’t like the idea of human beings, and his disdain for the very people who make him his multi-millions each year is evident in quotes like this one:

[The machines are] always polite, they always upsell, they never take a vacation, they never show up late, there’s never a slip-and-fall, or an age, sex, or race discrimination case.

Plus, he clearly thinks kiosks are simply more appealing to young people (he explains that “Millennials like not seeing people”) which means it’s less about the cost of the work and more about his own interest in trying something different and without humans. But that’s not stopping him from tying it back to the cost of labor to further is own long-standing anti-minimum wage agenda.

The threat of automation is hardly new; since the days of the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory, conservatives have been threatening to fire all of their employees and replace them with robots if they’re forced to pay them fair wages. Most recently, though, you may have seen these threats in the form of a ridiculous meme about how McDonald’s has replaced its workers with kiosks all because of the call for higher wages. Sure, it’s been swiftly disproven—the kiosks are more expensive than the labor, anyway, and can’t yet handle manning the drive-thru, which is responsible for 70% of McD’s sales—but that isn’t stopping minimum wage opponents from making scary claw-hands, baring their teeth, and telling spooky stories about job loss.

But of course, these scary tales (let’s be honest—these threats) are usually told by people who are not in any danger of losing anything. Dunkin Donuts CEO Nigel Travis, who famously doubled his income to $10M per year (because stock options, duh), has slammed New York’s proposed $15 minimum wage, achieving peak levels of lack of self-awareness and empathy.

Though the federal minimum wage hasn’t been increased since 2009, pay for guys like Travis and Puzder sure has. Between 2009 and 2014, the ration of CEO-to-employee pay in the United States grew from 196:1 to 303:1.

Meanwhile, workers’ wages have remained stagnate. So it’s hard to see how it’s the wages, rather than, oh, I don’t know, greed maybe? That’s to blame.

It could also be that Puzder and his crew at Carl’s Jr. made some bad bets. As most fast food restaurants were doubling down on cheaper deals—because they know that poor people need to eat, too!—Carl’s Jr. and Hardee’s were trying to make burgers bigger. In a 2009 interview with AdAge, Puzder boasted about bucking trends:

When everybody goes one way, we go the other. Two or three years ago, investors were saying you’ve got to sell salads and applesauce. We said, “To hell with that, we’re going to sell the Monster Thickburger,” and our sales went very, very well. This year everybody is doing 99-cent double cheeseburgers, and quite honestly, go to the grocery store and buy the meat and the buns and the condiments and you don’t pay rent, utilities, labor. You can’t make a decent burger for 99 cents. People are looking to sell this garbage and trying to out-garbage each other.

Now, just a few years later—while his pay has increased and the pay of his workers, largely, has not—Carl’s Jr. made industry headlines when it rolled out an ultra-cheap deal that includes not one but two sandwiches for $4. Carl’s Jr.’s chief marketing officer, Brad Hadley, called the current climate “a price war.”

Gosh, who could have predicted that when workers have less money, they want to spend less money to eat? That sure surprises me.

It’s easy (and convenient for minimum wage opponents) to paint automation as the direct result of higher labor costs—assuming you’re viewing those two elements in a total vacuum. But in drawing a straight line from “high wages” to “all jobs replaced by robots,” you’re leaving out the numerous other elements like skyrocketing CEO pay, tightened purse strings among consumers, not to mention changing consumer tastes and innovations in technology. —

And while it’s true that automation is definitely on the horizon—we’ve been automating jobs for centuries and it’s actually been ok because they’re usually just replaced with different jobs. Instead of doing the thing a robot does, employers have to hire the guy who services the robot, or who does all of the jobs a robot can’t do (seriously, a lot of basic tasks for people are vexing for robots). Plus, employers need humans to be employed somewhere because of course, robots don’t eat burgers.

If Carl’s Jr. really wants to improve their bottom line, you’d think Puzder would invest more in his workers to ensure there’s always a steady stream of demand for his products. But, of course, that’s assuming he’s actually a good dude who likes people and wants them to do well which, as we’ve established, he is not.

Politician Loves The Free Market Until It Affects His Constituents

Like many libertarians before him, Rand Paul is obsessed with the concept of liberty. When Paul Constant and I went to hear him speak at Town Hall last year, we heard the then-presidential candidate refer to his supporters multiple times as “lovers of liberty.” (Note: if he was being honest, he’d admit that they were actually lovers of negative liberty which is concerned with freedom from interference, but that’s not quite as catchy or alliterative).

Therefore, it comes as no surprise that a darling of non-interference like Rand Paul also worships The Free Market. A man who believes that there is no such thing as a free lunch unironically believes in an economic theory which allows one to just lie back and let an invisible hand sort out everything. From solving health care to setting interest rates, Paul has ceaselessly called upon the market to heal America’s societal ills. It is not only a great remedy to all of societies problems, it is the only one. All hail.

A perfect example of Paul’s lazy reliance on the market came when Greta Van Susteren asked him “What happens if Republicans are successful in repealing Obamacare?” Paul smugly replied, “We could try freedom for a while.” Brilliant. I guess promulgating a detailed position like that is all it takes to be identified as a “rising star” in the modern Republican Party. Why didn’t he do well in the presidential primary again?

Snark aside, you’d expect that a disciple of the free market would be utterly devoted to its forces. Predictably, however, that is not the case for Dr. Rand. Check out his recent rant about Kentucky’s dying coal industry.

Where to begin? Let’s start with the fact that he is lying. Blatantly. The coal industry is not in decline because of Obama and Clinton’s malicious quest to “kill more coal jobs” but because coal is “getting hammered by competition from natural gas made cheap by fracking, as well as the exploding solar and wind industries.

“What’s killing the coal industry is not federal regulation — it’s market forces,” claims energy analyst Richard Martin.

Oh, the irony. Very quickly, you can see the glaring problem with Paul’s position: he’s all for the market until its outcomes don’t please him — or more specifically, its effects hurt his chances of winning reelection.

His pick-and-choose attitude towards the glories of the free market show that he is nothing more than a crony ideologue who likes to wear jeans at Koch retreats. And his sins against economic freedom extend beyond the energy sector. In 2013 he voted against an amendment that would end subsidized crop “insurance” for tobacco farmers. This appeared to be a peculiar move by Paul, considering he is on record saying that in order to “unleash American agriculture” we need to “tear down the Washington machine.” His anti-free market vote becomes clearer when you realize that Senator Paul’s home state of Kentucky is the second largest producer of tobacco in the US.

Frankly, the market is an easy political prescription for conservatives to offer. It removes complexity from difficult issues and replaces it with a veneer of simplicity and credibility. But it’s a faulty prescription, a flawed attempt at solving complications. That’s why you get Rand Paul promising ridiculous and unworkable ideas—like a return to coal— rather than genuine and honest solutions. He’s promoting economic ignorance, which only makes ailing communities even sicker.

Overtime Rule Goes to OMB, 13.5 Million Americans Could Soon See Higher Wages

Overtime

The Economic Policy Institute’s findings indicate that millions of families would benefit from these increased rules.

President Obama’s proposal to restore overtime benefits to millions of hardworking Americans cleared another hurdle last night when after months of considering public comments, the Department of Labor (DOL) transmitted the final rule to the Office of Management and Budget.

We don’t know exactly what’s in the final rule, but there’s been no indication from the administration that the details have substantially changed. If approved as proposed, the income threshold above which salaried employees are exempt from time-and-a-half pay for every hour worked over 40 hours a week would more than double, from $23,660 a year to $50,440.

According to an analysis from the Economic Policy Institute, 13.5 million Americans would directly benefit from the new rule.

Overtime pay is like a minimum wage for the middle class. And just like the minimum wage, the overtime threshold has been allowed to erode away for decades: Back in 1975, 65 percent of salaried workers qualified for overtime; today only 11 percent do.

But unlike the minimum wage, the Obama administration has the power to raise the overtime threshold without congressional approval through the DOL’s rule-making authority. It’s a long and drawn out process, but it looks like it’s on track to be completed by the end of summer.

No doubt a Republican president would reverse this rule — something middle class voters might be thinking about when they cast their ballots in the fall.

$15 Minimum Wage Would Boost Employment in New York State, Study Concludes

Minimum wage model

A new study from UC Berkeley’s Institute for Research on Labor and Employment concludes that raising the minimum wage in New York City to $15 by 2018 and in the rest of the state by 2021, would actually result in a net increase of jobs:

Our estimate projects a cumulative net gain in employment of 3,200 jobs by mid-2021, which corresponds to 0.04 percent of projected 2021 employment.

Sure, 3,200 jobs is a tiny gain within the context of a giant economy like New York’s, but the point is it’s not the catastrophic loss that the naysayers warn of. It’s not any loss at all. In fact, it’s the opposite.

But more important is the “23.4 percent average wage increase for 3.16 million workers” in New York State. As The Donald would say, that’s yuuuge!

How is this possible? “How can such a major improvement in living standards occur without adverse employment effects?” Simple, the researchers conclude:

While a higher minimum wage induces some automation, as well as increased worker productivity and higher prices, it simultaneously increases worker purchasing power. In the end, the costs of the minimum wage will be borne by turnover reductions, productivity increases and modest price increases.

As we’ve been saying all along: When workers have more money, businesses have more customers and hire more workers. Pretty obvious, right?