Archive for the ‘Economy’ Category

Objective Truths Regarding Minimum Wage

Lenzini Photo portrait

Guest post by Matthew Lenzini, chairman of the Colonial Region Republicans.

I can’t recall a time when both of my parents didn’t work. My father for most of my childhood worked nights and weekends managing a Diner in South Philadelphia. My mother waited tables as a night shift waitress at the Philadelphia Airport Marriott. My first job in High School paid $4.75 an hour and truth be told, given my skill set at the time, I was probably overpaid. My parents instilled a sense of hard work and frugality in me that exists to this day. We never had much money and though I have been able to find some success in my life, I am a firm believer in adding value to society and living below my means. I believe that personal growth and success are core American Values. I believe that we live in the land of opportunity and that with hard work and a little luck, everyone has the ability to better their circumstances. This by no means, guarantees success but unlike many countries in the world, we all have a shot at the American Dream.

There has been a tremendous amount of discourse on the national stage regarding the federal minimum wage. Economically speaking, raising the minimum wage is actually bad for growth and harms those that we are most seeking to help, entry level workers and the working poor. I believe that much of what has been cast in the media is misleading. It is either intentionally misleading for political reasons or misguided due to misinformation and a lack of understanding. Unfortunately, feel good economic policies, catch the attention of the press and politicians oft present what appear to be efforts geared at helping the public but, are in fact bad policies based on popular demand, rather than sound judgement. I’d like to take a more objective and analytical look at unwinding four popular myths surrounding minimum wage in America that when analyzed, are in fact wrong and misleading:

  1. Minimum wage has not kept up with inflationary pressures
  2. Increases to minimum wage will improve the economy and decrease unemployment
  3. Minimum wage earners are on average 35 years old
  4. Raising the minimum wage helps working families

Myth 1: Minimum Wage has not kept up with Inflationary Pressures

The first minimum wage was enacted in the United States in 1938. At the time, the rate was set to $0.25 cents an hour.  There is a popular myth that the minimum wage rate has not kept up with inflation.

Objective Truth 1: Minimum Wage has kept up with inflation and the Consumer Price Index

If the 1938 wage were adjusted for annual inflation through 2015, the minimum wage rate would currently be around $4.90 give or take a few pennies. The federal government has reset minimum wage a number of times; typically during or after periods of rapid inflation. The table below highlights a few of the federal adjustments to minimum wage and the inflation adjusted wage today if there were no additional adjustments to the wage by the federal government.

Lenzini 1

                                  Lenzini 2 

                                   Lenzini 3

I’d like to note a few things regarding the table above. Inflation adjusted, the minimum wage has fluctuated some but typically stays within one or two standard deviations of the average, which is approximately $8.20. We have had an inflation adjusted range high of $10.07 in 1981 and a low of $4.97 in 1939. All in all, the current rate of $7.25 is well within one standard deviation, which is about +/- $1.25 of the average (this is well within tolerance limits for statistical measurements).

Now, there is an argument that rather than using inflation, one should use the Consumer Price Index. After all, the cost of goods and services changes over time. CPI uses a baseline year (1984) as an index. As such, 1984 has an index of 100 and all other years are adjusted using a percentage of the index. For instance, 1939 has an index of 13.9. If we take the 1981 wage of $3.35 and multiply it by 13.9 percent, we have a 1939 equivalent rate of $0.47. If we were to use similar dates to our inflation based analysis, we would get the following CPI adjusted rates. Again, we find that the federal rates are within a reasonable level of tolerance of the average. The greatest deviation occurring in 1939, one of the first years that a minimum wage ever existed which also happens to occur in the midst of the great depression.

Lenzini 4

Myth 2: Increases to minimum wage will improve the economy and decrease unemployment

The U.S. labor participation rate is currently sitting below 63 percent. The last time the rate was this low, was in the late 1970s when we had according to President Carter, a crisis of confidence. The reason I use the labor participation rate instead of the more popular unemployment rate is that the unemployment rate only represents people that are actively seeking work. Anyone that has given up the hope of finding work, does not show up in the U.S. unemployment figures. The “real” rate of unemployment is closer to 10 or 11 percent. The unemployment rate has improved for the wrong reason; people have stopped looking for jobs. A number of legislators have pushed for an increase in the minimum wage. Their thought process is that a higher minimum wage will improve the economy and get people back to work. Unfortunately, that is very far from the economic reality.

Objective Truth 2: Increasing the Minimum Wage will actually increase unemployment rates

The labor market reacts similarly to any other market. It is primarily driven by the laws of supply and demand. Without a minimum wage (which is effectively an artificial floor on the price of labor), the market would settle at a rate where the demand for labor and the supply for labor meet. In other words, without an artificial floor, we would reach the maximum economic output and we would have the lowest level of unemployment (excluding externalities such as a disincentive to work because one could “make” more on government subsidies aka welfare).

Artificial floors create economic loss. Essentially, supply will be higher than demand and the gap, essentially becomes unemployment. The higher the wage, the more people will be willing to work so there is more supply. However, given the higher wage, a business with limited resources will be able to hire fewer people. The graphic below highlights the conceptual increase in unemployment when the artificial floor is raised. This is not unique to labor, it is an economic reality for all goods and services. The unemployment rate is the gap that exists between the supply of labor and the demand for labor.

Lenzini 5

Howard Schultz the CEO of Starbucks was asked about the $15 minimum wage in Seattle. He said that Starbucks would adapt. They can leverage technology and automation allowing them to hire fewer people but smaller companies don’t have that option – “I wouldn’t want to see the unintended consequences of job loss as a result of going that high. That would not be the case at Starbucks, but I suspect that most companies, especially small- and mid-sized companies, would not be able to afford it.” The net effect will be one of a few scenarios: a) the company uses more technology to maintain its margins b) the company raises prices c) the company goes out of business. None of these bode well for the employees or the consumer.

Myth 3: Minimum wage earners are on average are 35 years old

There is a myth that the average age of a minimum wage earner is 35 years old. I believe that this is a purposely misleading statistic, put forth by certain politicians seeking populist support for re-election.

Objective Truth 3: The distribution of minimum wage earners is skewed

If you have four 17 year olds and two 68 year old retirees (who are most likely working to have a second income above any retirement benefits), you have an average of about 35. When we look at the underlying data, we do in fact see that the distribution is skewed towards young people who are working in their first job and older Americans who may be working to supplement their income. So let’s also be clear that only about 4.3% of all working Americans earn the minimum wage. Most other workers earn more than the current rate. That number is down significantly from the 1980 high, where 15% of working Americans earned the minimum wage. 50% of minimum wage earners are under the age of 24 and 25% of minimum wage earners are teenagers.

Lenzini 6 Lenzini 7

The vast majority 64% are part time employees who mostly occupy low skill jobs in the food services or retail spaces. Only about 20% of those that receive minimum wage are married and only 13% of minimum wage earners are married and over the age of 25. The vast majority, nearly 80% do not have a college education and most do not have a high school diploma. So the argument that too many Americans are trying to support their families on minimum wage is just not true. The percent of family head of household minimum wage earners is actually the lowest it has been since the metrics have been tracked, and the path to higher wages is and always should be improving your skill set.

Myth 4: Raising the minimum wage helps working families

A common element that is often missed in the debate surrounding minimum wage is the role of the earned income tax credits. Many supporters of raising the minimum wage will state that the intent is to help young working heads of household, support their family.

Objective Truth 4: Raising the minimum wage hurts those we intend to help

Unfortunately, by raising the minimum wage, we do the exact opposite, as mentioned above, when we raise the wage uniformly, we actually create higher levels of unemployment. A better targeted approach to helping families, is to continue to leverage the earned income tax credit. The earned income tax credit provides a financial benefit to those that are heads of their household and those with children. In essence, it is a much better way to pinpoint those working adults while still allowing businesses to employ as many people as possible (for instance high school students in their first job who have minimal skills and few responsibilities). The graphic below, is from the United States Treasury Department.

In 2014, a married minimum wage earner with two children, receives an additional $5,460 dollars of tax credits.   Assuming that the average work year consists of 2080 hours at 40 hours a week, this would equate to an additional $2.63 an hour above the minimum wage. If we were to add the two, the hourly wage would be $9.88 an hour. This figure does not include any other state benefits, housing assistance, education assistance or other government program support.

Lenzini 9

Summary: I have only touched on a few of the more common misconceptions that surround the minimum wage debate in America. The truth of the matter is, that many politicians will push for an increased minimum wage rate either because they know it will get votes or because they are ill-informed. The minimum wage has been raised in the past. It will be raised again. We cannot however afford to do so arbitrarily and without thoughtful and informed decision making. Plenty of ideas feel good but they have to make sense in the longer run. We need to do away with feel good economics and political ideologies that are crafted on ideals that are not grounded in economic truths. Policies that pander to populist ideas that will only hurt those that we intend to help.

Matthew can be reached at Lenzinml@yahoo.com

Read Full Post »

Bernice Whaley, director of the Delaware Economic Development Office (DEDO), recently provided a glowing assessment of Delaware’s economy in a News Journal article. Ms. Whaley cites a current unemployment rate of 4.7% and growth over the last two years of 4% in Delaware jobs and 6.5% in personal income. And she notes recent increases in high technology employment in the state.

It might be helpful to put these statistics in perspective relevant to the average Delaware household.

The Delaware unemployment rate has thankfully fallen from a high of 8.7% in 2009 to 4.7% today. Two things are worth noting. First, in the year prior to the recession the state’s unemployment rate was 3.4%. Second, according to the most recent Census data, the percent of Delaware residents age 16 to 64 working dropped from 80.7% in 2009 to 76.7% in 2013. In other words, one major reason for a lower Delaware unemployment rate is that a large number of working age individuals have simply stopped looking for employment.

Total jobs in Delaware have expanded by almost 4% (2% per year) over the past two years. While it took more time to get there, this is similar to the job growth rate following the last recession in Delaware. Many of the jobs being added, however, are lower paying positions in such industries as temporary services and restaurants. The result from the Census is that between 2009 and 2013 the inflation adjusted median earnings of working Delaware residents with a high school degree has dropped 7% while that of residents with a bachelor’s degree or more has dropped almost 3%.

The earnings of Delaware workers are on average moving backwards.

Delaware personal income has grown at least 6.5% over the past two years. This compares to 13.8% growth following the last recession. More disturbing, the slowest growing component of Delaware personal income during the past two years has been earnings by residents while the fastest growing component has been transfer payments (e.g., Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, food stamps, TANF).

Finally, growth in high technology industries in Delaware is positive, but it provides few opportunities for the almost two-thirds of working age Delaware residents who have less than an associate’s degree. Tests of Delaware public school students from 4th grade through high school evidence that the majority of students are not proficient in reading or math.

Obviously it is the job of DEDO to be positive and sell Delaware. And in all fairness DEDO has little control over the poor performing public schools, the green energy policies that have driven Delaware electric rates 35% above the nation, and the lack of a right-to-work law.

Nevertheless, a victory lap seems premature.

Read Full Post »

United States one dollar bills are curled and inspected.

Today’s post is on income inequality. Since we’re heating up in election season, candidates are pushing forth their economic plans for America.

The dangerous separation of the American upper middle class

click here for the full article

“The American upper middle class is separating, slowly but surely, from the rest of society. This separation is most obvious in terms of income—where the top fifth have been prospering while the majority lags behind. But the separation is not just economic. Gaps are growing on a whole range of dimensions, including family structure, education, lifestyle, and geography. Indeed, these dimensions of advantage appear to be clustering more tightly together, each thereby amplifying the effect of the other.

For many, the most attractive class dividing line is the one between those at the very, very top and everybody else.  It is true that the top 1 percent is pulling away very dramatically from the bottom 99 percent. But the top 1 percent is by definition a small group. It is not plausible to claim that the individual or family in the 95th or 99th percentile are in any way part of mainstream America, even if many of them think so: over a third of the demonstrators on the May Day ‘Occupy’ march in 2011 had annual earnings of more than $100,000.

For others, the most important division is at the other end of the spectrum: the poverty line. The poor have not fallen behind the middle class in recent decades. But they have not caught up either. There is a case to be made that whatever is happening towards the top of the distribution, the gap we should care most about is between families struggling to put food on the table and those with adequate, middling incomes.”

Senator Bernie Sanders has made addressing income inequality one of the principle components of his campaign, and even other populist candidates like Donald Trump have called for raising taxes on the rich, or at least certain groups of wealthy Americans. Most voters, particularly Republican voters, oppose raising taxes on the rich, but here’s the question:

Is income inequality a problem in America?

The answer is, it could be: One of the ways America has been able to become the most powerful nation on earth in such a short period of time is because we are one of the few societies where economic mobility is possible. Someone born poor, even without tremendous musical, athletic, dancing, or tech genius talent can still earn a solid living and move from the bottom 10% to the top 1%. Herman Cain and Ben Carson are two such examples. Abraham Lincoln went from being born in a one-room cabin to President of the United States. That gives people hope that they too can achieve the “American Dream”, however it is defined for them. For some, earning a salary of $250,000 or more per year is unrealistic. But they may find happiness moving from $20,000 a year to $60,000 a year.

However, the American Dream only works if people believe economic mobility is feasible for them. And right now, many Americans do not believe it’s possible, or at least is becoming more difficult. Some Conservatives and “1%ers” will just say those people don’t work hard enough, or make poor decisions which cause them to stumble. Those may be true for some people, but not for all.

And that’s not the point of this discussion. It’s ‘do you believe you can move up the economic ladder’? And if people are answering no, then the question is, ‘why?’ and if people think the system is rigged against them, populist candidates like Sanders and Trump will absolutely win because the “hard work+perseverance=success” mantra will ring hollow to people who believe we are slowly moving away from an economically mobile society to one based primarily on who your parents are or who believe some people are ‘privileged’. That’s part of the reason entrepreneurship activity is down overall. Onerous government does hamper economic activity, but if people do not believe they can succeed, most will not even try.

This is something both major political parties will have to come to terms with. Certainly no productive society can function under Communism, where everyone (except the Party leaders) is equally poor and miserable. But too much inequality fuels populist and radical candidates who promise to fix the problem.

So take a look at the above graphic and try to answer for yourself, “is income inequality a problem in America”?

Read Full Post »

That’s the premise behind an article on CBS news by Aimee Picchi which is based on a book co-written by Sociologist Professor Kathryn Edin of Johns Hopkins University. A sample:

“By one dismal measure, America is joining the likes of Third World countries.

The number of U.S. residents who are struggling to survive on just $2 a day has more than doubled since 1996, placing 1.5 million households and 3 million children in this desperate economic situation. That’s according to “$2.00 a Day: Living on Almost Nothing in America,” a book from publisher Houghton Mifflin Harcourt that will be released on Sept. 1.

The measure of poverty isn’t arbitrary — it’s the threshold the World Bank uses to measure global poverty in the developed world. While it may be the norm to see families in developing countries such as Bangladesh and Ethiopia struggle to survive on such meager income, the growing ranks of America’s ultrapoor may be shocking, given that the U.S. is considered one of the most developed capitalist countries in the world.

“Most of us would say we would have trouble understanding how families in the county as rich as ours could live on so little,” said author Kathryn Edin, who spoke on a conference call to discuss the book, which she wrote with Luke Shaefer. Edin is the Bloomberg Distinguished Professor of Sociology at Johns Hopkins University. “These families, contrary to what many would expect, are workers, and their slide into poverty is a failure of the labor market and our safety net, as well as their own personal circumstances.”

Despite questionable statistics from the U.S. Department of Labor, most Americans do not believe the recovering economy has really boosted their well-being. True, there are more jobs now than in 2009 at the bottom of the recession. However, many of these jobs, as CRI has said here and here and, oh what the heck, just read here, are not the kinds of blue-collar jobs which were lost during the Great Recession. By this we mean jobs which paid at the absolute minimum, $35,000 and helped families earn at least a basic standard of living, even on just one income. The jobs we are seeing growth in are jobs in sectors like retail, restaurant, and tourism, which are generally minimum wage jobs.

The exact numbers receive EBT benefits (also known as ‘food stamps’), TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families), Affordable Housing, student loans, etc., varies from month to month. But one thing that has absolutely happened is, more and more Americans are becoming poor, increasing numbers of working and middle class Americans are finding themselves sliding downward and not up, and the future looks bleak, because our deficit is so large there is no real way to ever pay most of it off. That’s why in poll after poll, the majority of Americans believe the so-called “Millennial Generation” will be the first generation to be worse off than their parents.

It should surprise no one that presidential candidates like Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders are stealing the show. The rhetoric each espouses, while different in ideology, basically says the same thing: the ruling class (Berni’s ‘billionaire class’ and Donald’s ‘political class’) has changed America from a free-market oriented society to one that is a combination of socialism and crony capitalism, the exact same system countries such as Canada, Sweden, Germany, France, the UK, Belgium, the Netherlands, Italy, Spain, and Portugal have. The days when a person could confidently and reasonably believe s/he could work hard, save money, invest wisely, and earn a higher standard of living are fading. Yes, there are indeed people who do overcome the odds and become millionaires or billionaires, even from humble beginnings. But for those who lack some superstar athletic, musical, or coding talent, those opportunities seem more and more distant as the majority of Americans work harder and harder for less value per hour.

The question of who to blame for this economic malaise floats around. People who identify as conservatives or libertarians generally put the blame on the government, believing government policies aimed at keeping people dependent on government, discouraging work opportunities for the poor (this post from ZeroHedge explains it, and mind their language), and federal reserve dollars being pumped into the system causing inflation are the main source. Throw in Statist politicians from both parties taxing and spending and pushing a tax code which actually harms people trying to acquire wealth through work rather than the already-rich and people whose income comes from the stock market, and there’s your answer.

People who identify as liberal or socialist will put the blame on Big Business. According to the Brookings Institute, the average age of a business in America is sixteen years- the highest it’s ever been. Despite claims of “new entrepreneurial activity” by our elected officials, fewer people are attempting startups. The biggest reason, besides bureaucratic red tape and high taxes? Business cronyism, where large firms use the government to rig policies in their favor and against their competitors, especially small competitors. As access to capital for small business owners, especially young people and people of color, declines, you will see fewer people taking risks to create jobs. That leaves us more dependent on corporatism for our daily bread.

In our view, both the left and the right make fair points, which then brings us to the next step: the solution. In our view, only a truly fair marketplace, where a person reasonably believes he or she can compete either for a job or in business, will help people climb the economic ladder. The reason Trump and Sanders are hitting cords with a segment of the population is because (and the political pundits miss this, for the most part) the majority of Americans, whose household income is less than $55,000 a year, are becoming frustrated and resentful that opportunities are being taken away and incomes are declining due to government policies which discourage work and entrepreneurship, and corporate entities who raid the treasury for their own gain, depriving would-be entrepreneurs and workers of the funds they need to either start a business, take care of their families, or save for retirement. The economic mobility ladder is slowly but surely being lifted up by those who already “made it” and are using the government to keep everyone else away, or dependent on the government administrators for their basic needs.

We hope the public at large begins putting the pieces together and starts to vote for candidates who will oppose the so-called Ruling Class and their wealthy financiers, and instead turns to candidates with quality solutions that will give people opportunity and real hope. That is change we could believe in.

CRI will continue to conduct research on policies which we believe best help all Delawareans achieve what they can and believe they can move up the economic mobility ladder. If you agree that Delaware needs a real change in how our government does business, then visit caesarrodney.org and learn about what you can do today to help.

Read Full Post »

photo credit to learnaboutancientrome.weebly.com.

Below is a guest post from Lawrence Reed, president of the Foundation for Economic Education. The Foundation for Economic Education, founded in 1946, is the leader in education, publishing, and the production of ideas related to the economic, ethical and legal principles of a free society. Republished with permission.

More than 2,000 years before America’s bailouts and entitlement programs, the ancient Romans experimented with similar schemes. The Roman government rescued failing institutions, canceled personal debts, and spent huge sums on welfare programs. The result wasn’t pretty.

Roman politicians picked winners and losers, generally favoring the politically well connected — a practice that’s central to the welfare state of modern times, too. As numerous writers have noted, these expensive rob-Peter-to-pay-Paul efforts were major factors in bankrupting Roman society. They inevitably led to even more destructive interventions. Rome wasn’t built in a day, as the old saying goes — and it took a while to tear it down as well. Eventually, when the republic faded into an imperial autocracy, the emperors attempted to control the entire economy.

Debt forgiveness in ancient Rome was a contentious issue that was enacted multiple times. One of the earliest Roman populist reformers, the tribune Licinius Stolo, passed a bill that was essentially a moratorium on debt around 367 BC, a time of economic uncertainty. The legislation enabled debtors to subtract the interest paid from the principal owed if the remainder was paid off within a three-year window. By 352 BC, the financial situation in Rome was still bleak, and the state treasury paid many defaulted private debts owed to the unfortunate lenders. It was assumed that the debtors would eventually repay the state, but if you think they did, then you probably think Greece is a good credit risk today.

In 357 BC, the maximum permissible interest rate on loans was roughly 8 percent. Ten years later, this was considered insufficient, so Roman administrators lowered the cap to 4 percent. By 342, the successive reductions apparently failed to mollify the debtors or satisfactorily ease economic tensions, so interest on loans was abolished altogether. To no one’s surprise, creditors began to refuse to loan money. The law banning interest became completely ignored in time.

By 133 BC, the up-and-coming politician Tiberius Gracchus decided that Licinius’s measures were not enough. Tiberius passed a bill granting free tracts of state-owned farmland to the poor. Additionally, the government funded the erection of their new homes and the purchase of their faming tools. It’s been estimated that 75,000 families received free land because of this legislation. This was a government program that provided complimentary land, housing, and even a small business, all likely charged to the taxpayers or plundered from newly conquered nations. However, as soon as it was permissible, many settlers thanklessly sold their farms and returned to the city. Tiberius didn’t live to see these beneficiaries reject Roman generosity, because a group of senators murdered him in 133 BC, but his younger brother Gaius Gracchus took up his populist mantle and furthered his reforms.

Tiberius, incidentally, also passed Rome’s first subsidized food program, which provided discounted grain to many citizens. Initially, Romans dedicated to the ideal of self-reliance were shocked at the concept of mandated welfare, but before long, tens of thousands were receiving subsidized food, and not just the needy. Any Roman citizen who stood in the grain lines was entitled to assistance. One rich consul named Piso, who opposed the grain dole, was spotted waiting for the discounted food. He stated that if his wealth was going to be redistributed, then he intended on getting his share of grain.

By the third century AD, the food program had been amended multiple times. Discounted grain was replaced with entirely free grain, and at its peak, a third of Rome took advantage of the program. It became a hereditary privilege, passed down from parent to child. Other foodstuffs, including olive oil, pork, and salt, were regularly incorporated into the dole. The program ballooned until it was the second-largest expenditure in the imperial budget, behind the military.It failed to serve as a temporary safety net; like many government programs, it became perpetual assistance for a permanent constituency who felt entitled to its benefits.

In 88 BC, Rome was reeling from the Social War, a debilitating conflict with its former allies in the Italian peninsula. One victorious commander was a man named Sulla, who that year became consul (the top political position in the days of the republic) and later ruled as a dictator. To ease the economic catastrophe, Sulla canceled portions of citizens’ private debt, perhaps up to 10 percent,leaving lenders in a difficult position. He also revived and enforced a maximum interest rate on loans, likely similar to the law of 357 BC. The crisis continually worsened, and to address the situation in 86 BC, a measure was passed that reduced private debts by another 75 percent under the consulships of Cinna and Marius.

Less than two decades after Sulla, Catiline, the infamous populist radical and foe of Cicero, campaigned for the consulship on a platform of total debt forgiveness. Somehow, he was defeated, likely with bankers and Romans who actually repaid their debts opposing his candidacy. His life ended shortly thereafter in a failed coup attempt.

In 60 BC, the rising patrician Julius Caesar was elected consul, and he continued the policies of many of his populist predecessors with a few innovations of his own. Once again, Rome was in the midst of a crisis. In this period, private contractors called tax farmers collected taxes owed to the state. These tax collectors would bid on tax-farming contracts and were permitted to keep any surplus over the contract price as payment. In 59 BC, the tax-farmer industry was on the brink of collapse. Caesar forgave as much as one-third of their debt to the state. The bailout of the tax-farming market must have greatly affected Roman budgets and perhaps even taxpayers, but the catalyst for the relief measure was that Caesar and his crony Crassus had heavily invested in the struggling sector.

In 33 AD, half a century after the collapse of the republic, Emperor Tiberius faced a panic in the banking industry. He responded by providing a massive bailout of interest-free loans to bankers in an attempt to stabilize the market. Over 80 years later, Emperor Hadrian unilaterally forgave 225 million denarii in back taxes for many Romans, fostering resentment among others who had painstakingly paid their tax burdens in full.

Emperor Trajan conquered Dacia (modern Romania) early in the second century AD, flooding state coffers with booty. With this treasure trove, he funded a social program, the alimenta, which competed with private banking institutions by providing low-interest loans to landowners while the interest benefited underprivileged children. Trajan’s successors continued this programuntil the devaluation of the denarius, the Roman currency, rendered the alimenta defunct.

By 301 AD, while Emperor Diocletian was restructuring the government, the military, and the economy, he issued the famous Edict of Maximum Prices. Rome had become a totalitarian state that blamed many of its economic woes on supposed greedy profiteers. The edict defined the maximum prices and wages for goods and services. Failure to obey was punishable by death. Again, to no one’s surprise, many vendors refused to sell their goods at the set prices, and within a few years, Romans were ignoring the edict.

Enormous entitlement programs also became the norm in old Rome. At its height, the largest state expenditure was an army of 300,000–600,000 legionaries. The soldiers realized their role and necessity in Roman politics, and consequently their demands increased. They required exorbitant retirement packages in the form of free tracts of farmland or large bonuses of gold equal to more than a decade’s worth of their salary. They also expected enormous and periodic bonuses in order to prevent uprisings.

The Roman experience teaches important lessons. As the 20th-century economist Howard Kershner put it, “When a self-governing people confer upon their government the power to take from some and give to others, the process will not stop until the last bone of the last taxpayer is picked bare.” Putting one’s livelihood in the hands of vote-buying politicians compromises not just one’s personal independence, but the financial integrity of society as well. The welfare state, once begun, is difficult to reverse and never ends well.

Rome fell to invaders in 476 AD, but who the real barbarians were is an open question. The Roman people who supported the welfare state and the politicians who administered it so weakened society that the Western Roman Empire fell like a ripe plum that year. Maybe the real barbarians were those Romans who had effectively committed a slow-motion financial suicide.

read the original post at the FEE website here

Read Full Post »

Earlier today, the Department of Labor published a new rule requiring overtime pay for workers who make up to $50,400 a year are eligible for overtime pay if they exceed 40 hours a week.

The idea, championed by President Obama, is this: If more employees are eligible for overtime pay (the average American worker makes less than 50 grad a year), then businesses will either pay their hardest-working employees more, or hire more workers to avoid paying the additional overtime penalty. The DOL estimates about 5 million people will benefit from this new ruling.

So this is wonderful, right? It’s well-known that for many people, employers can require more than 40 hours a week at no extra pay because employees are salaried and not hourly. The Cato Institute offers an opinion:

“In the very short run, employers affected by this expansion may have little choice but to pay their employees higher total compensation; in the very short run, employers have few ways to avoid this added cost.

But in the medium term, employers will invoke a host of methods to offset these costs: re-arranging employee work schedules so that fewer hit 40 hours; laying off employees who work more than 40 hours; or pushing such employees to work overtime hours off the books.

And in the longer term, employers can simply reduce the base wages they pay so that, even with overtime pay, total compensation for an employee working more than 40 hours is no different than before the overtime expansion.

So, expanded overtime regulation will benefit some employees in the very short term; cost others their jobs or lower their compensation in the medium term; and have no meaningful impact on anything in the long term.

Is that a victory for middle class economics?”

We at CRI agree with Cato. Just like with every other “well-intentioned” government law, those who are likeliest to “suffer” from it (in this case, employers), will find a way around it, especially in the long-haul. Employees who demonstrate clear value will likely not have to worry about their jobs, but anyone who doesn’t demonstrate clear value should be concerned. While many will benefit right away with the increases in pay, new hires may find their base pay is lower, so their potential overtime is lower. After all, time-and-a-half for a worker at $8.50 an hour is much less than at $15 an hour.

Plus, those who benefit now could see hours cut or, if the overtime pay began to turn business revenues from a profit to a loss, the businesses will lay off employees to stay in the black. This is what’s happened for many people as a result of the ACA: turning full-time workers into part-time in order to avoid the penalty, or simply paying the penalty and dumping people into the health exchanges, since that’s cheaper than offering health insurance. And with insurance companies asking for premiums increases, things are not looking up for American workers.

Read Full Post »

The lifeblood of Delaware is the multitude of businesses incorporated in the state, some of which do not even exist within Delaware’s borders beyond a P.O. Box in Wilmington, and yet they pay taxes that make up a substantial portion of the state’s revenue. For years Delaware has been the premier place for a company to incorporate, and over half of all U.S. corporations are incorporated in the first state, in large part thanks to the state’s first rate court system that deals with businesses fairly and expediently. This means that it is cheaper to go to court in Delaware, and that means less costs that businesses have to absorb into their bottom lines or pass along to their customers. Although Delaware’s business court system remains the best in the country, other states are catching up.

State lawmakers have done their best to offset the savings offered by Delaware’s efficient court by creating ludicrous financial burdens on businesses and their employees that keep them away from the state. Because of these costs, many companies decide it is not worth it to open up actual offices in Delaware and subject themselves to the high taxes imposed by Delaware. Furthermore, many employers stay out of Delaware because their employees do not want to live there, because of failing schools and high crime, especially in Wilmington. Hundreds of millions of dollars in wealth has fled New Castle County in the past 15 years, undoing much of past efforts to attract business into the state. The state should be leveraging its accommodating courts to attract businesses to establish an actual presence in the state, rather than scaring them off with high taxes and unattractive communities.

Other states have also begun to attempt to reform their courts to make them more business friendly; both Nevada and North Dakota have improved the regulatory burdens they impose on states, and North Dakota especially has worked to reduce the tort costs inflicted upon its companies. In all likelihood the measures taken by theses states will poach some corporations from Delaware and will cut into growth in the number of new incorporations in the first state. It is a testament to the success and foresight of Delaware’s model that other states are attempting to emulate it and in a sense beat Delaware at its own game. For now Delaware’s courts still remain the most accommodating in the country, but other states are working to provide their own alternatives. Given the state officials complacency in making Delaware competitive, the possibility of other states surpassing Delaware grows by the minute.

States like North Dakota offer a vastly more hospitable tax climate compared to Delaware. North Dakota is making the smart decisions Delaware is not, attracting companies into the state with a potent combination of friendly courts and a sensible tax policy, that work in tandem to create a great offering. Meanwhile Delaware’s tax burdens offset the benefits its courts offer, wiping out any net-gain the courts might provide to a company looking for a place to start or expand. Overall it often makes more sense for a company to do business in North Dakota than Delaware, when one combines the combined effects of the states’ regulatory and tax policies. North Dakota is working to attract the P.O. Boxes and then turn them into offices, while Delaware only expands the financial burdens of doing business in the state and watches those P.O. Boxes disappear.

Jack Massih

CRI Intern

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 441 other followers