Photobucket

What was true about minimum wage increases is true about tax breaks for hiring workers

by: fairleft

Tue Feb 09, 2010 at 00:36:09 AM EST


Neither has a big impact on employment. Dean Baker notes that Democrats have for years argued -- righteously and correctly when they campaigned in early 2007 (not so long ago!) for an increase in the minimum wage -- that what President Obama's proposed $5,000 plus per new worker tax break would in effect be, a moderate decrease in the cost of labor, will have little effect on demand for labor:
fairleft :: What was true about minimum wage increases is true about tax breaks for hiring workers
There is . . . a large body of research, most of it connected with increasing the minimum wage, that shows that the demand for labor is not very responsive to moderate changes in the cost of labor. See for example, "Time-Series Minimum Wage Studies: A Meta- Analysis," by Princeton University Professor Alan Krueger (with David Card), who is currently the chief economist in President Obama's Treasury Department. See also "Making Work Pay: The Impact of the 1996-97 Minimum Wage Increase" by Jared Bernstein (with John Schmitt), the chief economist for Vice President Joe Biden.

If increasing the cost of labor 15-20 percent by raising the minimum wage doesn't lead to measurable job loss then it is implausible [that] reducing the cost of labor by 15-20 percent will lead to a measurable increase in the demand for labor. . . .

In a comment on the same Baker post, skeptonomist adds some meat to the above:

What motivates employers in the real world to hire more workers? An actual increase in demand - they can't keep up with it with their current work force. What would be the first-order result of their taking on more workers, with or without tax breaks? An increase in supply - not likely to increase their profits unless demand has also increased (which in theory may eventually happen, but is not within their decision-making horizon.

These supply-side solutions are basically an attempt to pay employers to go against rational free-market decision making. . . .

And so the tax breaks will have little effect. There are other economic perversities in Obama's proposal. Baker notes, for example, that tax-incentivizing employers to increase current workers' hours means you're encouraging them NOT to hire more workers.

It certainly would be nice if the President were instead doing the right thing, proposing to put hundreds of thousands of people to work rebuilding our nation's dangerously neglected transportation infrastructure, perhaps even with a special emphasis on greening the way we commute.

But, okay, that's wishful thinking now, I suppose. Still, now is not the time for supply side voodoo economics. The least the people can ask for is reality-based kind. Democrats: remember the minimum wage increase debate!

Tags: (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Sometimes I think the PTB think we all work at Wal-Mart (4.00 / 2)
The recent policy bon-bons damn near prove this. The lousy 'make work pay' tax credit is one example. It gives a measly $400 to the single lower middle class person who would otherwise see a $400+ reduction in their tax refund without it.

If it's true that 1 in 4 of us is indeed doing 'guard labor', it seems logical to me that at least another fourth of us are working at Wal-Mart - or something like it.

One big happy profit meatspace.


hehe (4.00 / 1)
I once had a nice long conversation with Alan Krueger regarding the economy in general. This was before he was part of the current administration.

He is a very smart dude.

The defectors have started an underground railroad to smuggle other rebels out of hostile territory


Unlike Baker, he's an insider now, so (4.00 / 1)
he can't point out the dead obvious contradiction between what pwoggie economists were saying in 2007 and what some of them (sometimes the same people) are saying now.

For attractive lips, speak words of kindness, For lovely eyes, seek out the good in people, For a slim figure, share your food with the hungry. -- A-Hep

[ Parent ]
The Government has been defeated by Private Industry (4.67 / 3)
Common sense tells you that giving tax breaks doesn't do anything...except get votes or keeps the media hounds at bay.

Taxes are supposed to provide public services...and by taxing people you have a need for government to distribute the money and provide services....that's what the right is trying to destroy...they don't want the government receiving money and then providing services....they want to give that money and the jobs and the services to private industry....the government cannot profit like private business can profit. The government is not a profit center, it isn't motivated by profit...that's the good part about government....that's what private corporations want to destroy...and they have already done it. They are just doing mop up work right now, getting rid of all the loose ends of what's left of the government.

Again....the social security system has been privatized, 70% of the PENTAGON"S Budget is used to pay private contractors...who of course charge more than non-profit seeking government....the Military in the mideast has over 200,000 private contractors....

Senators and Congressman recieve their funding...not from the public...Pritzker...Obama's fund raiser has said that....but from corporations..


Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


Search




Advanced Search


Cliques ci-dessous
Mondoweiss
NarcoNews
uruknet
Underwater Deli
Lenin
Arabist
Francis L Holland
Angry Arab
Left I
electronic intifada
Weekly Vice
WildWildLeft
Wal-Mart
Gallery Of The Absurd
FreeFuckZone
EuroTrib
reel newz
jewssansfrontieres
AntiWar
Cephaloblog
CounterPunch
Asia Times
World Socialist
Socialist Worker
Chris Jordan
Fafblog
In Gaza

Nothing here is endorsed by the admin, not even her own bullshit. And you'll be lucky if she's even watching yours.
Powered by: SoapBlox