Artificial price ceilings demolish businesses profits and (since business's aren't in the charity field) supply gets rarer and rarer until goods can only be purchased on the black market for thousands of times their real economic worth.
Artificial price floors reduce demand and force consumers to find alternative products that they can afford while suppliers clamor for consumers to buy goods consumers can't afford. This also drives suppliers out of business, forcing them to turn to other markets where their goods are desired.
When inflation rears its ugly head, price ceilings bite and price floors are largely moot. Since it takes time for any periodic inflation to permeate an economy, not everyone benefits immediately from the absence of price floors -- in fact, it seems that the poorest of the community generally don't get the benefit, because by the time their wages have normalized, so has the given run of inflation. But at least the floor hasn't bitten them.
When deflation1 rears its ugly head, price ceilings are moot and price floors bite. The least well-off in a community feel the hit -- for this reason, almost all price floors and conspiracies to put a floor on pricing, are illegal. This is one of those areas where the political consequences are such that price-fixing laws are actually enforced, unlike other statutes for things like, oh, accepting gifts.
But the politicians that be always exempt one item from the "normal" consideration of economic consequences: wages. People always and everywhere say "inflation is bad!", unless it's wage inflation -- if the schmoe collecting carts at the local Wynn-Dixie gets an extra nickel every hour to produce the exact same economic benefit, then since that's a benefit for a WorkerTM, then since every adult worker is by definition a Registered VoterTM, then, this is seen as economic progress regardless of the fact that this drives down the corporate profits that comprise most of our tax base. During periods of inflation wage-inflation is never taken to be a bad thing by anyone who matters, aka: voters.
Well, almost....
It does matter to voters who work for auto manufacturers, because customers have the option to buy cars from companies that don't have union-controlled wage-inflation. Just like the supplier of goods mentioned above, the supplier of labor to, say, General Motors finds that GM would rather buy more robots than pay an ever increasing cost for the same labor. The unions, who derive their money not from serving their people, but from
But that's inflation. And right now, despite the increasing costs of materials3, the state of our money supply looks like it's finally left the super-inflation that it's been in4. Our real danger right now is coming from the collapse of our money supply (slowed down by the Bear-Stearns buyout); credit-lines, which are ubiquitous under inflationary regimes, are being curtailed left & right as more and more financial institutions are being shown to be "less than fully capitalized"5
The supply of money is shrinking, and, with it, people's desire to purchase goods at last-year's prices. This means producers of goods have to produce goods more cheaply than before if they're going to stay in business. There are three time-honored ways to do this:
- Eat the losses -- this is ruled out by the dwindling supply of credit.
- Use cheaper/fewer materials -- this is ruled out by increasing material costs (even fewer materials still cost more when tallied up).
- Use cheaper labor -- they've been doing this for years already by going overseas.
In this scenario, rather than everyone staying employed but feeling the pain as the market worsens, people who want non-dead-end jobs (aka full-time ones), rather than being able to accept a job for less than last year's wage, are simply shut out of the labor market with nowhere to go. And they can thank their local
1 The Fed acts like deflation is worse than inflation, and would say "it's uglier head", but this is because they see things from a control perspective, and, while they can inhibit demand via the price of money, they have no tools that can create demand in a deflation -- lowering the cost of money under such circumstances is like "pushing on a string". For an example, look at Japan's negative (inflation-effective) interest rates.
2... but it looks like medical treatment is heading that way fast, so that the same government that gives us quality control akin to the Post Office's one-week "overnight" delivery and the customer-service the Department of Motor Vehicles is renowned for can be in charge of every medical transaction in the country, under pain of prosecution.
3 With much of the rest of the world finally moving out of poverty this will only continue. I don't have India's numbers, but China has moved 300 million people out of poverty (the equivalent of the entire US population, and is doing its damnedest to bring the its other 1000 million out of poverty too. All these people are our price-competitors for every raw material from cement to oil, and their ability to pay is increasing.
4 Don't believe the Fed's numbers on inflation; just instead ask yourself: do you remember when a Ferrari cost $17,000? I don't, but Bill Cosby does!
5 If even Fanny-Mae has only $80B capitalizing $5.2T (that's less than 2% reserves folks!), what do you think the now-embarrassed Wachovia and others will look like once their off-balance-sheet items are brought into the sunshine?
14 comments:
So - either you're saying:
"We're screwed! Run to hills!"
or you're saying:
"Our only salvation is to allow deflation and eliminate minimum wage"
So which is it?
I don't agree with #1 because the US economy has shown itself to be remarkably resilient despite the current financial pain, and I certainly don't agree with #2 because it will never ever work. We have minimum wages in this country for good reason the same way we have price controls on other commodities and utilities - to provide stability so that things don't go to extremes. Look where the current lack of oversight has brought things.
But you make a good point - if you can deflate things slowly and keep wages stagnant so that that same wage is keeping up with a cost of living, then it might work. Otherwise it will lead to a race to the bottom here, and it won't be pretty as society falls apart.
Um, no, I'm not saying either.
What doing is laying out the fact that minimum wage laws make it harder to get a job at exactly that point in an economic cycle where folks *really* need to be able to find one. I'm not necessarily calling for their repeal (or I'd have called for it), but think folks should understand that they're not the panacea the "living wage" community believes they are either.
Speaking as a libertarian, if I'm willing to work for you for $3 washing bottles, I don't see that it's come congress-critter's business. But then unions didn't initially evolve because of the wholesale benevolence of the coal barons either. :)
(Also: minimum wage laws originated in many places to price blacks out of the labor market and thus protect "white jobs" when white employers "betrayed their communities" by hiring blacks (who were willing to work cheaper) -- so I'm /really/ not a fan of them; this kind of institutional racism is where gun-control laws in California and the South originated too, but that's another discussion.)
Okay, now I understand. I read your post twice, and sorry, I didn't see where you were coming from which is why I asked.
But, the minimum wage as a barrier to employment I don't think is fully true. For very small businesses with really tight margins maybe, but not for most businesses. If you look at most typical industrial overhead costs for medium and large businesses, there is A LOT of fat that can be cut which would enable one to hire additional help without lowering wages. Sometimes that overhead is medical costs (which are admittedly out of control due to their excessive overhead costs), but in other cases its redundant admin. staff and middle managers whose much higher salaries can easily consume several minimum wage employee salaries.
GM, Ford, and Chrysler are in the mess they are in not due to labor costs, but because they were highly inflexible on products and on how to use labor over their lifespan so that by the time it came for them to be nimble, they were too bloated to be able to react. Large US manufacturing companies with legacy labor and union costs got themselves into their own messes due to bad practices, making crap cars, not paying basic attention to charging for their cars what they really cost, and not keeping their overhead and operating expenses low. Therefore, one can't just say that labor is too expensive as a barrier to employment. There are US companies with union labor that are doing just fine in what's left of the manufacturing sector, and in some cases, demand from China has brought them back to life. The mining and steel industries are two good examples of manufacturing that was resurrected in the US due to Chinese demand.
Now bullet point #5 of yours is a very different story. If all the capital is removed from the marketplace and sits in a vault collecting dust/interest rather than flowing around, then the lack of liquidity would be a strong barrier to hiring, no matter what the wage.
GM, Ford and Chrysler have the inflexible product mix that they do because their unions see it as their duty to keep _all_ existing plants open and operating so as to protect the line workers' jobs. They're on record over and over again about how closing SUV production would be a betrayal of their workers.
But anyway, bear in mind that was a tangent: those guys are getting a not more than minimum wage. Hence, when necessary, they can agree to cuts in their compensation (incl. health-care, etc.)
There is the problem that there's no way a tech support worker here can compete with a tech support worker in a country where the cost of living is lower. I don't see any way around that.
There is none: competition on price is always in favor of the lower price. Unless such a worker can provide something extra to the mix, he or she will lose.
There are *many* jobs of this type that will migrate freely, now that the world's economy is starting to develop for real.
Yes, and frankly, they should migrate. When they've migrated sufficiently, living standards in the rest of the world increase, and the relative wage advantage ceases.
The global marketplace pulls more people out of poverty every year than all the charities of the world combined.
As an aside, part of the current "problem with the economy" is that we've been on top largely because there wasn't anyone else to be on top of -- the rest of the world's economies simply hadn't been developed at all.
Well, the "developing world" is still developing, certainly, but in many places it's no longer us versus the banana republics.
"When they've migrated sufficiently, living standards in the rest of the world increase, and the relative wage advantage ceases.
The global marketplace pulls more people out of poverty every year than all the charities of the world combined."
I fully agree, but......at what expense to others? Is it acceptable that one person in a developed country must enter into poverty so that 5 others in formerly poor countries can be elevated out of poverty?
It's a philosophical question, I know, but there is a price to pay for globalism, and it is mostly paid by the 1st world lower middle class to working poor types. Some upper class and upper middle class types suffer as well, but not nearly in the same numbers as those who can't afford to lose the only employment they can get. So, in the grand scheme of things it looks better to make 5 people get out of poverty at the price of 1 person going into poverty, but it certainly doesn't look good to the unlucky soul who now entered into that new class.
Interestingly I hear more and more anecdotes that the high cost of oil is pushing manufacturing back to the US since our labor rates have become cheaper (low value of the dollar), one doesn't have to ship the goods for the US market very far, and the quality of the work is better.
"the rest of the world's economies simply hadn't been developed at all."
OR, had been knocked into a hardcore tailspin by WWII.
"it is mostly paid by the 1st world lower middle class to working poor types"
You can think of it that way, but what is the first-world folks getting? Cheaper goods and services. The exact same mechanics are at work with the guy who can't do manual labor because illegal immigrants price him out of the market.
"the high cost of oil is pushing manufacturing back to the US"
It is. The petrodollar scheme was always a structural subsidy to the Western European nations and Japan, designed to give them a sufficient export base that they didn't decide to go Soviet. But as our currency returns to traditional levels, and oil is spendy, we're going back to our traditional role as a manufacturing and exporting nation. We've just lived through a complete aberration in terms of US history, aka the Cold War... problem is, human lifespans being what they are, recognizing that it's OUR lives that are the exception is a nontrivial exercise.
Alex: you parenthetically nailed it: as the other economies strengthen, our currency will weaken (we no longer need such a strong currency now that the Soviets are "gone" (let's not go there....)) -- people get so huffed about a weakening dollar without remembering that currency strength is always relative to other currencies. If our currency weakens sufficiently we'll enjoy a lot more foreign investment (bargain shopping) and we'll be able to start creating lower-middle-class manufacturing jobs. The commodity laborer who takes it in the shorts today, and he does, in the future will be able to get stable work.
But unwinding the post-WWII regime will be painful.
You'll note that I wasn't saying the downside of the minimum wage is that employers have to pay a lot of money, but that in the wrong economic climates it screws the little guy -- hard.
American labor is still expensive - at least from a local point of view.
For a typical job of 30k - businesses typically spend up to 60k in payroll, office, benefits and administration.
But if we can attract foreign capitol investment then we won't suffer for long.
Look at Ireland as an example. During the 90's the Irish economic base grew substantially because it was cheap to invest in.
In fact - deflation is probably the only way we can be competitive against China and Europe.
You are right - that 100% overhead is still way to high, but with a lot of the advances in office productivity and other things, it doesn't need to be that high. My organization is down to 44.4% and I know we can go lower.
Deflation against certain currencies will help us be competitive again, as will the high cost of shipping materials from overseas.
I feel the need to point out here that there is a labor cost being overlooked in the comparison of GM to the steel industry (also union), namely that of the sheer volume of employees and thus, the sheer volume of now RETIRED employees who are living longer than ever and sitting on GM pensions. These packages include health care, which is costing more and more.
GM and other US auto manufacturers are being smothered somewhat by this debt.
As for 'should 1 first-worlder lose out to help 5 third-worlder', I default to the same Friedmanesque argument I always do.. The free market corrects. That 1st-world person may lose out in the short term but the increased consumpion in the 3rd world due to their economic evolution may well result in other 1st worlder's getting new or more work.
I think of it like a weight lifter taking on more weight. There is some shift at first to get it balanced right and be able to support it, but in the end, he is stronger for the effort.
Post a Comment