Key Points

• September CPI numbers show inflation is still on the rise.��
• Core inflation hit a 40 year high.
• Local communities are the key to paving the way for economic success.��

In September, President Joe Biden prematurely declared victory over inflation as he held a celebration event over the party-line passage of the Inflation Reduction Act that required the Vice President of the United States to cast the deciding vote in the Senate.

Perhaps they were fooled by the Consumer Price Index (CPI) numbers for July and August. In July, the CPI dropped just a tiny bit to 295.271 from the seasonally-adjusted index of 295.328 for June, which rounds to an inflation rate of 0.0%. Although the unadjusted index slightly decreased again in August, the seasonal adjusted number rose by only 0.1% that calculates to 1.4% when annualized.

But, alas, inflation rates typically fluctuate from month to month, and what’s important is the longer-term trend.

When the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics the CPI numbers for September, it became all too clear that we must continue to suffer through rising prices — because inflation has not yet been tamed.��

The overall monthly inflation rate rose 0.4% when seasonally adjusted, that is 4.7% when annualized. Yet again, the inflation reading came in hotter than expected, being around 0.3% for the September reading. The year-over-year inflation rate stands at 8.3%.��

Worse, inflation has become ingrained in our economy with no indication that it’s going away anytime soon. Here are a few reasons why we still need to be worried.��

1.The core inflation rate hit a 40 year high

The reason economists look at the core inflation rate is to gauge how widely inflation has spread throughout the economy. They get the rate by subtracting the cost of energy and food from the index, but not because energy and food prices are unimportant. But because of their volatility.��

The core inflation rate was 6.7% in September over the previous year – the highest it’s been in forty years. It increased 0.6% in September, which calculates to an annual rate of 7.1%. This alarming trend demonstrates just how ingrained inflation has become in our economy.��

“But policy is only one piece of the puzzle. The other even more important piece is the community-level response.”

“But policy is only one piece of the puzzle. The other even more important piece is the community-level response.”

2. Energy prices are down — sort of — but food prices up

One piece of good news is that energy prices went down in September. However, this is of little consolation because the prices are still 19.9% higher than last year and 49.7% higher than two years ago.

There is no good news for food prices. You can’t go to the grocery store anymore without noticing the impact of inflation, and the CPI numbers bear this out. Food prices in general are up 11.2% over last year, or 16.3% higher than two years ago. As anyone can tell you, this is just the general price increase. Consumers can experience higher prices depending on what foods they buy. Cereals and bakery goods are up 16.2% from last year, and dairy products are up 15.9%

Although economists like focusing on core inflation, energy and food prices are necessities that impact most people, especially lower income families and seniors living on fixed incomes.����

3. Inflation isn’t going away anytime soon

When reading the tea leaves, there aren’t many indications to expect inflation will abate any time soon. The recent droughts and man-made obstacles to food production, such as Russia’s war on the Ukraine and the irresponsible farm policy changes in the Netherlands, will impact food supply, which, of course, will have a direct impact on food prices and its availability.��

As winter approaches the northern hemisphere, the demand for energy will increase. Here again, the war in Ukraine is culpable for disrupting energy supply to Europe. Moreover, not only did the Biden Administration fail to convince OPEC to increase production, but OPEC, which by the way includes Russia, is doing the exact opposite. They are cutting back on oil production.��

In the meantime, current U.S. energy policy is more concerned about climate change than energy independence — that we were just two short years ago. The Administration’s release of petroleum from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve did help ease prices, but now the reserve is at the . How much lower will the Administration allow it to go?

Because it impacts economic behavior, core inflation is even harder to solve. People – whether acting on behalf of their businesses or as an employee or as a consumer – incorporate their expectations of higher prices into their personal actions. This only fuels inflation more. Consider this fact: Although many businesses are experiencing higher revenue, their costs are also up. Importantly, and unfortunately, for many of them, their profits are down. All these factors exacerbate inflation while slowing economic growth, which harms everyone.����

The way forward is through local communities

Our nation’s inflationary environment is bad. Everyone knows that. The big question is what to do about it. On the policy front, we need a paradigm shift in Washington, D.C., to focus on enacting policies that encourage private investment, savings, and free trade while cutting back on deficit spending.

But policy is only one piece of the puzzle. The other even more important piece is the community-level response.

Here at the Ģ����Ƶ Center for Opportunity, our focus is primarily on these bottom-up solutions. Our neighbors — particularly those on the economic margins — are suffering from high inflation and need help. That’s where programs like come in. They help the poor and impoverished get the skills and training needed to find a job and pursue a career, while ensuring they also find safe and affordable housing, reliable transportation, childcare services, and any other essential that’s needed.

We also know that economic prosperity is challenging when your home life is in shambles. That’s why GCO prioritizes healthy family relationships through our Elevate workshops throughout the community and our Strengthen Families Program in local schools. On that note, prosperity is impossible without a good education, so we prioritize policies that will bring the broadest range of educational options to the most people, regardless of their background, income level, or zip code.

The way back from our high inflationary environment is going to be a long trip. But with the right policies in place and with an attitude that prioritizes on-the-ground help for our neighbors, we can lighten the burden for our neighbors during the journey.

The post Despite the fanfare, inflation is not conquered appeared first on For Opportunity.

Key Points

• Year-over-year inflation rate remains high at 8.3%. While the latest monthly number, and the CPI reading from July, show that inflation has stalled, we’re not out of the woods yet.
• Reducing fiscal revenue by suspending the loan repayments adds to federal fiscal deficits.
• Labor market moral hazards��will worsen the situation of students achieving meaningful education and solving the problem of their skills not matching what is needed in the labor market.

In September, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics announced that the Consumer Price Index (CPI) rose 0.1% in August. However, the year-over-year inflation rate remains high at 8.3%. While the latest monthly number, and the CPI reading from July, show that inflation has stalled, we’re not out of the woods yet.

There are warning signals, including worldwide drought and continued energy disruptions, that inflation is not yet tamed. Moreover, Federal Reserve policy is refusing to allow the price level to come back down, meaning that most households will continue to contend with higher prices and lagging income growth.��

Meanwhile, the administration in Washington is taking steps that will only worsen the inflationary environment by its fiscal policy that relies on overspending absent adequate revenue. An unexpected part of this is President Biden’s new plan to forgive up to $20,000 in student loans for households making up to $250,000 a year.��

We’ve already written about how this policy will end up hurting the poor and working class. But from a strictly economic perspective, the blanket student loan forgiveness action by the president raises two additional fundamental concerns.��

1. Deficit spending

Reducing fiscal revenue by suspending the loan repayments adds to federal fiscal deficits. Currently, the federal government is not running surpluses with a manageable national debt as if the federal government is in a financial position to be generous. The government itself is in a financial straitjacket where it must continue to borrow to pay for its expenses, and the interest payments on the national debt continues to grow not just from the additional borrowing but also from rising interest rates. Like a family with a large and growing minimum payment on credit card debt, it is crowding out other budget priorities.��

Although no economist knows how much more debt the U.S. economy can withstand, there is widespread agreement among them across the political spectrum that worsening deficit spending only aggravates inflationary pressures. We may say that taxpayers will eventually pay for the loan forgiveness, but the reality may be that we will pay for it sooner with higher inflation.��

Paying through inflation rather than taxes is regressive, impacting lower income Americans the most. Consider t estimate that 57% of households paid no federal income taxes in 2021 with many receiving a net gain instead. The Tax Policy Center expects that the percent of non-paying households will drop to about 40% over the next few years, consistent with pre-pandemic levels. Why is this important? Because it shows how an inflationary policy, instead of a fiscally sound policy, impacts low-income Americans worse.

2. Labor market moral hazards

Second, it presents moral hazards that will worsen the situation of students achieving meaningful education and solving the problem of their skills not matching what is needed in the labor market.

The moral hazards will come about because given the history of entitlements in this country, once we begin on the path of creating a new entitlement, it opens the door for expanding that entitlement. Are not other students just as deserving of having their debt paid for now and in the future? And what about the past? Why not raise the thresholds so even more debt can be forgiven? What we’re creating here is an entitlement that has moral hazards.�� Even the expectation of future loan forgiveness will cause behavioral changes with the same moral hazards.

• The first hazard is with the students themselves. Choosing a career and what to study is a major life decision where one must weigh the benefits and costs. Already we have a problem with many students making bad decisions and studying things that will not help them develop the skills they need in finding good paying jobs. Installing a system where the cost of education is now paid for with other people’s money will give them yet another reason to rationalize their poor education decisions. While the debt of that education may be forgiven, the opportunity costs will be unforgiving because you can’t turn back the clock and erase the consequences of those bad decisions.��
• The second hazard is with the post-secondary educational establishments themselves. Government involvement with guaranteed student loans already exacerbates the outrageous tuition price hikes we’ve witnessed over the past 50 years. Having the government now forgiving student debt will only reduce the financial incentives for higher education to rein in its exorbitant costs.��
• Finally, where are the incentives for institutions of higher learning to adjust their content to match the needs of society and the economy? As the incentives are eroding for students to carefully choose what to study and for the educational institutions to rein in their costs, the arrangement provides yet another reason for academia to justify the assortment of degrees they offer and the courses they teach. Already we are witnessing a disconnect between the content of what students have studied with what they will need to be successful in their careers.These students typically learn this hard lesson once they graduate and are faced with the realities of life. This flaw in the education system is a contributing cause of the great mismatch between what skills and education people have and the skills needed by employers that fuels the economy. Our economy is currently suffering from this problem, which now will only grow worse.

The post Inflation is still raging. Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan will only make it worse appeared first on For Opportunity.

Key Points

• As of June, 35 states and D.C. have not recovered the number of lost jobs
• The labor force has shrunk despite population growth.
• Its stated goal of the Federal Reserve remains the same–to reduce inflation to its 2% target, meaning it will take steps to prevent the price level from coming back down. This bad policy goal will burden the working class and the poor and retired persons the most.

It may not matter if federal policy does not change.

We’ve seen some back-to-back encouraging news within the last few weeks. The Employment Situation Report for July showed that the United States finally recovered the number of its lost jobs from the start of the pandemic, and the Consumer Price Index (CPI) inflation rate for July was essentially zero. But digging a little deeper to put the news into perspective reveals real concerns that stagflation will not end anytime soon.

The States Who Are Driving the Job Recovery

On the jobs front, yes, it’s true we’ve recovered the number of lost jobs benchmarked to February 2020 before the drastic impact on the labor market from COVID-19. This indicates we’re on the mend, but the job recovery process has not been the “V” shape hoped for at the beginning of the pandemic, one that would have meant a robust job recovery.��

Two-and-a-half years later, the civilian non-institutionalized population base that feeds the labor force grew by 4.8 million. Our own ARIMA Model job forecast shows we are approximately 5.8 million jobs short of where we would have been had the pandemic not happened.��

But this is not the case for all 50 states. Astoundingly, four states—Montana, Utah, Idaho, and Wyoming—have matched or nearly matched their pre-pandemic ARIMA Model forecasts, effectively eliminating any impact from the pandemic on the number of lost jobs.��

In the meantime, the national job recovery to pre-pandemic levels is driven probably by just 15 states who already recovered their number of lost jobs prior to the nation as a whole. These states are Utah, Idaho, Texas, Montana, North Carolina, Ģ����Ƶ, Florida, Tennessee, Arizona, South Dakota, Colorado, Arkansas, Indiana, and Nevada.��

As of June, the remaining 35 states and D.C. have not recovered the number of lost jobs. We have to wait another week before we know whether another state slipped onto the list of leading states that helped tip the balance for the national July data.��

According to our analysis, a common feature of the leading states is that they tend to have more than the other states do. Incidentally, and for explanatory reasons and not for the purpose of getting political, all but three of the 15 leading states have given political control to the governor’s office and both chambers of the state legislature to the Republican Party.

Jobs Versus People Employed��

One problem with job data is that the dataset allows for double counting. If we want to count the number of people employed, it paints a different picture.��

The Current Population Survey shows the U.S. is still more than half a million workers short when compared to February 2020. In fact, we had fewer employed persons in July than March of this year, using seasonally adjusted data.��

The reason is that the labor force has shrunk despite population growth. This can be seen with the 62.1% labor force participation rate that is more than a percentage point below where it stood in February 2020.

This means that the 3.5% unemployment rate—which now matches its pre-pandemic level—is misleading. The shrinkage of the labor force is distorting the meaning of the metric.

Taken together on a national scale, jobs have recovered but the number of employed persons has not. This can mean only one thing. More people are working multiple jobs to make ends meet.��

Inflation versus the Price Level

July’s CPI ever-so-slightly decreased. It ticked down 0.2% at an annualized rate–a welcome change from the past 25 months. Just to keep this in perspective, the price level nonetheless increased 14.1% since the start of the pandemic. But there is no need to tell this to average consumers who have been feeling it in their pocketbooks.��

Disturbingly, the Federal Reserve shows no interest in doing something about the –and who isn’t even discussing it. Its stated goal remains the same–to reduce inflation to its 2% target, meaning it will take steps to prevent the price level from coming back down. This bad policy goal will burden the working class and the poor and retired persons the most.

“Disturbingly, the Federal Reserve shows no interest in doing something about the –and who isn’t even discussing it. Its stated goal remains the same–to reduce inflation to its 2% target, meaning it will take steps to prevent the price level from coming back down. This bad policy goal will burden the working class and the poor and retired persons the most.”

“Disturbingly, the Federal Reserve shows no interest in doing something about the –and who isn’t even discussing it. Its stated goal remains the same–to reduce inflation to its 2% target, meaning it will take steps to prevent the price level from coming back down. This bad policy goal will burden the working class and the poor and retired persons the most.”

Fiscal and Regulatory Policy

The Federal Reserve does not stand alone with its bad policy. Congress and the Administration are just as guilty, if not more so.

Excessive fiscal spending also drives up the price level. Worse, increasing business taxes will pull�� resources from businesses. These resources are needed to produce goods and services that we all use and enjoy. It also enables these very same businesses to pay workers and compensate investors, and it leads to more economic growth and prosperity. Likewise, more excessive regulatory restrictions have similar negative effects on people and the economy.

Increasing business taxes and regulating businesses even more at this time will not help keep prices down. Rather, a good portion of these higher costs will be passed onto consumers.�� And they will be passed on to consumers to the degree that individual businesses are able to do so. If businesses can’t pass all or even some of those costs on to consumers, then they will be forced to make more difficult decisions, such as cutting back on the number of employees or suspending pay raises to employees. Profits will clearly suffer that may cause a few businesses to scale back or exit the industry altogether. These consequential actions all aggravate stagnation. Add in the price increases and we get more stagflation, not less.

Unfortunately, the President just signed into law the erroneously named Inflation Reduction Act that will do nothing about inflation, but it will hike business taxes and increase regulations that will only worsen the economic situation.��

Congress and the Administration need to start following the lead from the states who are doing it right. Only pro- growth policies relying on innovation and production organically sprouted from within the economy will help us out of this mess, and it won’t work if politicians think that means taking money from successful businesses or imposing new mandates on others or picking the winners and losers in the economy.

The post A glimmer of good economic news? Maybe not appeared first on For Opportunity.

U.S. Gross Domestic Product update

. The numbers surprised economists, who had predicted a 1% gain.The Ģ����Ƶ Center for Opportunity’s (GCO) take: “The tab is coming due for all the reckless stimulus spending during the COVID-19 pandemic,” said��Erik Randolph, GCO’s director of research. “The declining GDP in the first quarter is the strongest indicator yet that our nation is headed into a recession. Even worse, our trajectory is straight toward stagflation, an environment marked by rampant inflation combined with high unemployment. This will hurt poor and middle-class Americans the most.”

The post U.S. Gross Domestic Product Update appeared first on For Opportunity.

A look at the highest unadjusted monthly rate of inflation

Today,����announced that in March the Consumer Price Index (CPI) rose 1.3%, not seasonally adjusted. This is the highest unadjusted monthly rate of inflation since March 1980. When annualized, it would equal 17.3%.�� The seasonally-adjusted monthly increase is 1.2%. The 12-month CPI increase continues to climb, which now stands at 8.5%, not seasonally adjusted.

The Ģ����Ƶ Center for Opportunity’s (GCO) take: “Unsurprising for anyone who paid attention to prices last month, energy prices rose 32% over the last 12 months and food prices rose 8.8%. This is bad for everyone but worse for low-income and impoverished Americans, ” said��Erik Randolph, GCO’s director of research. “The U.S. inflation rate reflects not only energy and food price increases, but it is also spreading to more and more industries as businesses are forced to raise prices.””Also concerning are disturbing signs pointing to a possible economic slowdown, giving credence to those who have been predicting stagflation will return. This crisis may have been initiated by the pandemic, but it was exacerbated when state governments shut down their economies and the federal government pumped unprecedented levels of money into the system to sustain aggregate demand. We’re paying for that now. The only way out of this mess is to refocus on supply-side policies at both the federal and state levels to encourage investments, risk taking, and production. It also requires fiscal restraint in the halls of Congress to reign in deficit spending.”

The post The U.S Reaches Highest Unadjusted Monthly Rate of Inflation Since March 1980 appeared first on For Opportunity.

The inflation rate in July—as measured by the seasonally-adjusted Consumer Price Index (CPI)—abated somewhat from June’s rate, increasing at 0.5% instead of 0.9%. But don’t cheer too much yet.

This is known by economists as disinflation, not deflation. The rate came down, but prices are still continuing to climb.

Annualized, the monthly inflation rates calculate to 5.8% for July and 11.4% for June. Both rates continue to exceed the Federal Reserve’s target of 2% annual inflation. Of course, as I discussed in this blog, the Fed’s 2% target rate is too high and compromises Congress’s original goal of promoting purchasing power that would benefit everyone.

Prices are Ratcheting Upwards

When the CPI inflation rate is viewed by its increase from the same month of the prior year, the trend is not good.��

Although the increase over the prior year held steady for July, prices were also increasing last year. That is, prices are still 5.3% higher than a year ago when prices were also increasing. The problem is compounding, and prices are ratcheting upwards.

Perhaps not surprisingly but definitely unfortunately, the Fed’s economists appear to have been caught off guard. When Fed Chairman Jerome Powell , he admitted as much as inflation has spiked higher than they anticipated. However, he still maintained that the inflation is based on temporary factors that will abate with time.

Mr. Powell’s comments may have been just for the inflation rate, and he may be overly optimistic. In the meantime, we must brace ourselves for an increase in the price level.��

To think that the price level may come down is probably unrealistic. That has not happened ever since we gave the Fed the responsibility to maintain purchasing power in 1946 that was dumbed down in 1978 to the weaker goal of “reasonable price stability.” Of course, this policy change happened during the complete failure of federal policymakers in both the Fed and Congress when the nation was suffering from double-digit inflation combined with stagnant economic growth.

Why does promoting purchasing power matter?��

Inflation hurts practically everyone. If your wages do not keep up, your purchasing power is eroding.��

This is truest for those in poverty, low-income families, and low-skilled labor. They will slip further behind, making income disparity worse and possibly causing Congress and state governments to spend more on safety-net programs that will only fuel inflation higher when Congress funds the increases with even more debt.

Businesses—who need predictability to make good entrepreneurial decisions—generally will also suffer, slowing down economic activity.��

Workers will have a harder time keeping up with rising prices and will demand higher wages, only fueling inflation further.����

More Cautious Approach to Government Spending is Needed

A likely major cause of the climbing price level is all the governmental debt-based spending to address the pandemic. Further debt-based spending will not ameliorate the problem but exacerbate it.��

Congress needs to exercise more restraint and caution now as it considers the expansive spending bills that appear likely to pass. It is very likely that they are setting up the nation for unpleasant economic times, hurting the poorest among us the worst. The growth in the Consumer Price Index is an omen for Congress to take a step back and trim those bills.

The post Inflation’s Growing Problem: A Warning Shot for Congress appeared first on For Opportunity.

During a focus group session on working class families we recently conducted at the Ģ����Ƶ Center for Opportunity, Jazmine* made an observation more perceptive than most experts.

Our focus group consisted of working-class African-Americans who did not have a college degree and who were not employed in a managerial position nor on track to become a manager.��

Knowing financial stress up close, Jazmine essentially said that either the minimum wage should be increased or the cost of living should be lowered.

Her observation is a perfect segue from my prior blogs on:

• the empirical economic evidence against the minimum wage,��
• why the minimum wage is bad news for small business and the overall economy, and
• alternative strategies to the minimum wage that help everyone, instead of just some workers at the expense of others.

��

The Success Sequence provides an outline of how to reverse the cycle of poverty in our communities. GCO uses this as a framework for much of our work.

Promoting Purchasing Power��

The declared it is the policy and responsibility of the federal government to:

�� �� �� �� ��“promote maximum employment, production, and purchasing power.”

Promoting purchasing power means lowering the cost of living, as Jazmine suggested.��

Solidified in the with the Treasury Department, the responsibility ultimately fell to the Federal Reserve to conduct monetary policy as we know it today.

How well has the Fed done with promoting purchasing power? Horribly, quite frankly.

Since 1951, prices have increased 3.4% annually on average, as measured by the geometric mean. In other words, the price level was tenfold higher in 2020 than in 1951. Prices doubled each generation.

It is widely accepted that the because they spend a higher portion of their income on necessities, and their income growth typically lags others.��

For example, according to the most recent from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, consumers in the lowest income quintile spend 82.2 percent of their income on housing, transportation, food, and healthcare, compared to 64.4 percent for the highest quintile. A five percent inflation rate would cost those in the lowest quintile an additional $1,156 for these items on a budget that is already tight, averaging $28,141. A 10% inflation rate would double those costs to $2,312.

Worse, those in the lowest quintile are unable to save for their future, and inflation erodes away the value of the little savings they do have. Consider that on average, those in the lowest quintile purchased only $563 in personal insurance or toward their pensions, compared to $19,736 for those in the highest quintile. This disparity guarantees the poor will be inadequately prepared for retirement or unforeseen loss or tragedy.

Prior to the federal government taking on the responsibility of promoting purchasing power, prices not only remained fairly stable but actually decreased during times of relative peace. Typically, they only increased dramatically during times of war.��

This pattern can be seen visually in the accompanying chart using the from the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis. For example, the price level increased 24% due to the War of 1812 but then deflated 57% over 47 years until the start of the Civil War, even after accounting for a slight bump up due to the Mexican War.��

The pattern was similar for the remainder of the century. Prices increased 74% during the Civil War but then deflated 47% to its pre-Civil War level until the start of the 20th Century.*�� Although the price level rose somewhat during the progressive era, it was still 30% lower at the start of World War I than at the close of the Civil War.

America’s inflationary policy��

Unfortunately, a changed promoting purchasing power to become the lame “reasonable price stability,” which is not the same thing.

Over the years, the Fed has allowed inflation as a. In 2012, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke explicitly stated for the first time an inflation target of 2% per year. If the Fed can somehow hold to this target, which it has not been able to do historically, it equates to doubling the price level every 35 years. Last August, it backed away from this policy. Because of all the pandemic spending and monetary expansions, the Fed approved a to allow inflation to rise “modestly” above its 2% target.��

It is not just the Fed that has shied away from promoting purchasing power. In 1978, and in the midst of the stagflation years, Congress the modest goal that inflation should be 3% or less, but the target rate was supposed to come down to zero percent by 1988 unless it might have impeded employment.����

The Fed is not alone to blame for the inability of the federal government to control inflation. Congress’s lack of fiscal discipline resulting in soaring budget deficits place the Fed in a tenuous position to keep interest rates low so federal debt service costs also remain low. Furthermore, recent Fed direct purchases of Treasury debt because of all that federal spending adds to the money supply, eroding—not promoting—purchasing power.

How Congress can better help the average working family

If economics has any immutable law, it must be that you can’t get something out of nothing. This explains why the Consumer Price Index increased 5.4% since last year, as by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. And the rate of increase appears to be accelerating. The monthly rate was 0.6% in May but 0.9% in June. If this June inflation rate persists, and hopefully it does not, we will have double digit inflation. A 0.9% monthly rate equates to an 11.4 % annual rate.����

Considering all the recent deficit spending by Congress and expansionary policies by the Fed, expect more of the same, or worse. In fact, according to a , “Americans should brace themselves” because economists are waking up to the prospect of higher inflation, expecting “brisk price increases for a while.”

Economic history indicates deflation should be the norm. In fact, innovation spawns increased productivity that allows prices to fall, which should show up as deflation. We have the opposite: productivity gains with inflation. This outcome places the blame squarely on monetary and fiscal policy.��

In the meantime, Jazmine and other hard working Americans struggle to keep up with rising prices. Instead of pushing for increases in the minimum wage that help some at the expense of others, Congress needs to renew our nation’s purchasing power policy and get its fiscal house in order.��

��*Jazmine’s last name withheld for confidentiality.

*This is not intuitive. It takes a smaller percent decrease to offset a percent increase, such as a 43% reduction will offset a 74% increase. For example, suppose you receive a 20 percent pay raise this week, but next week you receive a 20 percent pay cut. Are you back where you started? The answer is no; you are worse off. If your weekly pay was $100, the increase took you to $120, but then your pay cut took you to $96, even lower than your starting point.

Erik Randolph is the Director of Research at the Ģ����Ƶ Center for Opportunity.

The post Promote Purchasing Power—Not the Minimum Wage appeared first on For Opportunity.

Is there any reason not to cheer? Ģ����Ƶ’s unemployment rate dropped to 4.1 percent in May.��

Here are three reasons why this looks good for Ģ����Ƶ.��

First, the unemployment rate is declining, giving optimism that the economy is bouncing back from the pandemic.

Second, there were only two periods in recorded history when Ģ����Ƶ’s unemployment rate was this low or lower. Starting from 1976—the extent of available data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) on unemployment rates for the states—the first period was between October 1998 and July 2001 when the rate reached as low as 3.4 percent. This period occurred after the long economic expansion of the 1990s.��

The other period—from April 2018 to the start of the pandemic—just occurred with Donald Trump in the White House. During this period, Ģ����Ƶ broke its best record by achieving 3.3 percent.

Third, Ģ����Ƶ’s rate is the 16th lowest in the country, beating out 34 other states. For comparison, the United States as a whole has a rate of 5.8 percent rate, considerably higher than Ģ����Ƶ’s.

But wait. Is the unemployment rate artificially low?

While optimism is merited, it is important to put the unemployment numbers in perspective.

Unemployment percentages do not capture those who do not participate in the labor force. According to the BLS, anyone not employed who had not actively looked for a job during the prior four weeks is not part of the labor force. Therefore, any person temporarily not looking for work is not accounted for when the BLS calculates the official unemployment rate. Especially now with all the repercussions of the pandemic, all those potential workers who have been sitting on the sidelines for the last four weeks are simply not counted.

The behavior of labor force participation is a loose link for unemployment numbers. Normally, when economic times are good, sidelined workers and even retirees come back into the labor force, which can push the unemployment rate up. When times are bad, the opposite happens. Workers drop out of the labor force, artificially lowering the unemployment rate.

During the depth of the pandemic, and as expected, the labor force participation rate in Ģ����Ƶ dropped—to 59.4 percent to be precise, compared to 62.9 percent just prior to the pandemic. In terms of real people, there were an estimated 260,575 fewer workers participating in the labor force—who were not counted among the unemployed, to emphasize the point. Participation bounced back some to 61.7 percent, but still there are 40,934 fewer workers in the labor force.

Other ways to measure it

BLS’s U-6 labor underutilization metric is another way to shed light on unemployment. It adds to the unemployed those discouraged and other “marginally attached” workers as well as part-time workers wanting full-time work but cannot find it.��

Nationally, the U-6 rate hit a historic high of 22.9 percent in April 2020 representing 36.3 million people. It has since dropped to 10.2 percent representing 16.5 million people. However, in the months prior to the pandemic, the rate was at historic lows—in fact, as low as 6.8 percent. Obviously, while 10.2 percent is far better than 22.9 percent, it is significantly worse than 6.8 percent, representing a difference of 5.3 million workers.

Unfortunately, monthly U-6 data is not available for the states, making any comparison difficult. The BLS currently publishes only experimental U-6 state data averaged over a year’s time.

More useful for the states is the Nonfarm Employment estimates from BLS’s Current Employment Statistics survey. Only two states—Utah & Idaho—have caught up with employment from where they were in February 2020 before the pandemic hit. In contrast, the U.S as a whole is still 5% behind. Ģ����Ƶ ranks 16th among the states and is 4.0 % behind. Hawaii (-14.8%), New York (-9.6%), and Nevada (-8.6%) are the three states furthest behind.��

If we use standard economic ARIMA Model time-series forecasting to estimate where employment would have been absent the pandemic, no state is back on track. The United States is 6.8% behind, and Ģ����Ƶ ranks near the middle in 27th place at −6.1%. Utah and Idaho lead the pack being the furthest ahead, while Hawaii, Nevada, New York, California, and Massachusetts trail the pack.

Observations on state differences and policies

In viewing the differences in employment among the states, the more rural states appear to be doing better. The states more dependent on tourism appear to be doing worse. State governments that implemented less severe lockdowns appear to be doing better. To test these observations, we will be running regression analyses to tease out any correlations. We will post the results when completed.

In the meantime, it is important for government to adopt policies that will help businesses to rebound and make it easier for startups. The goal should be not to just lower unemployment but also to bring those sidelined workers back into the labor force.

Erik Randolph is the Director of Research at the Ģ����Ƶ Center for Opportunity.

The post Putting Ģ����Ƶ’s employment numbers in perspective appeared first on For Opportunity.

If it is a bad idea to raise the minimum wage, or even have a minimum wage law to begin with, where does this leave the low-wage worker?

We already examined the empirical evidence showing that minimum wage laws reduce employment among the groups the laws are intended to help. (If you missed it, check out my blog.)

We also looked at the negative impact on small business—that most important job-creation engine. (Check out this blog.)

Now we want to know what we can do to help low wage workers.��

A job is better than no job��

True. Some workers earning a minimum wage will find themselves better off with a law that increases their pay. However, millions others will be hurt. Some are harmed because their hours might be reduced. Worse, many others will not be able to find a job or lose their job. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office this number will be 1.4 million people if the federal $15 minimum wage proposal becomes law.��

If you cannot find a job or lose your job, you are not better off. This is especially true for workers starting out in the labor force. They learn things on the job that they cannot learn in a classroom or at home.��

They learn the all-important soft skills required to function in the workplace, such as getting along with coworkers, meeting expectations, and showing up on time prepared for work.

Importantly, they also begin building their net worth. At a minimum, they do this by putting away for their future with contributions—matched by their employer—to Social Security and Medicare.��

No minimum wage law does not mean no standard

The minimum wage is an arbitrary number with little meaningful relationship to the particulars of a specific job. The United States has nearly 6 million business firms with 7.9 million establishments in thousands of industries in over 3,000 counties, according to the . Each has its own characteristics in terms of expectations, skills, and pay.

One of my first jobs was in a machine shop. I still recall how the employer misrepresented the minimum wage when he hired me. He tried passing it off as a pay level sanctioned by the federal government. I did not buy it and was offered higher pay. Later I learned others in the shop fell for his ruse—and were receiving just the minimum wage.��

If we would eliminate the minimum wage law, then low-wage workers would look to other standards reflective of the job and industry.��

Think of that helps consumers know the value of a car. There are also companies—like —helping job seekers know what to expect in terms of pay.�� Moreover, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics conducts 12 on pay and benefits—including for over 800 occupations by area—that can be used as guidance.��

It would be better for workers to have knowledge about pay scales based on real factors than rely on arbitrary and artificial standards set by government law.����

The Success Sequence provides an outline of how to reverse the cycle of poverty in our communities. GCO uses this as a framework for much of our work.

Career ladders and skill sets

The Ģ����Ƶ Center for Opportunity works with community groups helping job seekers link with employers. Setting career goals, understanding the skill requirements of various occupations, and having realistic expectations of pay are all important components of putting together a plan to help job seekers grow in their career and compensation.

These plans are what will help them the most if they are stuck in a minimum wage job. It gives them a plan of action on how to meet their goals. It also helps employers who often complain they can’t find good help with the skill sets they really need. This solution involves working with individuals on a one-on-one basis.��

It also takes time—there is no magic button to push. However, in the end, it will be a win-win situation for both workers and employers. Raising the minimum wage is a win-lose situation—some people will win, but many others, including the overall economy, will lose.

Understanding the needs of employers in the labor market also requires us to do a better job at education in preparing our children for their future. As has shown, giving parents more choices improves the quality of education—and will ultimately benefit our children and society.��

We need to stop coming up with solutions that help some people at the expense of others. It makes little sense to damage the entrance ramp to employment in order to increase the pay for just some workers. Or for the government to have an inflation policy that hurts the poor the most, which I pointed out in this blog.��

Instead, let’s focus our attention on solutions that help everyone. If you have comments, especially on what are the best solutions, we would love to hear from you. Be sure to post them in the comments.

��

*Erik Randolph is Director of Research at the Ģ����Ƶ Center for Opportunity. This blog reflects his opinion and not necessarily that of the Ģ����Ƶ Center for Opportunity.

The post Benefiting Low-Wage Workers without Minimum Wage Laws appeared first on For Opportunity.

In a prior blog, I explained how empirical research supports the side of the debate asserting negative consequences due to minimum wage laws. Now we’ll look under the hood to understand more why this might be the case.

After the stock market crash of 1929—yes, I’m taking you back that far—President Herbert Hoover rolled into action to get the U.S. economy out of the recession that would become the Great Depression. Among his activities were efforts to boost prices and wages, including White House conferences to cajole business leaders to maintain wage rates. 

His successor, Franklin D. Roosevelt, went further to promote higher prices and wages, especially with the Wagner Act intended to strengthen labor unions and the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA) that established a system of industry cartels that regulated, among other things, wages and prices. 

In 1935, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the NIRA. In response, the minimum wage became a platform issue for his 1936 reelection campaign, and FDR succeeded in getting a federal minimum wage of 25¢ per hour in 1938.

Economists seemingly agree on little, but one thing they do agree on is that the policies of Hoover and Roosevelt did nothing to get the U.S. out of the Great Depression. Keep this history in mind when you hear advocates who want to raise the minimum wage. 

Importance of small business

Small businesses are at the heart of the American economy. They are a major engine of prosperity and job growth, enriching society and helping to spread wealth at a time when economic disparities are receiving more attention. 

Examples of small businesses are too many to list but include your local restaurant, hair salon, construction firm, dentist, bakery, and small-town law firm. It also includes many franchisees who may own your local McDonald’s, Subway, UPS store, hardware store, senior home care service, or handyman service. 

According to the : 

• There were 31.7 million small businesses in the U.S. in 2017.
• They employed 60.6 million people, or 47.1 percent of the private workforce in 2018.��
• That number included 4.2 million self-employed persons of color.

Small businesses created 1.6 million net jobs in 2019.

Not all about profits

Also according to the Small Business Administration, there were 249,000 business start-ups creating 863,000 new jobs in 2018. However, those gains were partially offset by 222,000 businesses shutting down, taking 762,000 jobs with them. 

This comparison is a good way of exposing a common myth about economics: It is not all about profits. It is also about losses. 

If you took an economics course in college or high school, you probably found yourself spending time looking at the impact of losses and how much a business can lose before it must shut down.

What it takes to run a small business 

Running a small business is hard. It requires dedication, resources, and daily decisions to keep operations viable without the benefit of an array of professional managers and departments that large businesses typically have. When a small business owner makes a mistake, he takes a direct hit. If the mistake is large enough, it could threaten his or her livelihood.

Politicians, on the other hand, can make a policy mistake impacting business, but they do not take a direct hit. Because every business is different, it is impossible for politicians to know what it takes for every type of business to stay viable and make a profit. Yet changes in government regulations, taxes, and wage laws can have devastating impacts on businesses.

The ability of businesses to withstand changes in minimum wage laws depends on the circumstances of the business and their profitability. It is naive to assume that every business relying on low-cost labor would be able to pay its employees more just because the government mandates them to do so. 

Many businesses operate on thin profit margins. If their costs go up, they may substitute technology for labor, if they can, which naturally and unfortunately results in workers losing their jobs. 

Worse, the business may have to shut down. It makes no sense to expect businesses to continue operating if they are losing money. Many small business owners who shut down may need to find a job themselves or risk landing in poverty. This helps no one, least of all the laid-off employees.

Final warnings

Beware of large corporations like Amazon or Walmart who might support minimum wage laws. It could be because they see it as a way to drive out competition from small mom and pop businesses.

Forcing small businesses to raise wages, especially after they sustained a financial hit from a pandemic, only promises to weaken an all-important job growth engine for the U.S. economy at a time when we need to bolster the small business sector and get the economy rolling again. This strategy of mandating wage increases certainly did not work out well during the Great Depression. There is no good reason to think it will work now.

So, what do our state and national legislators need to be doing? They need to concentrate on getting the economic job engine revving up again, and this is done by finding ways to reduce costs for businesses (not raising them), making it easier for entrepreneurs to start their own businesses (not making it harder), and making sure the financial markets are working properly so small businesses can access much-needed funds.

Where does all this leave the worker stuck in a low-wage job? Stay tuned. I’ll answer that question in my next blog. 

*Erik Randolph is Director of Research at the Ģ����Ƶ Center for Opportunity. This blog reflects his opinion and not necessarily that of the Ģ����Ƶ Center for Opportunity.

The post Why the Minimum Wage is Bad News for Small Business appeared first on For Opportunity.