Virginia Democrats’ Minimum Wage Bill Would Wipe Out Jobs, Especially During Recessions

from Liberty Unyielding 

The Democratic leaders in both houses of Virginia’s legislature have just introduced legislation that would raise the Virginia minimum wage from $12 to $15. The bill also retains provisions that make the minimum wage rise with inflation, while preventing it from ever falling due to deflation. As a result, it could rise further in real terms in the future. This minimum wage increase and further increases in the future could lead to a big spike in unemployment in the next recession.

In a deep recession, prices may fall due to deflation, resulting in a dollar of wages being worth more than it was before. If employers can’t adjust wages to match those falling prices, they may have to lay off many more of their employees, because employers cannot afford to pay rising real wages at a time when the demand for their product is shrinking due to the recession. As Jason Lennard noted in the European Review of Economic History, “In the ‘deflationary vortex’ of the 1930s… sticky nominal wages translated to rising real wages, which resulted in mass unemployment.” Moreover, “minimum wage legislation may have contributed to stickiness by preventing nominal wages from falling.”

But the Democrats’ $15 minimum wage bill ignores that painful lesson from the Great Depression, when the rising real wages of some workers caused unemployment to rise even faster, as that most famous of economists, John Maynard Keynes, noted. The Democrats’ bill mandates that the minimum wage will only increase, and never decrease. It says that the “state hourly minimum wage” shall be increased by “the percentage by which the United States Average Consumer Price Index…has increased during the most recent calendar year.…The amount of each annual adjustment shall not be less than zero.” So if there were deflation, the minimum wage would increase in real terms, by remaining the same in nominal terms even as prices fall.

That is a bad idea. Even in a growing economy, minimum wage hikes eliminate some jobs, and shrink some other employees’ work hours, reducing their wages. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that as many as 3.7 million jobs could be lost if the federal minimum wage were raised to $15. New York City experienced its worst decline in restaurant jobs since 9/11 after a $15 minimum wage was enacted there. Some restaurants and bars closed in West Hollywood this year after it increased its minimum wage. In 2017, Reuters reported that a “Seattle law that requires many businesses to pay a minimum wage of at least $13 an hour” had “left low-wage workers with less money in their pockets because some employers cut working hours.” A senator who supported a $15 minimum wage cut his staffers’ hours in order to afford the higher wage. Illinois businesses such as Hopper’s Poppers announced plans to close up, move out of the state, or curb their expansion in the state, after the state passed a gradual minimum wage increase.

Minimum wage hikes increase consumer prices, as economists have found. An April 2019 survey found that “minimum wage hikes usually mean higher menu prices and fewer employee hours” in restaurants.

Minimum wage hikes can lead to tax increases. In 2016, California’s legislative analyst estimated that the gradual increase in California’s minimum wage to $15 an hour would cost taxpayers $3.6 billion more a year in government pay alone. Easy-to-perform, unskilled jobs in state and local governments historically often paid less than $15 per hour. States had no difficulty hiring people for far less than $15 per hour, because those government jobs were not demanding, and often came with excellent benefits.

Raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour is especially likely to cause job losses in counties with low median wages. In such regions, living costs are often low, too. There are dirt-cheap counties in Virginia where the average hourly income is less than $20 an hour, and the median hourly income is even less, yet most people there own their own home, and have a decent quality home that is bigger than the average European lives in, because it costs so little to live there. For example, average weekly wages in Grayson County are only $686, which works out to about $17 per hour, but it is cheap enough to live there that 80% of people  own their own home. If the average worker in Grayson County only gets $17 per hour, and is able to make do on that, it is hard to see why an unskilled, entry-level employee who is worth less to their employer should get $15 per hour. Similarly, the average worker makes $730 per week in Mathews, Carroll, and Floyd counties and only $722 per week in Patrick County.

Entry-level employees who are paid the minimum wage often are single and have no family to support, meaning they need less to live on. What they need most is to get on the bottom rung of the economic ladder to start climbing it, rather than being priced out of the job market by high minimum wages that make it unaffordable for an employer to hire them, and thus leave them unable to get on the ladder at all. An entry-level employee making only $12 per hour can save some money if he lives with his parents, and just having a job may give the entry-level worker access to job training and valuable experience he can use to start climbing the economic ladder and getting a higher wage. As the Bureau of Labor Statistics notes, “Minimum wage workers tend to be young” and “unmarried.”

In regions where a typical worker is paid $15-$20 per hour, employers cannot possibly pay all their employees — including entry-level, unskilled workers who are worth much less than the typical employee — over $15 per hour.  In such areas, employers typically don’t make more than a couple dollars per hour in profit on an employee. For example, grocery stores have a typical profit margin of between 1% and 3% per item, a small profit margin which can be wiped out by even modest wage increases. So if they are currently paying their average employee $12 per hour, they are not going to be able to raise that to $15 per hour — especially not for bottom-level, newly-hired employees who are still learning the ropes, and need help doing their job. Retail stores have small profit margins: when Venezuela imposed a large increase in its minimum wage, 40% of its stores were forced to close, because they simply could not afford to pay the higher wage.

A $15 minimum wage is popular, because people wrongly believe that companies have lots of spare cash that they can spend on increased wages. The public mistakenly believes that the average corporate profit margin is a whopping 36%.

Many economists have said that a $15 minimum wage is a bad idea, because it would eliminate a significant number of jobs. A poll of professional economists found “74 percent of respondents opposing a $15 per hour minimum wage.” Eighty-four percent believed “it would have a negative impact on youth employment levels.” That included Democratic and independent economists, not just Republicans; only 12% of the economists polled were Republicans. Even the minority of economists who support a $15 minimum wage often concede that it will increase unemployment. An economist at Moody’s estimated that up to 160,000 jobs would be lost in California’s manufacturing sector alone from its gradual increase of the minimum wage to $15.

Moreover, much of the benefit of the wage hike to low-income workers who manage to keep jobs at the increased minimum wage is lost due to increased federal taxes and reduced federal earned-income tax credits and food stamps, as a writer noted in The Wall Street Journal in 2016:

[T]he tax implications of going from a $10- to a $15-an-hour minimum wage … [are] very significant. For a family of four with both spouses making the minimum wage, their federal tax will increase from $4,106 to $7,219, payroll tax will increase from $2,579 to $3,869, their earned-income tax credit (EITC) will be reduced from $596 to zero … and the $2,400 food-stamp credit will be lost. Of the $20,800 increase in income in going from $10 to $15 an hour, $7,778 will be diverted to the government, which doesn’t include loss of other income-dependent government welfare programs and added costs due to the resulting inflation. Over one-third of the wage increase will flow to the [federal] government.

So a state minimum wage increase may effectively siphon money out of the state, sending it to the federal government.

Some economists predicted that wealthy Maryland would eventually lose up to 99,000 jobs due to its gradual increase in the minimum wage to $15. Virginia has a larger population and labor force and thus could lose even more jobs than Maryland from a $15 minimum wage.

Republished with permission from Liberty Unyielding.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

18 responses to “Virginia Democrats’ Minimum Wage Bill Would Wipe Out Jobs, Especially During Recessions”

  1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
    Dick Hall-Sizemore

    This alarmist post glosses over the provisions of the bill. The minimum wage would not hit $15 per hour until January 1, 2026. The minimum wage has increased gradually over the last few years to $12 per hour with none of the predicted dire consequences occurring. On the contrary, many employers, including fast-food, are now paying $15 per hour or more. Rather than going into a tailspin, the Commonwealth’s economy is going along nicely. The unemployment rate is low (2.7 percent) and “Help Wanted” signs abound.

    The author of this post is very worried about deflation. Seriously, is anyone projecting deflation?

    1. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      Well, the author of this article. If he is writing this article to reach the other people worried about deflation, it would be more effective to use a chain-letter. What are the odds all 10 of them read BR?
      Read this, and send a copy to your other friend who is worried about deflation.

  2. how_it_works Avatar
    how_it_works

    Good. The abundance of cheap labor has stifled the adoption of automation.

  3. Those opposing the minimum wage could not care less about softening the effects of a massive recession. What those opposing the minimum wage want is cheap wages and externalizing the costs of living onto the government.

    The Republicans are going to have to decide if the push toward populism is real or not. If real, then Republicans need to be leading the change for higher minimum wages along with less inflation.

  4. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    Basically, the poor should just scrape by in good times in the event that should bad times occur they won’t know the difference.

  5. Bizarre article, on the one hand fearmongering over deflation that we have not had for nearly 100 years and on the other hand ignoring the effects of inflation on wages that we have had and still have in spades.

    The sky is falling, the sky is falling. Be afraid, be very afraid. DEFLATION. Horse hockey, inflation is the problem and has been since the Repubs screwed the economy with the Great Depression. A dollar in 1935 would be worth more than $20 now. Inflation in that time is up over 2,000 percent. Whatever you think about that it sure ain’t deflation.

    On the minimum wage the problem is the reverse, the erosion (deflation) of real wages compared to inflation. Since the last Federal minimum wage hike in 2011 Federal minimum wages have not changed with inflation. Today Virginia’s $12 minimum wage may have roughly the purchasing power the Federal minimum wage did more than a decade ago. What it does is catch up for failure to index minimums for inflation.

    1. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      Not all persons earning minimum wage are poor or destined to remain poor, but by god, those who are poor, and destined to remain so, earn minimum wage.

      1. James Wyatt Whitehead Avatar
        James Wyatt Whitehead

        The wage crunch is pushing the 62 year old crowd into early social security. A sure sentence to poverty in old age. Flip the coin and you get a 15 buck an hour worker doing the job of two 12 buck an hour workers. The house always wins.

        1. Nancy Naive Avatar
          Nancy Naive

          Watched the movie Castaway and one question keeps niggling at me. Where, exactly, is that island?

          1. James Wyatt Whitehead Avatar
            James Wyatt Whitehead

            It’s probably one of those Pacific Islands with a 106 year old Japanese soldier who still thinks he is at war.

          2. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            In a salt air environment with 80-year old gun oil, he’ll be “mostly harmless”.

          3. James Wyatt Whitehead Avatar
            James Wyatt Whitehead

            If the shot down Zero engine is still intact motor oil can be an effective substitute for gun oil. Only other best option is sewing machine oil. Coconut oil has a low smoke point, a no go. Same with fish oil. He might have a samurai sword though.

          4. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            Did you not see the first Indiana Jones movie, i.e., whip v sword v pistol?

          5. James Wyatt Whitehead Avatar
            James Wyatt Whitehead

            Yeah that was a great scene. Star Trek 3, Kirk melts down a Klingon with a knife. Phasers rule!

        2. early social security. A sure sentence to poverty in old age.

          Maybe not so much. If you run the numbers early SS recipients are money in the bank ahead of older retirees for a couple of decades. The crossover point usually is in the early to mid 80s. That is well beyond average lifespan in the US.

          Some early SS recipients will undoubtedly be poorer in their old age than those who waited longer, but it can only be those who far outlive statistical life spans in the US. In the mean time those who collect early will be ahead of those who do not.

          That presumes that we get the fortitude to fix SS so that it does not run out of surplus and cut everyone’s benefit in another decade. I’m not holding my breath, but I’ll be dead by then so it won’t matter to me.

        3. early social security. A sure sentence to poverty in old age.

          Maybe not so much. If you run the numbers early SS recipients are money in the bank ahead of older retirees for a couple of decades. The crossover point usually is in the early to mid 80s. That is well beyond average lifespan in the US.

          Some early SS recipients will undoubtedly be poorer in their old age than those who waited longer, but it can only be those who far outlive statistical life spans in the US. In the mean time those who collect early will be ahead of those who do not.

          That presumes that we get the fortitude to fix SS so that it does not run out of surplus and cut everyone’s benefit in another decade. I’m not holding my breath, but I’ll be dead by then so it won’t matter to me.

  6. James Kiser Avatar
    James Kiser

    Vote democrat so we finish destroying the country.

  7. CAPT Jake Avatar

    This will play out nicely for the design, manufacture and installation companies that WILL provide automated food and merchandise (delivery) services to the general public. Expect fast food restaurants to vigorously pursue this course of action and small businesses to forego being brick & mortar shifting to being only online (Etsy). Unemployment will exponentially increase.
    But you do you Democrats.

Leave a Reply