Why don't we care about the poor?

Source: US Census Bureau, 2014.

Last week saw the release of the annual US poverty and income statistics.  On the face of it, they make for pretty terrible reading. The top fifth of the income distribution held nearly 50 per cent of all income, the bottom fifth just over 3 per cent (Figure 1b). If income was equally shared out across the population, the top fifth would only hold 20 per cent. A longer sweep of history shows how everyone except the top has lost out over the past 40 years, with only the income share of the top growing (Figure 1a).

It's a pretty lonely place down there at the bottom. 15 per cent of Americans are in poverty*. Many more are in near-poverty, struggling on the edge of hardship. Single mums and children fare the worst. Young children are five times as likely to be in poverty if they live in a family headed by a single mother compared to married parents. And despite a small tick down in poverty rates for children and those of Hispanic descent, poverty remains stubbornly high.

You'd be forgiven for blinking and missing this publication. The data are only published once a year and are already a year out of date. They don't move markets or grab headlines.  In fact, those that get most impassioned about the data are people already working at the coal face of poverty alleviation, who are able to demonstrate through statistics what they already know through experience.

Why don't these facts and figures about the harsh reality of life in America grab more attention?

Is it because the average person is also under pressure?  In 2013, the median household was 8% poorer than it was in 2007, just before the financial crisis began. That means that even though we might have made up for all the jobs that we shed in the Great Recession, we haven't made up for all the money we lost.  If the average family is worse-off, and are themselves struggling to stay afloat, they probably don't have the time, or money, to worry about the very poor.

Or is it because poverty's very existence goes against the ideal of the American dream? That if we really believe what they show, then we have to accept that opportunity is not equal for all. That hard work and determination alone are not enough to move out of hardship. By accepting poverty, we accept that there are barriers in-built into our institutional architecture that mean non-Whites are more likely to be born into poverty, live in a deprived area, eat poor-quality food, attend poor-quality schools, drop out of college (if indeed they apply), hold a minimum wage job, not have access to childcare, suffer from poor health outcomes and die early.

Perhaps these reasons are two sides of the same policy coin. If ordinary people are struggling to stay afloat, and those at the very bottom are sinking, then only active government policy can generate a tide that will lift all boats. An increase in the minimum wage, for example, would benefit the majority of people living in poverty but it would also create a corresponding increase in pay further up to maintain pay differentials. A concerted effort to improve the quality of K-12 education would benefit those who in poverty who are most likely to fall behind, as well as creating positive spillovers to all students within that learning environment. Those in poverty may be in the minority but solutions to their problems would definitely benefit the majority.

*According to a more comprehensive measure, the supplementary poverty measure, poverty rates are higher still. The 2013 estimate will be published later this year.

An economy that works together, stays together

Source: Steve Breen / Creators Syndicate

The US economy is experiencing its slowest recovery in 70 years. We just can’t seem to give the economy the kick-start it needs. Why? Because we are held back by inequality. Only by tackling inequality head-on can we secure the sustained economic recovery that we are looking for.

Inequality sends a signal about the economy’s potential to grow today. Income among the poorest can be stagnant if people have given up looking for a job because opportunities are so scarce. The recent fall in US unemployment masks record falls in the participation rate, the number of people actually looking for a job. Fewer people in the labour force leads to lower per head growth rates and lower social cohesion. We are wasting our best resource – people. 

Source: Chan Lowe / Tribute Content Agency

Inequality also matters for the economy’s growth potential tomorrow. Richer families can afford to spend more time with their children, investing in their learning and development. Poorer families, who are more likely to work longer hours in minimum wage jobs, simply don’t have the time. But if you think that talent is randomly distributed, then this means that many children's potential will be left untapped. These young people are also more likely to drop out of high school or college, either because of cost or because they simply don't believe that people like them can succeed. This impacts on their ability to secure a job and makes it more likely that they will also fall on hard times.  

What can be done? If inequality is defined as a gap, then let’s build bridges that enable people to close this divide. Raising the minimum wage would enable everyone to earn a basic income. On-the-job training would improve career progression and lifetime income for those in work, and back-to-work training would improve job prospects for those out of work. A more progressive tax and social security system would provide much-needed resources to low-income families to invest in themselves. 

None of these policies constitute a hand-out. Raising the wage, for example, would actually increase tax receipts and reduce welfare expenditure as fewer people require income support. All of these policies can help children as much as adults. For example, women who joined the workforce following welfare reform in the UK spent the extra income earned on books and activities for their children. And each one would increase the productive potential of the economy. An economy that can produce more is likely to grow.  

To tip or not to tip, that SHOULD BE the question

Tipped workers are more than twice as likely to be in poverty as the average worker. Yet tipping remains an accepted norm in America because people believe that tips reward hard work. Don't they? 

It turns out that tipping is only weakly correlated with good service. Michael Lynn has shown that it is more strongly associated with social norms and the appearance of the server themselves. White, 30-something, blonde, females receive the highest tips. Black people are less likely to both give and receive tips. So the likelihood of receiving a tip is more or less out of a server's hands, even though servers believe that better service is rewarded with higher tips. 

Tipping can also be confusing and uncomfortable. Tourists in America are often puzzled about how much to tip. Stories are told of patrons being chased out of restaurants by servers who were unsatisfied with their tip, claiming that they needed the money to survive. The obligation falls to the customer to pay the server enough.

Why are tips so important to the server? Because their base wage rate ($2.13 an hour, unchanged for 20 years) is set assuming that tips will be received. In theory, tipped workers should take home a minimum wage ($7.25) because employers are obliged to make up any difference between base wage plus tips and the minimum wage. In practice, the process appears complicated and reliant on employers acting promptly to pay the difference in the two, without error.

Source: Council of Economic Advisers available here.
Occupations shown are predominantly tipped.

But even the minimum wage ($7.25 an hour) is too low to meet a basic standard of living, as previous blogs have argued. So if a server wishes to earn above this level, the only way that they can do so is to earn tips to take their total wages over and above the minimum wage. But tips are irregular and never guaranteed. As a result, the median tipped wage ($10.64) is much lower than the median across all wages ($17.12) (Chart 1, left-hand diamonds). Tipping isn't working as a way to increase income. In poorer areas, where income of the clientele is itself low, tipped workers are even less likely to earn a decent amount.  

In addition, tipped jobs attract more women than men, exposing them to the irregularity of income streams that tipped work brings. Nearly three-quarters of tipped workers are women, even though they account for just under half of total employment (Chart 1, left-hand bars). Women may be attracted to these jobs because they offer flexible hours that allow them to work around childcare. But the low-paid nature of this work makes it more likely that women, particularly single mothers, will find themselves in poverty.

Given how inefficient, confusing and poverty-creating tipping can be, why not eliminate the practice altogether? Some restaurants have already instigated such a practice. Examples include increasing base salaries and making clear that tips are optional, or adding a service charge to all tables and taking the decision out of the customer's hands altogether. Bringing tipped workers onto the minimum wage would eliminate one obstacle in the path to ensuring better pay. The next would be to secure a substantial wage increase for all low-paid workers. In the meantime, customers can revert to tipping because they want to, not because they have to.  

Subsidise fruit not fries: addressing food insecurity in America

1 in 6 American families are food insecure. Put simply, they are going hungry.

The Federal government has relied on food assistance programs to meet the needs of the poorest families. Last year, it spent $80 billion on its Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program alone. But budgets have been cut, reducing the amount of money in people's pockets. Reliance on non-profit food banks has increased sharply but they are unable to provide nutritionally-balanced food, like fruit and vegetables, because they are perishable.

In addition, hunger is no longer confined to the poorest or those who are unemployed. Two-thirds of food-insecure families with children have at least one adult in work. The problem, once again, is that wages have failed to keep up with the rising cost of living. After rent, bills and other necessities have been paid, there is often little left over for food.

The consequences of food insecurity are greatest for children, because health problems that set in early on are difficult to reverse. In areas where money is tight, the demand for luxuries falls, reducing the supply of supermarkets and increasing the prevalence of cheap fast-food restaurants. For this reason and others, hungry children are at a higher risk of obesity. Over a lifetime, child obesity costs $19,000 per child in medical costs ($14 billion for all current 10 year olds). Worse, many will have shorter lives than their parents.

Obesity, caused by food insecurity, has the potential to reduce the capacity of the future US workforce exactly at the time when a larger, more skilled workforce is required to support an ageing population. This is a multi-faceted problem, that captures costs, family income, lifestyle and parental education. But here are just two solutions that would tackle it at source.

To deal with rising costs, subsidise the production of fruit and vegetables. Currently, agricultural subsidies for US corn production end up inadvertently reducing the price of corn-based products like fizzy drinks or corn-fed meat, which results in cheap meat and snacks in our shops. So an adjustment to expenditure (not new money) could change consumption behaviour.

To deal with falling real incomes, raise wages. Company profitability would be supported because the workforce can afford a healthier lifestyle and are less likely to take sick days. Government finances would be boosted because higher wages lead to higher tax contributions and falling levels of income support. And tomorrow's growth is secured because higher take-home pay increases investment into children, reducing the future burden, and increasing the future capacity, of tomorrow's workforce.

Inequality: seed of the crisis, thorn in the recovery

The US economic recovery is being built on fragile foundations. The average consumer might be spending more but the extra money isn't coming from substantial wage growth. Consumption is being financed by running down savings and building up debt. Savings ratios are back to levels last seen on the eve of the 2008 financial crisis. The consumer debt ratio - debt payments (excluding housing) as a proportion of disposable income - is on the rise (Figure 1).

Source:  Federal Reserve Board

This pattern is not new or sustainable. In the years prior to the financial crisis, wages of low-income households in the US failed to keep up with rising living costs. In order to maintain spending, these households took on more debt. Meanwhile, incomes at the top grew rapidly. Rising income inequality created political pressure to encourage borrowing (particularly in housing) to maintain demand in the economy. Such action built on the underlying "fault line" that inequality represented rather than resolving it (Rajan, 2010).  

Borrowers bet on higher wages being just around the corner, which would allow them to continue to service their debt. In 1989, the US household debt-to-income ratio was around 60 per cent for the top 10 per cent and around 80 per cent for all other groups. In 2007, the ratio was around 80 per cent for the top 10 per cent and 250 per cent for the bottom fifth. But wages failed to keep up with growing debt burdens. Default rates picked up, the inequality fault line was exposed and the financial crisis ensued.    

Today, for expenditure to be affordable, wages need to rise in line with living costs. One way to do this is to mandate for above-inflation increases in the minimum wage, so that low-paid workers can catch up. In February, President Obama signed an Executive Order increasing the minimum wage for federal contract employees to $10.10 an hour. He also called on Congress to pass a similar proposition for all Americans (the current federal minimum wage is $7.25). Some jurisdictions have implemented or announced their own above-average increases, for example, San Francisco ($10.74) and Seattle ($15). The Center for Economic Policy and Research has demonstrated that if the minimum wage had kept up with labour productivity since 1960, then it would have reached $21.72 by 2012.* 

A reasonable increase in the minimum wage would have a positive impact on the individual and economy. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), an increase in the federal minimum wage to $10.10 by 2016 would lift 900,000 individuals out of poverty. But it is not just those in poverty that benefit. All low-income, and some middle-income, households stand to gain. The CBO reports that the cost of expected job losses that would arise from a higher minimum wage to $10.10 would be more than offset by overall gains.** An increase in consumption that follows from a rise in wages would stimulate business investment. An increase in tax contributions from better-paid workers would improve the state and federal balance sheet.   

But in the medium-term, increasing the wage packet of low-income households does not fully tackle the problem. As a result of technological progress and cheaper labour overseas, many middle-skilled jobs in the US have been eliminated (see "An earthquake on inequality is coming").  What remains are low-skilled and high-skilled jobs.  This makes it very difficult for those at the bottom to progress up the income ladder. What is required to bridge this gap is investment into training and job creation. This would enable low-income individuals to secure decent progression, pay and improve job quality. In turn, this would make it more likely that they are able to participate in the recovery, and not be left behind... again.

* This isn't necessarily an argument for increasing the minimum wage to $21.72. But it does demonstrate nicely that much of the gain produced by ordinary workers in recent years has been channeled away, towards senior executives and capital-owners, contributing to rising income inequality.

** Seattle has agreed to raise its minimum wage gradually to $15 by 2021.  As the population of low-paid workers is fairly small in the city, the benefits may outweigh costs arising from unemployment and higher operating expenses.  But further evidence is required before coming to a definitive conclusion.

This post was updated on 12 June, to clarify developments in low, middle and high-skilled jobs in the US.