Tag Archives: San Jose

A $15 minimum wage will excessively harm California’s poorest counties

Lawmakers in California are thinking about increasing the state minimum wage to $15 per hour by 2022. If it occurs it will be the latest in a series of increases in the minimum wage across the country, both at the city and state level.

Increases in the minimum wage make it difficult for low-skill workers to find employment since the mandated wage is often higher than the value many of these workers can provide to their employers. Companies won’t stay in business long if they are forced to pay a worker $15 per hour who only produces $12 worth of goods and services per hour. Statewide increases may harm the job prospects of low-skill workers more than citywide increases since they aren’t adjusted to local labor market conditions.

California is a huge state, covering nearly 164,000 square miles, and contains 58 counties and 482 municipalities. Each of these counties and cities has their own local labor market that is based on local conditions. A statewide minimum wage ignores these local conditions and imposes the same mandated price floor on employers and workers across the state. In areas with low wages in general, a $15 minimum wage may affect nearly every worker, while in areas with high wages the adverse effects of a $15 minimum wage will be moderated. As explained in the NY Times:

“San Francisco and San Jose, both high-wage cities that have benefited from the tech boom, are likely to weather the increase without so much as a ripple. The negative consequences of the minimum wage increase in Los Angeles and San Diego — large cities where wages are lower — are likely to be more pronounced, though they could remain modest on balance.

But in lower-wage, inland cities like Bakersfield and Fresno, the effects could play out in much less predictable ways. That’s because the rise of the minimum wage to $15 over the next six years would push the wage floor much closer to the expected pay for a worker in the middle of the wage scale, affecting a much higher proportion of employees and employers there than in high-wage cities.”

To put some numbers to this idea, I used BLS weekly wage data from Dec. of 2014 to create a ratio for each of California’s counties that consists of the weekly wage of a $15 per hour job (40 x $15 = $600) divided by the average weekly wage of each county. The three counties with the lowest ratio and the three counties with the highest ratio are in the table below, with the ratio depicted as a percentage in the 4th column.

CA county weekly min wage ratio

The counties with the lowest ratios are San Mateo, Santa Clara, and San Francisco County. These are all high-wage counties located on the coast and contain the cities of San Jose and San Francisco. As an example, a $600 weekly wage is equal to 27.7% of the average weekly wage in San Mateo County.

The three counties with the highest ratios are Trinity, Lake, and Mariposa County. These are more rural counties that are located inland. Trinity and Lake are north of San Francisco while Mariposa County is located to the east of San Francisco. In Mariposa County, a $600 weekly wage would be equal to 92.6% of the avg. weekly wage in that county as Dec. 2014. The data shown in the table reveal the vastly different local labor market conditions that exist in California.

The price of non-tradeable goods like restaurant meals, haircuts, automotive repair, etc. are largely based on local land and labor costs and the willingness to pay of the local population. For example, a nice restaurant in San Francisco can charge $95 for a steak because the residents of San Francisco have a high willingness to pay for such meals as a result of their high incomes.

Selling a luxury product like a high-quality steak also makes it relatively easier to absorb a cost increase that comes from a higher minimum wage; restaurant workers are already making relatively more in wealthier areas and passing along the cost increase in the form of higher prices will have a small effect on sales if consumers of steak aren’t very sensitive to price.

But in Mariposa County, where the avg. weekly wage is only $648, a restaurant would have a hard time attracting customers if they charged similar prices. A diner in Mariposa County that sells hamburgers is probably not paying its workers much more than the minimum wage, so an increase to $15 per hour is going to drastically affect the owner’s costs. Additionally, consumers of hamburgers may be more price-sensitive than consumers of steak, making it more difficult to pass along cost increases.

Yet despite these differences, both the 5-star steakhouse in San Francisco and the mom-and-pop diner in Mariposa County are going to be bound by the same minimum wage if California passes this law.

In the table below I calculate what the minimum wage would have to be in San Mateo, Santa Clara, and San Francisco County to be on par with a $15 minimum in Mariposa County.

CA comparable min wage

If the minimum wage was 92.6% of the average wage in San Mateo it would be equal to $50.14. Using the ratio from a more developed but still lower-wage area – Kern County, where Bakersfield is located – the minimum wage would need to be $37.20 in San Mateo. Does anyone really believe that a $50 or $37 minimum wage in San Mateo wouldn’t cause a drastic decline in employment or a large increase in prices in that county?

If California’s lawmakers insist on implementing a minimum wage increase they should adjust it so that it doesn’t disproportionately affect workers in poorer, rural areas. But of course this is unlikely to happen; I doubt that the voters of San Mateo, Santa Clara, and San Francisco County will be as accepting of a $37 + minimum wage as they are of a $15 minimum wage that won’t directly affect many of them.

A minimum wage of any amount is going to harm some workers by preventing them from getting a job. But a minimum wage that ignores local labor market conditions will cause relatively more damage in poorer areas that are already struggling, and policy makers who ignore this reality are excessively harming the workers in these areas.

Local land-use restrictions harm everyone

In a recent NBER working paper, authors Enrico Moretti and Chang-Tai Hsieh analyze how the growth of cities determines the growth of nations. They use data on 220 MSAs from 1964 – 2009 to estimate the contribution of each city to US national GDP growth. They compare what they call the accounting estimate to the model-driven estimate. The accounting estimate is the simple way of attributing city nominal GDP growth to national GDP growth in that it doesn’t account for whether the increase in city GDP is due to higher nominal wages or increased output caused by an increase in local employment. The model-driven estimate that they compare it to distinguishes between these two factors.

Before I go any further it is important to explain the theory behind the author’s empirical findings. Suppose there is a productivity shock to City A such that workers in City A are more productive than they were previously. This productivity shock could be the result of a new method of production or a newly invented piece of equipment (capital) that helps workers make more stuff with a given amount of labor. This productivity shock will increase the local demand for labor which will increase the wage.

Now one of two things can happen and the diagram below depicts the two scenarios. The supply and demand lines are those for workers, with the wage on the Y-axis and the amount of workers on the X-axis. Since more workers lead to more output I also labeled labor as L = αY, where α is some fraction less than 1 to signify that each additional unit of labor doesn’t lead to a one unit increase in output, but rather some fraction of 1 unit (capital is needed too).

moretti, land use pic

City A can have a highly elastic supply of housing, meaning that it is easy to expand the number of housing units in that city and thus it is relatively easy for people to move there. This would mean that the supply of labor is like S-elastic in the diagram. Thus the number of workers that are able to migrate to City A after labor demand increases (D1 to D2) is large, local employment increases (Le > L*), and total output (GDP) increases. Wages only increase a little bit (We > W*). In this situation the productivity shock would have a relatively large effect on national GDP since it resulted in a large increase in local output as workers moved from relatively low-productivity cities to the relatively high-productivity City A.

Alternatively, the supply of housing in City A could be very inelastic; this would be like S-inelastic. If that is the case, then the productivity shock would still increase the wage in City A (Wi > W*), but it will be more difficult for new workers to move in since new housing cannot be built to shelter them. In this case wages increase but since total local employment stays fairly constant due to the restriction on available housing the increase in output is not as large (Li > L* but < Le). If City A output stays relatively constant and instead the productivity shock is expressed in higher nominal wages, then the resulting growth in City A nominal GDP will not have as large of an effect on national output growth.

As an example, Moretti and Hsieh calculate that the growth of New York City’s GDP was 12% of national GDP growth from 1964-2009. But when accounting for the change in wages, New York’s contribution to national output growth was only 5%: Most of New York’s GDP growth was manifested in higher nominal wages. This is not surprising as it is well known that New York has strict housing regulations that make it difficult to build new housing units (the recent extension of NYC rent-control laws won’t help). This makes it difficult for people to relocate from relatively low-productivity places to a high-productivity New York.

In three of the most intensely land-regulated cities: New York, San Francisco, and San Jose, the accounting contribution to national GDP growth was 19.3%. But these cities actual contribution to national output as estimated by the authors was only 6.1%. Contrast that with the Rust Belt cities (e.g. Detroit, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, etc.) which contributed -28.5% according to the accounting method but +6.1% according to the author’s model.

The authors conclude that less onerous land-use restrictions in high-productivity cities New York, Washington D.C., Boston, San Francisco, San Jose, and the rest of Silicon Valley could increase the nation’s output growth rate by making it easier for workers to migrate from low to high-productivity areas. In an extreme migration scenario where 52% of American workers in 2009 lived in a different city than they actually did, the author’s calculate that GDP per worker would have been $8,775 higher in 2009, or $6,345 per person. In a more realistic scenario (only 20% of workers lived in a different city) it would have been $3,055 more per person: That is a substantial increase.

While I agree with the author’s conclusion that less land-use restrictions would result in a more productive allocation of labor and thus more stuff for all of us, the author’s policy prescriptions at the end of the paper leave much to be desired.  They propose that the federal government constrain the ability of municipalities to set land-use restrictions since these restrictions impose negative externalities on the rest of the country if the form of lowering national output growth. They also support the use of government funded high-speed rail to link  low-productivity labor markets to high-productivity labor markets e.g. the current high-speed rail construction project taking place in California could help workers get form low productivity areas like Stockton, Fresno, and Modesto, to high productivity areas in Silicon Valley.

Land-use restrictions are a problem in many areas, but not a problem that warrants arbitrary federal involvement. If federal involvement simply meant the Supreme Court ruling that land-use regulations (or at least most of them) are unconstitutional then I think that would be beneficial; a broad removal of land-use restrictions would go a long way towards reinstituting the institution of private property. Unfortunately, I don’t think that is what Moretti and Hsieh had in mind.

Arbitrary federal involvement in striking down local land-use regulations would further infringe on federalism and create opportunities for political cronyism. Whatever federal bureaucracy was put in charge of monitoring land-use restrictions would have little local knowledge of the situation. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) already monitors some local land use and faulty information along with an expensive appeals process creates problems for residents simply trying to use their own property. Creating a whole federal bureaucracy tasked with picking and choosing which land-use restrictions are acceptable and which aren’t would no doubt lead to more of these types of situations as well as increase the opportunities for regulatory activism. Also, federal land-use regulators may target certain areas that have governors or mayors who don’t agree with them on other issues.

As for more public transportation spending, I think the record speaks for itself – see here, here, and here.

Pension reform from California to Tennessee

Earlier this month Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) workers went on their second strike of the year. With public transport dysfunctional for four days, area residents were not necessarily sympathetic to the workers’ complaints, according to The Economist. The incident only drew attention to the fact that BART’s workers weren’t contributing to their pensions.

Under the new collective bargaining agreement employees will contribute to their pensions, and increase the amount they pay for health care benefits to $129/month.  The growing cost of public pensions, wages and benefits on city budgets is a real matter for mayors who must struggle to contain rapidly rising costs to pay for retiree benefits. San Jose’s mayor, Chuck Reed has led the effort in California to institute pension reforms via a ballot measure that would give city workers a choice between reduced benefits or bigger contributions, known as the Pension Reform Act of 2014. Reed is actively seeking the support of California’s public sector unions for the measure that would give local authorities some flexibility to contain costs. Pension costs are presenting new threats for many California governments. Moody’s is scrutinizing 30 cities for possible downgrades based on their more complete measurement of the economic liability presented by pension plans.  In spite of this dire warning, CalPERS has sent municipalities a strong message to struggling and bankrupt cities: pay your contributions, or else.

Other states and cities that are looking to overhaul how benefits are provided to employees include Memphis, Tennessee which faces a reported unfunded liability of $642 million and a funding ratio of 74.4%. This is using a discount rate of 7.5 percent.  I calculate Memphis’ unfunded liability is approximately $3.4 billion on a risk-free basis, leaving the plan only 35% funded.

The options being discussed by the Memphis government include moving new hires to a hybrid plan, a cash balance plan, or a defined contribution plan. Which of these presents the best option for employees, governments and Memphis residents?

I would suggest the following principles be used to guide pension reform: a) economic accounting, b) shift the funding risk away from government, c) offer workers – both current workers and future hires – the option to determine their own retirement course and to choose from a menu of options that includes a DC plan or an annuity – managed by an outside firm or some combination.

The idea should be to eliminate the ever-present incentive to turn employee retirement savings into a budgetary shell-game for governments. Public sector pensions in US state and local governments have been made uncertain under flawed accounting and high-risk investing. As long as pensions are regarded as malleable for accounting purposes – either through discount rate assumptions, re-amortization games, asset smoothing, dual-purpose asset investments, or short-sighted thinking – employee benefits are at risk for underfunding. A defined contribution plan, or a privately managed annuity avoids this temptation by putting the employer on the hook annually to make the full contribution to an employee’s retirement savings.

The Economist on the U.S. Pension Crisis

This week’s Economist features a report on the crisis in U.S. state pensions, with special reference to New Jersey and the recent study authored by Andrew Biggs of AEI and myself. The piece begins with a view of the municipalities, in this case, San Jose, California which has seen its pension costs triple in the last ten years. San Jose offers workers its own muncipal plan and according to Robert Novy Marx and Joshua Rauh, their unfunded liability is about $4 billion, or 321% of the city’s 2006 revenues.

Want to Help the Earth? Move Back to Metropolis

Ed Glaeser writes in City Journal on his latest study, which suggests that cities emit less carbon than suburbs. (Full NBER paper with Matthew Kahn can be found here.) The top five cities (by emissions) are in California.

This sounds counterintuitive at first blush. But, Glaeser suggests, people who live in the suburbs drive more and consume more housing. The policy implication is make cities more affordable by loosening building restrictions:

If climate change is the major environmental challenge that we face, the state should actively encourage new construction, rather than push it toward other areas. True, increasing development in California might increase per-household carbon emissions within the state if the new development, following the current model, took place on the extreme edges of urban areas. A better path would be to ease restrictions in the urban cores of San Francisco, San Jose, Los Angeles, and San Diego. More building there would reduce average commute lengths and improve per-capita emissions. Higher densities could also justify more investment in new, low-emissions energy plants.

Similarly, limiting the height or growth of New York City skyscrapers incurs environmental costs. Building more apartments in Gotham will not only make the city more affordable; it will also reduce global warming.

Here’s Glaeser’s write-up at the New York Times Economix blog. Here’s Tyler Cowen on a previous, related study.