Archive for the ‘Economic Opportunity’ category

Basic needs and the minimum wage

April 10, 2014

Basic RGBWorking full time is no guarantee that your family will be able to get by.

In fact, 1 in 6 Iowa households with a worker earned less than is needed to support a family at a very basic level. That is the finding of a report released Wednesday by the Iowa Policy Project.

The new report, part 2 of the 2014 edition of The Cost of Living in Iowa, used census data to estimate how many families earned less than is needed to pay for a no-frills basic standard of living – covering rent, food, transportation, child care, clothing and health care.

In all, at least 100,000 Iowa families earn less than the basic needs budget amount (reported in part 1 of the Cost of Living report). For those families, the average shortfall – the break-even income amount minus what they actually earned – was over $14,000.

So how would an increase in the minimum wage help such a family? A full-time wage earner at the current minimum wage of $7.25 would see an increase of almost $6,000 in annual income if the wage were raised to $10.10, as Senator Harkin and others have proposed. That’s a pretty good chunk of the average $14,000 shortfall facing these families.

The situation facing Iowa’s single-parent families is much bleaker. Almost 3 in 5 – over 27,000 families – fall short of the basic needs level of income despite working at least half time, and 29 percent earn less than half the break-even level. The average working single parent’s earnings fall over $21,000 short of what is needed. High child care costs are responsible for much of that shortfall.

How do such families get by? Some move in with relatives or find short-term strategies to survive, but many rely on work supports such as food assistance, hawk-i or Medicaid or the Affordable Care Act subsidies for health care, and the state’s Child Care Assistance program.

Wouldn’t it be better for everyone if Iowa’s low-wage employers followed the lead of Costco and others and quit using these public supports to subsidize their low wages?

An increase in the minimum wage makes all employers responsible for providing something closer to what is needed for a worker to get by in today’s world. Even a single person living alone needs in excess of $13 an hour to pay the bills.

We need to strengthen our work supports in Iowa as well. Child Care Assistance in particular needs to be reformed. We have one of the lowest eligibility ceilings in the country: At an income well below what any family needs to get by, assistance is eliminated.

And we make it difficult for the thousands of students who are parents to work part time while going to school part time to qualify for child care assistance at all. Still, employers need to do their part to make work pay.

Working full time shouldn’t leave a family in poverty.

Peter Fisher

Posted by Peter Fisher, Research Director

Let’s be done with Iowa’s fake job number

March 18, 2014

For some time now, the Iowa Policy Project and others have noted a bogus statistic that has been inserted into official jobs data provided by Iowa Workforce Development (IWD).

It just keeps getting better — the fake statistic — because it is designed to work that way.

“Gross Over-the-month Employment Gains” is an extra line that has been added to IWD’s seasonally adjusted, nonfarm jobs spreadsheet, which provides month-by-month data by job sector, back to January 2008.

Basic RGB

Below the standard table of rows and columns is the special line, with numbers reflecting the gains-only count since January 2011, when Governor Branstad took office. Construction up 200 but manufacturing down 400? No problem. Ignore the manufacturing losses and call it a gain of 200. That is exactly how this method treats job counts.

And now there’s a new wrinkle. Previously, IWD only showed what the count looked like for each month, with no overall total. You had to add the numbers yourself.

Beginning with the latest report, the ever-helpful IWD now takes care of that for you, or for whomever would want the meaningless number. With the latest report, IWD makes it a cumulative count.

Our experience with IWD staff is that they are professionals. No doubt they cringe every time that number comes out of the agency — whoever ordered them to compile it.

But no doubt the Governor is pleased. While the number is a total distortion of reality, it shows him close to the pace he would need after three years (120,000) to get to his magic goal of 200,000 jobs in five years. Kind of like winning a basketball game by shutting off the opponent’s side of the scoreboard, but, whatever it takes, right?

So, in case you’re interested, Iowa’s economy has created a net increase of just under 61,000 jobs since the Governor took office — about half of what he’d need to be on pace toward his goal. For a real analysis of Iowa’s job picture, see IPP’s monthly Iowa JobWatch report, or our annual report on The State of Working Iowa.

140318-jobsat36months2Now it’s one thing if the Governor’s campaign wants to peddle silly job numbers under its own letterhead. But it is wrong — flat out wrong — for official data to be presented by IWD with what amounts to a political campaign line for the Governor.

For those of us engaged in nonpartisan research and analysis, the political tainting of IWD reports is a great disappointment. Like us, IWD should be trying to determine and illustrate the actual job picture facing our state, so policy makers can make decisions in that light.

IWD and all state agencies must be neutral players if their mission is to serve all Iowans — not someone’s political agenda.

Owen-2013-57Posted by Mike Owen, Executive Director

Minimum wage — why Iowa is behind

March 3, 2014

When we start talking about raising the minimum wage in Iowa the most important point is that we’ve been at $7.25 since Jan. 1, 2008, more than a year before the federal minimum rose. And every year that goes by without an increase affects Iowa families who are struggling to keep their heads above water. Families that count on minimum wage income for a major share of their household budget have seen their costs rise dramatically over the past six years.

In both Iowa and in Congress, there are proposals to raise the minimum wage to $10.10. In both Iowa and in Congress, many issues are raised to cloud what is really a pretty straightforward issue.

As we have shown in our most recent Cost of Living in Iowa report, the current minimum wage doesn’t even come close to paying the bills. A single parent with two children working a full-time job would need to make $28.11 per hour just to be able to pay for a basic, no-frills monthly budget; $56,212 annually before taxes and credits. Two-parent families with two children would each need to make $16.93 an hour or a combined total of $67,724 a year before taxes and credits. A single parent with two children working full time making $7.25 per hour is making $4,700 below what the federal government deems poverty for a family of this size and nearly four times less than what is needed for a family supporting hourly wage.

Basic RGBThirteen states have already seen an increase this year and now 21 states and the District of Columbia have a higher minimum wage than the federal. As these states have shown, there is no reason to wait for Congress because it’s not guaranteed that they are going to act in the near future.

One of the myths we hear is that increasing the minimum wage would lead to serious job losses — but the weight of the evidence shows that the net employment effect is minimal and that any slight loss of jobs is compensated by the increase in income for those low-wage families. Low-wage workers who see a wage increase are more likely to spend that additional income immediately, which puts more demand on goods and services and more money in the hands of small-businesses owners who may need to hire more people to keep up with that demand.

A prominent study last year by the Center for Economic and Policy Research explains why this employment effect is so small. Employers can adapt to wage increases through various channels. Employers might reduce the number of hours worked, for example, but the higher pay can raise the standard of living for affected employees. Higher pay can make it easier to find and keep employees; less employee turnover reduces training costs. There could be reductions in non-wage benefits, improvements in efficiency, higher demand from increased consumer spending, and employers may start upgrading the skill level of their workforce rather than cutting the level of their staffing. Employers might pass on some added costs as higher prices to consumers, but this increase is estimated to be very small.

On one point there can be no dispute: A higher minimum wage will substantially lift the earnings of low-wage workers and families will be better off. Now at six years, how long will the minimum wage be held down for families facing higher and higher costs?

  IPP-gibney5464Posted by, Heather Gibney, Research Associate 

With ALEC, it’s not just ‘Who?’ but ‘What?’ and ‘Why?’

January 10, 2014

Some Iowa legislative leaders are taking issue with claims that all Iowa legislators are members of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC).

See these links:

All of this calls to mind the words of the great comedian Groucho Marx, who is widely quoted:

“I don’t want to belong to any club that will accept people like me as a member.”

Groucho presumably was never a member of ALEC — like many Iowa lawmakers now protesting claims of their inclusion. But regardless of who belongs to ALEC, the bigger issue is whether ALEC belongs at the public policy table.

Iowa Policy Project analysis has refuted the value of legislative initiatives promoted by ALEC, which is essentially a bill mill backed by corporate interests. IPP’s Peter Fisher and the national group Good Jobs First, in their 2012 report “Selling Snake Oil to the States,” showed that states following ALEC proposals were likely to show worse economic results than other states.

As Fisher noted at the time:

“We tested ALEC’s claims against actual economic results. We conclude that eliminating progressive taxes, suppressing wages, and cutting public services are actually a recipe for economic inequality, declining incomes, and undermining public infrastructure and education that really matter for long-term economic growth.”

This recalls another quotation:

“Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.”

No, that is not the ALEC mission statement. Again, they are words widely attributed to Groucho Marx.

But if the shoe fits ….

Mike OwenPosted by Mike Owen, Executive Director

A minimum wage increase for Iowa?

December 18, 2013

The question is an old one. Sadly.

Every few years, the pressure builds enough that we finally get a discussion about raising the minimum wage. We seem to finally be reaching that stage. The president supports a $10.10 minimum, up from the current and outdated $7.25 per hour, as Senate Labor Chair Tom Harkin of Iowa proposed last February. And it’s grown in popularity, if not in paychecks of the working poor.

A Washington Post poll finds two-thirds of Americans support a minimum wage increase, and a firm majority — 57 percent — believe federal policy should be used to reduce the wealth gap between rich and poor.

Many forget that in Iowa, the pressure has been building longer than it has nationally, as IPP’s Heather Gibney pointed out last March. Yet there’s no assurance we’ll hear much about it in a promised short session of the Iowa Legislature in 2014.

Iowa actually beat the feds to the punch in 2007, raising the state’s minimum wage to $7.25 in January 2008, a full year and a half ahead of the federal wage increase. That means six full years have eroded the buying power of those at the minimum wage — effectively, a 60-cents-per-hour wage cut.

Basic RGBThe Cedar Rapids Gazette, while not totally sold on the merits many economists see in a minimum wage increase, argued for an increase in an editorial today. Wrote the Gazette:

“The ultimate goal should be to make the minimum wage less political and more predictable, both for workers and for businesses owners charting costs. Neither should have to guess which way the political winds and whims will blow their livelihood.”

Given the lack of assurance of this being addressed in Washington, and even less of it being done in a nonpolitical manner, raising and indexing the wage to inflation as the Gazette suggests would be an effective way of ending these periodic squabbles that leave pay for the working poor to “political winds and whims.” Can our Governor and Legislature begin to look at the issue that way?

Mike OwenPosted by Mike Owen, Executive Director

A better choice for full-time investigator

December 16, 2013

Today’s Des Moines Register reports that the big push by Iowa Secretary of State Matt Schultz to crack down on voter fraud is proving what he doesn’t want: that it’s not a problem in Iowa.

A full-time criminal investigator is on the job with five guilty pleas to show for it. Kind of makes you wonder why we bother, doesn’t it?

On the other hand, wage theft is a pervasive problem in America and, as we have shown, Iowa is no exception.

Yet Iowa has only one full-time position for enforcement of wage-and-hour rules even though the Iowa Policy Project has shown violations are pervasive and other states do more. Wage theft deprives Iowa workers of an estimated $600 million, when wages are not paid or underpaid, tips are skimmed by employers, and employees are misclassified as “independent contractors” to avoid taxes, unemployment insurance and workers’ compensation. It also deprives the state of tax revenue and deprives law-abiding businesses of an even playing field.

Budgets are a statement of values. We focus our finances — in the home and at the State Capitol — on what we think is important. Surely making sure hard-working people are paid what they are owed is on that list.

It defies good budgeting sense to devote a full-time criminal investigator to a phantom issue, particularly when those resources could be put toward sensible budget choices, such as enforcing worker protections. When unscrupulous employers know we’re not even watching them, we effectively encourage the very behavior we don’t want in Iowa.

Mike OwenPosted by Mike Owen, Executive Director

The $54 question

November 25, 2013

Breaking news out of Des Moines is that many Iowa taxpayers will be eligible for an extra $54 tax credit.

This is the result of one of the most short-sighted pieces of legislation passed by the Iowa General Assembly in recent years. Lawmakers created what they called the “Taxpayers Trust Fund,” which we should call the “Giveaway Slush Fund.” It’s a pot of money to dole out to taxpayers and boast about at election time. Chances are, the “givers” won’t give you the whole picture.

Their game is an illusion, a political parlor trick: Hold down funding for key priorities, such as K-12 education, or universities, and then when revenues create a surplus, call it an “overpayment” by taxpayers.

Does anyone really believe their spin? The $120 million to be given away represents easily $120 million in services that could have been provided. For K-12 alone, a little over half of it could have been used this year to fully pay the state’s share of allowable growth at the 4 percent level lawmakers authorized. Instead, state funding only supports half of the state share.

By shortchanging school districts with funding for only 2 percent allowable growth this year despite strong revenues, lawmakers compounded a trend of squirreling away big dollars while claiming poverty. This way, they have given themselves $120 million to spend on dessert — the Giveaway Slush Fund — by choosing not to pay the state’s share of the bill for the meat and potatoes: school aid.

One Iowa columnist who has seen through this is The Des Moines Register’s Rekha Basu, who noted Sunday: “Doling out money piecemeal is a gimmick that may bring smiles to some faces but it can’t take the place of sound and consequential actions.” She’s right.

Is it really worth it to you to receive the $54, instead of putting adequate and appropriate funding back into our education system? Or cleaner water? Or safer streets? Or, well, you get the idea.

Give me a break. On second thought, don’t.

Mike OwenPosted by Mike Owen, Executive Director

Iowa follows U.S. patterns on loss of employer-sponsored coverage

November 6, 2013

new report from the Economic Policy Institute traces the erosion of job-based health coverage across the last decade — and the slowing of that decline in the last year. Nationally, as EPI Director of Health Policy Research Elise Gould underscores, job-based health coverage has shed almost 14 million non-elderly Americans since 2000. But slow improvement in the national economy over the last year, coupled with key components of the Affordable Care Act (most notably the provision that young adults are allowed to stay on or join their parents health insurance policies) have slowed those losses since 2011.

The other important trend across this decade is the dramatic growth in public health insurance. Medicaid and CHIP (hawk-i in Iowa) have picked up coverage for at least some of those who have lost job-based coverage. While losses (2000 to 2012) in employer-sponsored insurance were greater among children than among non-elderly adults, for example, the share of children without any coverage actually fell 1.8 percentage points.

Basic RGBMuch the same pattern has played out in Iowa.  In 2000-2001, Iowa’s rate of job-based coverage for those under the age of 65 was 76.9 percent — one of the highest rates in the nation; by 2011-2012, that had fallen to 64.5 percent — closer to the middle of the pack among states.

As the graphic below shows (Iowa is the red dot), this was one of the steepest rates of loss in the nation (coverage down 12.4 percent) and represented a net loss in job-based coverage of over 200,000 non-elderly Iowans. Of those losing coverage, about half (97,075) were working-age adults and about half (111,839) were kids (indeed, the share of kids losing job-based coverage in Iowa, at 16 percent, was the highest in the country).

ESI changes in statesclick on graph for interactive version

Again, public programs pick up some of this slack. Since 2000, Iowa has enrolled about 120,000 more working age adults in Medicaid, and added another 80,000 to the ranks of the uninsured. For Iowa’s kids, public coverage (Medicaid and hawk-i) has been much more effective — picking up 140,000 Iowans under the age of 18 since 2000, while actually reducing the number of kids uninsured.

Colin GordonPosted by Colin Gordon, Senior Research Consultant

A new look for the first of the month

November 1, 2013

All right! The first of the month! Always a big day for those living paycheck to paycheck. And November 1 is no exception.

Yet, for those working low-wage jobs and receiving SNAP benefits, November 1 is not as good as October 1. SNAP is the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, which many know as Food Stamps. And it’s under constant attack.In Iowa, the more than 420,000 people who count on food assistance can count on less this month than they received a month ago.

Same goes for SNAP recipients across the country, as benefits drop with the expiration of small improvements that were passed in the 2009 Recovery Act.

SNAP benefits in Iowa have averaged about $116 a month per recipient — about $246 per household.* That works out to just about $1.30 per meal per person. Take a look below at what happens to that supplemental benefit when the modest improvement from the Recovery Act goes away today.

 SNAPmonthlyCut-1-31-13

Source: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3899

Our economy has not fully recovered from the Great Recession. And if it’s not enough that this Recovery Act improvement is expiring before the work is done, recognize that some in Congress see right now as a time to whack away further at SNAP benefits as a new Farm Bill is negotiated.

Now, we might not like to hear that some 13 percent of the state’s population is receiving food assistance. But you don’t address that issue by just cutting benefits to those people who are stuck in low-wage jobs, or are children, or are seniors, or are disabled.You need to make the jobs better, which starts with an increase in the minimum wage and pressure on Iowa businesses that pay low wages to do better. If we want a higher-road economy, we need to put a better foundation under it.

Mike OwenPosted by Mike Owen, Executive Director

* Iowa Department of Human Services, Food Assistance Program State Summary for September 2013, Report Series F-1.

Why is the dream fading?

October 7, 2013
David Osterberg

David Osterberg

“American dream is fading for middle class”

I took this headline from the October 7 Cedar Rapids Gazette. You can imagine what the article says — that many Americans’ faith in a brighter tomorrow has been eroded.

What is not mentioned in the article are simple numbers — 50 percent of all income in the country goes to the top 10 percent and nearly half that goes to the top 1 percent. There is just not much income left for the vast majority of us.

Statistics on income distribution come from two sources, the Census and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Data from both agencies say about the same thing. We are a very unequal country and it is getting worse.

The newest data I found comes from a University of California-Berkeley economist, Emmanuel Saez, and available on his website. IRS data shows that the top 10 percent, families with more than $114,000 per year in income took home 50.4 percent of all income in U.S. in 2012. This is the highest percentage ever recorded for this group in a data series going back to 1917.

The top 1 percent — families above $394,000 per year in income — took home 23.5 percent of all income. Their share was slightly higher in the late 1920s, but not much.

If you want more bad news for the middle class, Saez’ analysis shows that the top 1 percent of families captured just over two-thirds of the overall growth of real incomes per family over the period 1993-2012. The 99 percent shared the remaining third. So why is that American Dream fading?

Posted by David Osterberg, Founding Director


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 25 other followers