Archive for the ‘Economic Opportunity’ category

Comforting the comfortable

July 25, 2014

Comfort the comfortable and penalize the poor. Like the idea? If so, you’ll really like legislation scheduled for consideration today in the U.S. House of Representatives.

The House is scheduled to take up legislation that would gut improvements for low-income Americans in the Child Tax Credit (CTC), improvements passed originally in 2009, renewed in 2010 and 2012, the latter as part of the “fiscal cliff” package, where it was used as a bargaining chip to pass very expensive exemptions in the estate tax — a benefit only to America’s super-rich.

To put this in context, the House leadership bringing this new legislation to a vote will not even consider an increase in the minimum wage, now stagnant over five years nationally (6 1/2 in Iowa). The CTC, it must be noted, is one of the nation’s most effective anti-poverty tools, offsetting part of the cost of raising a child. So, as families earning at or below the minimum wage continue to lose ground, the CTC proposal will set them back even further. As noted by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP):

But a single mother with two children who works full time throughout the year at the minimum wage of $7.25 an hour (which House leaders oppose raising) and earns just $14,500 would lose $1,725. Her CTC would disappear altogether.

A loss at lower incomes — yet a boost at higher incomes. According to Citizens for Tax Justice, the Iowa impact of the new legislation would be:

  • a $285 loss on average to families with incomes below $40,000, and
  • a $696 benefit (tax cut) to families with income above $100,000.

Here’s how it works, according to a summary by CTJ:

The House Republican bill, H.R. 4935, would expand the CTC in three ways that do not help the working poor. First, it would index the $1,000 per-child credit amount for inflation, which would not help those who earn too little to receive the full credit. Second, it would increase the income level at which the CTC starts to phase out from $110,000 to $150,000 for married couples. Third, that $150,000 level for married couples and the existing $75,000 income level for single parents would both be indexed for inflation thereafter.

Adding insult to injury for low-income folks is that the improvements targeted for repeal came in the aforementioned “fiscal cliff” package, which made permanent big estate tax breaks for the rich, while extending improvements in the Child Tax Credit and Earned Income Tax Credit for only five years. CBPP’s Robert Greenstein at the time called that a “bitter pill.”

That was before these new proposals not only to cut back the CTC for lower-income families — but to expand access at higher incomes — and to adjust the high end for inflation, something lawmakers have refused to do for the minimum wage.

A bitter pill? At least. For some, all of this might seem to be an overdose.

Owen-2013-57Posted by Mike Owen, Executive Director, Iowa Policy Project

Focusing better on new Iowans

July 3, 2014

Oftentimes the topic of immigration reform stirs up heavy debates and preconceived notions about what it means to be an immigrant in the United States. Reality about immigrants, their occupations and contributions to the economy can be misunderstood.

But here in Iowa, we know immigrants are important to our state and our economy. There are 120,000 documented and undocumented immigrants contributing both as workers and as employers. Most immigrants came to find jobs so it shouldn’t be surprising that most are of prime working age, and are working.

Look around your community and you will see them working in grocery stores and delis as butchers and meat cutters, teaching in high schools and colleges, cleaning homes and businesses, and working as computer programmers. Some are small business owners, filling gaps for particular goods and services in Main Street-type businesses.

10371388_10154327977850154_8158749370873517078_nOne big misunderstanding is about the state and local taxes that immigrants pay, regardless of their legal status, on the income they earn, the goods they purchase and the homes where their families live.

It is also estimated that 50-70 percent of undocumented workers — those who do not have legal authorization to work or live in the United States, have federal and state income and payroll taxes withheld from their paychecks.

Our new Iowa Policy Project report estimates that undocumented immigrants annually pay $64 million in Iowa state and local taxes, increasing revenue available for public programs and services, including many services they are unable to access themselves.

Immigration reform enabling work authorization and a path to citizenship for current undocumented residents would bring benefits not only to immigrants but all Iowans. Legal work status would open up better job opportunities and make it more worthwhile to invest in worker education and training. Immigrants would be less susceptible to wage theft and other exploitation by employers.

Legal status would increase earnings for workers and revenues for the state. It would mean that young adults brought here as children (DREAMers) could attend college and get better jobs and it would give immigrant business owners access to more options to start or expand a business.

While the future of immigration reform is uncertain, we can be certain that immigrants contribute to the state’s workforce, economy, tax revenues and communities.

IPP-gibney5464Posted by Heather Gibney, IPP Research Associate

What are U.S. workers missing?

June 23, 2014

Visiting other counties can mean drinking coffee in cafes, museums, night life and relaxing next to the sea. The best trips also include conversations with people from these lands.

I just taught a class in Romania and then visited Scandinavia to see friends and relatives. In both places I talked about work and family life. The first issue that always comes up is paid vacation, which America does not require.

What many U.S. workers may not know is that every other developed country has a legal requirement for paid vacation and holidays. All countries in the European Union require at least four weeks of paid vacation. Austria is the most generous, guaranteeing workers a legal minimum of 22 paid vacation days and 13 paid holidays each year.

U.S. workers have to depend on competition for such benefits. Companies must compete for workers. So in the U.S. the average worker gets 16 paid vacation days and holidays. However, that average is brought down by the fact that 1 in 4 U.S. workers does not have a single paid day off. That would not be allowed in Europe, or New Zealand, or Japan or Canada. In Canada, the federal government requires 19 paid days, and some provinces add additional time.

This data, from the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) and USA Today, reflects what I heard in conversations during the last few weeks.

I can hear it now: Raising benefits will cost jobs. Wrong. The CEPR data comes from 2012 when Germany with one of the most generous time-off packages had an unemployment rate of just 5.5 percent when ours was 8.1. It becomes part of the overall marketplace.

Maternity leave is another benefit where the U.S. falls behind. According to the International Labour Organization and a study at McGill University in Canada, the U.S. joins Papua New Guinea, Swaziland, Liberia and Lesotho as countries that provide no financial support for working mothers through their job.

Since Bill Clinton pushed through the FMLA (the Family and Medical Leave Act), a mother in the U.S. can take off 12 weeks to give birth but there is no requirement that the time off be paid. Again when I talked to people on my recent trip, I was amazed that a worker in Sweden can get 420 days to take care of a new baby with 80 percent pay. That can be shared between the mother and father.

Most other countries are not so generous but Germany gives 14 weeks and Denmark requires a full year at 100 percent of pay. Japan demands 14 weeks at 67 percent of pay. In New Zealand, 14 weeks are paid at 100 percent and one can ask for another 38 weeks unpaid. Canada requires 52 weeks, with 17 weeks paid.

These are countries with successful economies. In some, jobs are harder to get than in the U.S. but in others, like Germany and New Zealand, the unemployment rate is lower than ours.

Travel overseas is a good thing. You get to relax, recharge the batteries and come back ready to do your job better.

You also might learn that what we have come to accept as reasonable family and work life in this country is so out-of-step with the rest of the world.

IPP-osterberg-75  Posted by David Osterberg, Founding Director of the Iowa Policy Project

Watching Iowa jobs: Don’t miss the deficit

June 20, 2014

Iowa’s up-again, down-again job picture is looking up again, at least for now. The May numbers from the state show an increase of 6,200 jobs. Coming on the heels of a 3,700 increase in April, this marks the first two-month gain since the end of last year, and the increase is the largest since last October.

One-month results, however, do not tell the whole story of what’s happening in the state economy and the job market. Over the past year, Iowa has averaged a gain of about 2,100 jobs per month, which is a modest pace. At this rate it would take about three years for Iowa to completely recover from recession losses.

In fact, even though Iowa has more jobs than it did when the recession started, the state shows a jobs deficit:

Basic RGBSource: Economic Policy Institute

Given that the population of Iowa has grown since the start of the recession, it makes sense that more jobs need to be added to the economy each year in order to keep up with the growing number of people. According to the Economic Policy Institute, 23,800 jobs have been added so far but 71,600 were needed by now to keep up with this growth. This means that there aren’t enough jobs for everyone who wants or needs one — a deficit of 47,800, as shown in the graph above.

For more about the latest Iowa job numbers, see our new Iowa JobWatch report. IPP has given its view of the monthly numbers since 2003 — there are always plenty of new angles for a “Job Watcher.”

IPP-gibney5464   Posted by Heather Gibney, Research Associate

Wage theft: Atalissa case just tip of the iceberg

June 9, 2014

The Catholic Messenger in Davenport last week presented a good illustration of wage theft in the sad case of a group of men in Atalissa taken advantage of for decades.

A recent Cedar Rapids Gazette story looked at another case, in which an employee of a contractor for a now-closed Outback restaurant is fighting for wages she believes she is owed — even though the contractor remains in business, still serving another nearby Outback restaurant.

Iowans need to understand these are not isolated cases, but just the tip of the iceberg. Every year some $600 million is lost to workers and the Iowa economy because of wage theft, and about $60 million in taxes and unemployment trust fund revenues.

As Iowa Policy Project research has shown, wage theft takes many forms, and affects Iowans across a wide range of occupations, in both blue-collar and white-collar positions. That work goes on. IPP is at work right now on a new survey to document and collect worker experiences with wage theft and enforcement systems.

Yet corrective action passed by the State Senate (SF2295) was not even considered in the Iowa House in 2014. The bill would have required businesses to tell workers in writing how they would be paid — and to notify employees of deductions before they were made.

Meanwhile, enforcement has remained woefully underfunded, a chronic problem in Iowa left unaddressed by the 2014 session of the Legislature.

Doing what is right on this issue of wage theft also is doing right by the economy and by the taxpayer. When will Iowans demand action?

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

Policy choices are about quality, not quantity

May 28, 2014

The headline on my doorstep today says, “Legislature continues trend of passing fewer bills.” That lead story in the Cedar Rapids Gazette notes that for the fourth straight year, a divided Iowa Legislature has passed fewer than 150 pieces of legislation.

Ah, numbers. Can’t live with ’em. Can’t live without ’em. But in this case, they don’t make a lot of difference.

What matters are the words and the policies embodied in those 150 or fewer bills. It’s about quality, not quantity.

What have those bills included in recent years? Here are some key points:

  • A commercial property tax overhaul that is tainted by big benefits to huge out-of-state retailers that need no help and pay too little in Iowa tax as it is.
  • An expanded Earned Income Tax Credit that improves tax fairness for low- and moderate-income working families across Iowa.
  • Funding to assure a tuition freeze remains for a second year in regents institutions.
  • A small boost in child care assistance for working students, making them eligible for the benefit so they can get skills for better paying jobs to sustain their families.

What have those bills not included in recent years? Here are some noteworthy omissions:

  • No overhaul of the personal income-tax system to better balance tax responsibilities for all taxpayers regardless of income, or to assure revenues are kept adequate to meet costs of critical services.
  • No greater accountability on spending that is done through the corporate tax code, outside the budget process.
  • No increase in the minimum wage, stagnant at $7.25 for over six years now.
  • No broad expansion of child care access for struggling families who don’t make enough to cover costs, but make too much to receive assistance.
  • No move to battle wage theft, which we have estimated to be a $600 million annual problem in Iowa’s economy — not including the $60 million lost in uncollected taxes and unemployment insurance.
  • No long-term answers for funding of education at all levels, violating the promise of law for K-12 schools, and leaving a legacy of debt for many college students and their families.

Those are not exhaustive lists, but a statement of priorities established by agreement, stalemate or inertia. We covered some of these points in our end of session statement. Some will like the overall product of recent years, some will not. Few will ask how many bills were passed.

At least one theme weaved by this record cannot be disputed: Iowa is on record that we will not ask the wealthy and well-connected to do more. We pretend more often than not that we can meet our obligations to the citizens of Iowa without investing in the public services they require, that if we just keep cutting taxes all will be well. Every now and then we’ll say something about opportunity for all and mean it, but we’re not ready to make that a long-term commitment.

Sometimes, not passing something says as much about legislative priorities as passing it.

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

Bad research never gets good

May 13, 2014

It might be a stretch to say that good research never gets old — at some point you might need an update — but one thing is certain: Bad research never gets good.

Fisher-GradingPlacesIPP’s Peter Fisher is one of the nation’s experts on rankings of state business climates. In two reports published in the last two years by our colleagues at Good Jobs First, Fisher lays out irretrievable problems with the Rich States, Poor States analysis periodically offered by the American Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC.

Fisher tested ALEC’s claims against the actual economic performance of states, finding that states following ALEC-favored policy did more poorly than other states.* He also found serious flaws of methodology, including comparisons of arbitrary states instead of all 50.

As Good Jobs First’s executive director, Greg LeRoy, wrote in the preface to the 2013 Grading Places report:

Indeed, the underlying frame of these studies — that there is such a thing as a state “business climate” that can be measured and rated — is nonsensical. The needs of different businesses and facilities vary far too widely. … Given these realities, “business climate” studies must be viewed for what they are: attempts by corporate sponsors to justify their demands for lower taxes and to gain public-sector help suppressing wages. …

To borrow Oscar Wilde’s witticism about cynics, these “business climate” studies know the cost of everything and the value of nothing.

In the case of ALEC, others are noticing. Michael Hiltzik of the Los Angeles Times has written twice in recent days about the ALEC problem, citing the work of both Fisher and Professor Menzie Chinn of the University of Wisconsin.

See these pieces by Hiltzik:

In the latter, Hiltzik notes a recent “response to the critics” by ALEC:

It’s a curious document that ends up proving the critics’ point. Take the point made by Chinn and by Peter S. Fisher of the Iowa Policy Project that the correlation between ALEC’s policies and economic growth is largely negative.

When the ALEC “analysis” is dissected, it becomes clear that its conclusions are faulty, and its policy prescriptions are no more valid. And it is good for Iowa to have Peter Fisher on the case.

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

 

 

*View Peter Fisher’s reports for Good Jobs First on business climate rankings including the ALEC claims:

Why the tuition freeze matters

May 2, 2014

A bright spot in the just completed session of the Iowa Legislature is that lawmakers for the second year in a row have assured a tuition freeze at Iowa’s Regents universities.

The 4 percent increase in state funding for FY2015 is an important investment. It means current students will be able to keep a little more money in their pockets, and prospective students will have greater access to higher education at the University of Iowa, Iowa State University or the University of Northern Iowa.

For now, the state has stalled its trend toward sharp tuition increases — a trend similar to what’s happened at public colleges and universities across the country. A new report from the Center on Policy and Budget Priorities found that from FY2008-FY14 state funding per student at Iowa’s Regent universities decreased by 23.8 percent, leading to a 12.2 percent change in average tuition after adjusting for inflation — $854 more a year per student.

It’s a simple equation: When state funding goes down, tuition goes up and/or resources to help students are reduced. Iowa Fiscal Partnership research has shown these trends in our state, as noted in the graph below covering tuition vs. state support of Regents institutions from 2001-13.

tuitionvsstateaid

These trends shift the cost of education from the state to the students and their families. The result is that students take on more debt or have fewer choices among institutions, if they choose to attend at all. At low incomes, some students may simply choose not to enroll even though education might be what they want, and necessary to their career goals.

Excessive student loan debt has broad economic implications. It is associated with lower rates of homeownership among young adults, it can create enough stress to decrease the probability of graduation and reduce the chance that graduates with majors in science, technology, engineering and mathematics will go on to graduate school.

The economic importance of higher education will continue to grow, as getting a college degree is increasingly a prerequisite to enter the middle class. And beyond those who receive the degree, everyone in the community benefits when more residents have college degrees. An area with a highly educated workforce attracts better employers who pay better wages and this can boost an area’s economic success.

Strong state revenues offer a time to reinvest in higher education, and to return funding of services to pre-recession levels.

IPP-gibney5464  Posted by Heather Gibney, Research Associate

Raising debate about a raise

April 25, 2014

$10.10vs$7.25At the Iowa Policy Project, we deal with numbers — a lot. And the numbers matter — but only because those numbers affect people.

On no issue is that more important than the minimum wage.

As we all know, Iowa’s minimum wage is $7.25 an hour. It’s pathetic. (We’ll show why in a moment.)

It’s important to remember, Iowans considered $7.25 something of a triumph when it passed — seven years ago.

When it took effect a few months later, on Jan. 1, 2008, it put Iowa ahead of most of the country. It took another year and a half for the federal minimum wage to reach that level.

In the meantime, costs kept going up. And both the U.S. and Iowa minimum wage stayed the same. So the real question is not whether the minimum wage should rise. It’s: “How much?”

Certainly the $10.10 proposed by Senator Tom Harkin and others is a good start. It chips away at the bills. But let’s not lose sight of the fact that even then, people will be working full time in jobs that do not pay enough for them to get by.

Peter Fisher and Lily French show why with their “Cost of Living in Iowa” research for IPP. For example, in Linn County and the Cedar Rapids area, if you make $7.25 an hour and work a full-time job 50 weeks a year, you make $14,500 before taxes. As our analysis shows:

•  In Linn County, you need more than that whether you are single or married with kids.

•  In the Cedar Rapids metro area — covering Linn, Benton, Jones, Iowa and Cedar counties — a single mom with one child needs to make $20.17 an hour. For a married couple with two kids, the family-supporting wage is $16.43 for each parent. And for all other families with kids, a parent needs to make over $20 an hour.

So the minimum wage matters. The only problem is, it doesn’t matter enough.

2014-COL-linn-504

COL-FamilySuppWage-Region504

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

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


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,611 other followers

%d bloggers like this: