Posted tagged ‘economy’

Who benefits? No doubts — the ‘1 Percent’

June 4, 2013
Peter Fisher

Peter Fisher

For whose benefit is this country run? The events of the past 10 years should have erased any doubts about the answer to that question. Let’s recap for a minute just what happened.

First, federal regulators sat idly by while banks and investment funds, with help from their friends the bond rating agencies, put billions into high-risk mortgages that should never have been made, and mortgage brokers raked in closing fees. Millions of families became heavily in debt, and housing prices shot up at unsustainable rates. When all this collapsed, it drove the economy into the deepest recession since the 1930s. Millions lost their jobs and their homes, as banks chose to foreclose rather than work out a way for homeowners to remain in their homes.

There was a little seeming good news: Interest rates were at an all-time low. People could refinance at incredibly low rates. But wait: The banks reacted to the criticisms of their previous loose lending practices by drastically tightening credit rules. Ordinary people who were making house payments with mortgages at 5 or 6 or 7 percent were denied refinancing because their credit was bad — because of the recession and loss of jobs. So the banks were saying, in effect: Yes, we see that you are making your payments at 6 percent but we don’t think you could make the lower payments at 3.5 percent. Banks kept their very profitable mortgages, earning twice what they could get on new mortgages, and prolonging the recession as consumers were unable to free up money for other purchases.

So finally, after five years of economic hardship for much of the population, housing prices have hit bottom and started back up again. Great news. People who have a job again may also be able to buy a house again, and at still very favorable prices and interest rates. But wait: We can’t have the formerly unemployed, forced out of their homes, becoming homeowners again and getting all the benefit from future rising prices and cheap credit. No, that’s clearly a job for the rich.

Families who struggled and suffered during the recession saw their credit ratings sink, and with the tight credit rules, they are shut out of the mortgage market (and in some cases the job market as well). And who steps in? Wall Street firms and wealthy house-flippers. One firm alone, the Blackstone Group, has purchased 26,000 homes in nine states.[i] In a few years they can re-sell to ordinary working folks at higher prices (with mortgages at higher interest rates). The rich, it turns out, are the ones in a position to buy at the bottom and reap the capital gains that will follow (taxed, of course, at a much lower rate than wages).

It should hardly come as a surprise that the net effect of the housing bubble, the financial collapse and prolonged recession, and the beginnings of recovery, was to bring about a substantial redistribution of wealth. For much of the population, what little wealth they had was concentrated in home equity, which was wiped out by the collapse of the housing market; wealth continued to decline for the bottom 93 percent of the population during the first two years of “recovery.”[ii] But for the richest 7 percent, wealth increased 28 percent, from 2009 to 2011.

Income inequality is rising again as well, as profits have surged since the recovery began while wages have stagnated. The top 1 percent got 121 percent of all the gains in income from 2009 to 2011.[iii] If you are in the 1 percent, things have worked out just swimmingly; causing an economic collapse can be very profitable if you are in the right position.

If you are part of the 1 percent, you are also free to spend as much of that new wealth as you want re-electing public officials who will blame Food Stamp recipients, unions, and public school teachers for our economic troubles, while slashing any program that benefits the poorer half of the population in the name of cutting the national debt. Those elected officials can also be counted on to weaken those pesky new financial regulations, modest to start with, and making sure your tax rate doesn’t go back up to anywhere near what it was in the 1990s. Of course, curbing spending while unemployment is still above 7 percent prolongs the jobs recession and the hardships of working families, but who cares? Keep those wages down, profits up, and stock prices hitting historic highs. Meanwhile, having helped destroy several millions jobs during the recession, and having found numerous ways to restore production levels since then without hiring back your former employees, you will now find that you can claim an exemption from tax increases and qualify for all kinds of state and local incentives on the grounds that you are a “job creator.”

Is this a great country or what?


Posted by Peter Fisher, Research Director

Stagnant objections to minimum wage increases

March 7, 2013
Heather Gibney, Research Associate

Heather Gibney

Dialogue about increasing the minimum wage is finally emerging in 2013. President Obama proposed an increase in the minimum wage to $9.00 per hour in his State of the Union address, and Senator Tom Harkin and Representative George Miller have introduced the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2013 — which would raise the minimum wage from $7.25 an hour to $10.10. The Harkin-Miller bill would raise the wage in three steps of 95 cents before indexing it to keep up with the rising cost of living.

Iowa’s minimum wage now matches the federal. Raising it to $10.10 per hour would put nearly $6,000 more dollars in the pockets of Iowa families, and for the first time since the late 1970s a single parent with two children would be above the federal poverty level — a wage gap that we should have seen diminishing over time, but have not.

poverty vs min wage

Recognizing that the federal minimum wage is too low, 19 other states, including the District of Columbia have a higher minimum wage than the federal and 10 states annually increase their minimum to keep up with the rising cost of living. Unfortunately, attempts to raise the federal minimum wage and set automatic adjustments to keep pace with the rising cost of living have been hindered by bad economics. Beliefs that increasing the minimum wage will lead to job loss, that the majority of those benefiting would be teenagers and that it would decrease output for certain industries is the consensus among opponents, however unfounded. A recent report from the Center on Economic Policy and Research (CEPR) looked at the most influential research done on the minimum wage in the last 20 years and continuously found insignificant or no discernible effects feared — and promoted — by opponents of raises in the minimum wage.

While the passage of any of these proposals remains uncertain, Iowans working for the minimum wage will have to get by with their creativity; possibly working two jobs, relying on cash assistance and tax credits, going without those amenities that make life a little more enjoyable and hoping that one day they might join the middle class.

Posted by Heather Gibney, Research Associate

Sound budgeting doesn’t include blanket tax credit

January 28, 2013
Mike Owen

Mike Owen

This session of the Iowa Legislature offers a tremendous opportunity to move the state forward with a balanced approach — including responsible, fair tax reform and investments in critical needs that have gone unmet, in education at all levels, in environmental quality and public safety.

The proposal for a blanket $750 tax credit to couples, regardless of need and blind to the opportunity cost of even more lost investments, does not fit that approach. To compound a penchant to spend money on tax breaks is fiscally irresponsible to the needs of Iowa taxpayers, who will benefit from better services, and to the promise that we would return to proper investments when the economy turned up, as it has. Furthermore, to give away Iowa’s surplus when uncertainty remains about the impact of federal budget decisions on our state’s tax system and services is tremendously short-sighted.

As the Iowa Fiscal Partnership has established, cutbacks in higher education funding have caused costs and debt to rise for students and their families, not only at the Regents institutions but community colleges as well. While Iowa voters, through a statewide referendum, have expressly called for new revenues to go toward better environmental stewardship, lawmakers have not taken action. The surplus we now see should be used responsibly for the future of Iowans, who patiently endured budget austerity for the day when we could once again see support for critical services. This is no time to be forgetting our responsibilities.

Iowa can do better by returning to the basics of good budgeting, crafting budget and tax choices that keep a long-term focus on the needs of young and future generations, whose lives will be shaped by the foundations we leave them.

Posted by Mike Owen, Assistant Director

States should beware ALEC-brand snake oil

November 29, 2012

Peter Fisher

Legislative sessions will be starting across the country after the first of the year, and with them, some very bad ideas for public policy.

The purveyor of many poor prescriptions is a very influential right-wing organization, the American Legislative Exchange Council, known as ALEC. The organization promotes policies to cut taxes and regulations in the disguise of promoting economic growth, but what they really do is reduce services, opportunity and accountability.

In short, the ALEC medicine show is a prescription for poor results, and states should beware.

Our new report, “Selling Snake Oil to the States,” examines ALEC’s proposals and the misinformed, primitive methodology behind the study that supports them. The new report, a joint project of the Iowa Policy Project in Iowa City and Good Jobs First in Washington, D.C., illustrates how ALEC’s prescriptions really offer stagnation and wage suppression.

In fact, we find that since ALEC first published its annual “Rich States, Poor States” study with its Economic Outlook Ranking in 2007, states that were rated better have actually done worse economically.

Find “Selling Snake Oil to the States” at http://www.goodjobsfirst.org/snakeoiltothestates.

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.

ALEC’s rankings are based on arguments and evidence that range from deeply flawed to nonexistent, consistently ignoring decades of peer-reviewed academic research.

What we know from research is that the composition of a state’s economy — whether it has disproportionate shares of high-growth or low-growth industries — is a far better predictor of a state’s relative success over the past five years. Public policy makers need to stick to the basics and recognize that public services that benefit all employers.

Posted by Peter Fisher, Research Director

House vote: Thumbs up or thumbs down for 86,000 Iowa families?

August 1, 2012
Mike Owen

Mike Owen

Iowans would stand to lose much under a proposal this week in the U.S. House of Representatives. Citizens for Tax Justice offered a striking analysis last week highlighting the impact of the 2009 improvements in the refundable tax credits for low-income working families in Iowa.

Simply put, the House proposal would undo the good work of 2009 and increase tax inequities, while a Senate-passed bill would keep the good stuff.

One of the 2009 improvements is an expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), an issue we have covered extensively at IPP and the Iowa Fiscal Partnership.

Any attempts to weaken the EITC at either the state or federal level will harm low- to moderate-income working families in our state. More than 1 out of every 7 federal tax filers in Iowa claims the EITC (about 15 percent). But under H.R. 8, the tax proposal being offered by the House leadership, the EITC improvements from 2009 would be lost.

H.R. 8 also would fail to extend the improvements made in the Child Tax Credit (CTC) in 2009, and in the American Opportunity Tax Credit for higher education expenses.

It is impossible to find balance in the approach of H.R. 8, which would end these provisions above for 13 million working families with 26 million children, while extending tax cuts for 2.7 million high-income earners.

The state numbers from CTJ (full report available here):

  • 86,321 Iowa families with 190,553 kids would lose $62.5 million ($724 per family), if 2009 rules on EITC and the Per-Child Tax Credit are not extended;
  • 17,503 Iowa families with 28,179 kids would lose $32 million if the Per-Child Tax Credit earnings threshold does not remain at $3,000, compared to $13,300 as proposed by H.R. 8.
  • 59,159 Iowa families with 139,806 kids would lose $30.5 million if the two 2009 expansions of the EITC — larger credit for families with three or more children, and reducing the so-called “marriage penalty” — are not extended in 2013.

These “Making Work Pay” provisions of the tax code are almost exclusively of help to working families earning $50,000 or less at a time of stagnant wages and a difficult job market in which the Iowa economy is shifting toward lower-wage jobs.

To address our nation’s serious deficit and debt issues, a balanced approach should do nothing to increase poverty or income inequality. The Senate bill passed last week would keep the EITC and CTC improvements from 2009, and follows that principle. The bill that has emerged in the House does not.

Posted by Mike Owen, Assistant Director

Connecting dots draws tough course for Iowa jobs

July 31, 2012

The chart projecting Iowa jobs in the near future is not pretty.

click on image for interactive version

Using the most current state level numbers, for 2008-2018), this graph shows that the fastest growing jobs taking larger shares of the Iowa job market through 2018 are in sectors that pay lower than the state median wage. Dots represent occupations; blue dots pay higher than the statewide median wage (2011 numbers) and red dots pay lower. Move your cursor to each dot to see the occupation, its 2008 employment, its median wage and projected employment.

Only 4 of 18 occupations projecting job gains over 1,500 by 2018 pay better than a median wage, and only one of the 10 occupations projecting job gains over 2,000 pay better than the median. Six occupations (retail sales, office clerk, nursing aides, home health aides, food preparation, and customer service) project job growth greater than 4,000 and the highest wage in this group falls more than $2.00 short of the median wage.

Why is this happening? Don’t blame it on an educational gap, in which workers with skills pull away from the rest. As the Center for Economic and Policy Research has shown — here and here and here — today’s low wage workers are older and better educated  than ever.

It also is not an artifact of the business cycle, as the Department of Labor estimates in long-term projections that about a third of new jobs through the next decade will be in low-wage service occupations (retail, home health care, child care, janitorial).

Combine these projections with the troubling trend of the last business cycle, which hit good jobs hard. The National Employment Law Project has shown (here and updated here), that job losses during the recession were concentrated in mid-wage occupations, while job gains during the recovery have been concentrated at the low end.

Our work, it seems, is cut out for us — well-paid or not.

Posted by Colin Gordon, Senior Research Consultant

Note: Colin Gordon is a Professor of History at the University of Iowa and Senior Research Consultant at the Iowa Policy Project. This post is taken from his blog, TelltaleChart.org

Tax-cutters’ unbalanced focus undermines self-government

March 20, 2012
David Osterberg

David Osterberg

Cut taxes, starve schools. Cut taxes, starve environmental protection. Cut taxes, … well, I think you’re getting the idea.

“The-tax-cuts-are-my-only-priority” legislators now have enough power to keep eroding our ability to meet our needs.

As I pointed out Sunday in a guest opinion in The Gazette in Cedar Rapids, this drive to underfund education is the root of recent decisions to close Polk Elementary School in Cedar Rapids and the Price Lab School at the University of Northern Iowa.

What we have in Des Moines is a leadership problem and a governing problem. Leaders find a way of matching revenues to our needs. The rejection of this kind of responsibility by a large enough number of our elected officials is the problem.

And the facts — as we have demonstrated in Iowa Policy Project reports — are clear. Most recently, we showed Iowa’s decline in support for the regents’ universities over the last 10 years. For the University of Iowa alone, it meant 40 percent less in actual spending power than the state provided in 2000, and a shift of costs to tuition-paying students and their parents.

A week before, we showed similar results with water-quality funding.

Even now, there is no greater cry than to cut commercial property taxes — even when most of the cuts would go to firms like WalMart and McDonald’s. It doesn’t matter. It’s a tax cut, period.

Ironically, even those who some elected officials are attempting to appeal to need the services they are cutting. Rockwell Collins needs trained engineers, and can better retain employees when rivers are clean and people have places to recreate.

Voters who want their kids educated and their rivers clean need to recognize that it doesn’t happen without state funding. More tax cuts don’t get us there.

Posted by David Osterberg, Executive Director

Iowa JobWatch: Jobless Rate Dips — Payroll Jobs Improve

March 13, 2012
David Osterberg

David Osterberg

Unemployment Rate 5.4 Percent in January; Job Growth Still Slow in State

IOWA CITY, Iowa (March 13, 2012) — Analysts at the nonpartisan Iowa Policy Project noted the unemployment rate dipped to 5.4 percent in January, down from 5.6 percent in December, as payroll jobs also improved by 3,700. IPP, which tracks employment trends in Iowa, released this statement from Executive Director David Osterberg:

Employment over the last year in Iowa is showing good signs, though growth remains very slow. Payroll data showed a net gain of over 9,000 jobs during the year, with about 40 percent of those jobs added in January.

Especially good news was the fact that the state gained nearly 12,000 manufacturing jobs from January 2011 to January 2012. These jobs generally are higher paid and often have benefits. However, the state also lost 4,000 government jobs and 3,200 professional and business services jobs, also generally better paid than jobs in some sectors.

Now that the economy seems to be picking up with the unemployment rate dropping to 5.4 percent, it is time to question the quality of the jobs we are getting back. And it is time to stop shedding jobs in the public sector. That is one area that the governor and legislature have some control over.

The state still remains almost 41,000 jobs behind where it was at the start of the last recession in December 2007. Still, things are looking better.

Key Numbers

— Nonfarm jobs were up in January by 3,700, to 1,484,300, from the revised December estimate.
— Nonfarm jobs are 43,900 behind the May 2008 peak of 1,528,200, and 40,900 behind the level at the start of the last recession in December 2007.                           
— The unemployment rate was 5.4 percent in January, down from 5.6 percent in December and down from 6.1 percent a year earlier.
— The labor force, those working or looking for work, was virtually unchanged (up 100), but slightly down (1,900) over the year.
— Initial unemployment claims were down — by 37 percent, to 19,846 — for the month, and down 6.3 percent over the year.                                    

Key Trends

— Iowa averaged a monthly increase of only 800 jobs, in the last 12 months.
— Nonfarm jobs are above year-ago level for the 16th month in row.
— Manufacturing is the top-gaining job sector over the past 12 months, up 11,800, followed by construction at 3,100 and trade, transportation and utilities at 2,900. Manufacturing led gains for the month at 3,500, with leisure and hospitality up 3,200 and “other” services up 1,600.
— Government jobs declined by 4,000 over the year, and professional and business services fell by 3,200. For the month, education and health services led declines at 2,500, and professional and business services dropped 1,200.


#   #   #   #   #

Unreasonable fear about ‘one-time’ money

February 21, 2012
Mike Owen

Mike Owen

You hear about it whenever some Iowa politicians get near a microphone to talk about the budget.

Heard above much wailing and gnashing of teeth is a common complaint that Iowa used “one-time money” to deal with recession-driven budget challenges.

Well, thank goodness for (1) that one-time money and (2) the willingness of state leaders at the time, including then-Governor Chet Culver, to spend it.

The Des Moines Register gets it, and isn’t afraid to say so in today’s editorial:

Yes, Iowa did it by shifting money set aside in savings accounts for other purposes, and it used one-time federal stimulus money. That was the right thing to do. The alternative would have been to lay off police officers, teachers and state workers, making the recession even worse in Iowa.

The state is in better shape financially now. It has the money to pay for essential services it has committed to provide to Iowans. The Legislature and the governor should pay to carry out those commitments.

The Iowa Fiscal Partnership (IFP) has pointed out that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, (ARRA), the economic stimulus program passed in 2009, was designed to provide targeted, timely and temporary assistance to Americans in the recession. As IPP’s Andrew Cannon noted in a recent IFP report, “Catching Up: Context for 2012 Budget Decisions in Iowa”:

Andrew Cannon

Andrew Cannon

While there is certainly merit in reducing the use of one-time money for the continuing expenses of the state, one-time-fund critics sometimes let strict adherence to that concept get the best of them. For instance, Recovery Act dollars were used precisely as intended: targeted, timely and temporary relief so that states could continue funding critical services, such as K-12 education and health services to individuals and families. State revenues declined precipitously during the worst of the recession; the Recovery Act bridged that drop-off in revenues until a time when revenues improved as the economy regained strength. The same can be said for use of $38.7 million from one of the rainy-day funds since high unemployment and reduced revenues during the year must constitute the rainy revenue day that the fund was designed to cover.

Had the Legislature and Governor Culver chosen not to use the ARRA funds, it is reasonable to assume that the holes created in recession would be left unfilled in better times. This is because one of the priority pieces of legislation passed in 2011 was the creation of a “Taxpayers Trust Fund” to pay for new tax breaks, the fund to be built from revenues coming in at a faster pace than expected. The priority was not to sustain or restore services, let alone enhance them, but to restrain use of new revenues.

Using the ARRA money when it came, for its intended purpose to bridge a revenue gap caused by recession, kept critical services in place when they were most needed, and kept us off the pace of a race to the bottom. Thank you to The Des Moines Register for reminding its readers of that smart public policy.

Posted by Mike Owen, Assistant Director

Budgeting in context

February 8, 2012
Andrew Cannon

Andrew Cannon

Following last year’s prolonged legislative session, legislators and the governor congratulated themselves for a budget that fully funded programs and reduced reliance on what they called “one-time funds.”

It is true that state services, systems and structures were funded to a large degree through a stable source, the General Fund (where income and sales taxes are pooled). And funding levels increased generally, especially in comparison to the recession-affected budgets of FY10 and FY11, when many state services and programs took severe cuts.

But the budgeting decisions of last year ought to be viewed in context, as we do in a new report.

First, the use of “one-time funds” proved to be the right choice at the time. Because of the recession, state revenues declined precipitously, which led to a 10 percent across-the-board budget cut. One-time funds now derided by some were used precisely as intended. State “rainy day” funds, reserved for economic emergencies, and the federal Recovery Act (ARRA) combined to fill budget gaps and save services. ARRA provided billions of dollars to Iowa to finance K-12 education, higher education, and health care programs for children, the elderly, Iowans with disabilities and low-income Iowans who had no other access to health insurance.

Second, consider how funding for state services and programs compares to pre-recession funding levels. Even as revenues have bounced back, and funding for many services has stabilized, it is unclear if present levels are adequate to met needs. For instance, state funding for community colleges in FY12 will reach about $164 million, up from FY10 and FY11 levels, but still remain below pre-recession levels. At the same time, community colleges are serving more Iowans than ever, with enrollment reaching 106,000 in FY11, up from 88,000 students in FY08.

Iowa’s other public higher education system, the Board of Regents, this year is working under a 3 percent reduction in funding from FY11. Even with the governor’s proposed FY13 increase, Regents funding would still be below recession levels, to say nothing of pre-recession levels. Students pay the price, with continually increasing tuition costs.

Other programs, such as the Early Childhood Iowa initiative, which provides preschool tuition subsidies and parental education; Child Care Assistance, which helps low-income working parents cover the cost of child care; and the Family Investment Program, which helps the lowest-income families meet basic needs and prepare for employment, all have seen large cuts in funding since before the recession. Even into economic recovery, some programs are still being reduced.

Improving upon last year or the year before is good, but the long-term question asks if we are adequately funding programs to meet Iowans’ needs and to adequately invest in Iowa’s future. Judicious use of public funds is not as simple as cutting services to bring down expenses, but taking a balanced approach that assures adequate funding for services that position Iowa for the future.

Posted by Andrew Cannon, Research Associate


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,611 other followers

%d bloggers like this: