Tag Archives: Employment

North Carolina Allows Illegal Aliens into Community Colleges

Recently the North Carolina Board of Community Colleges voted to allow illegal aliens to enroll in our community colleges.  I strongly agree with this stance.  Independent of your legal status in this country, the more educated our communities are, the better off our communities will be.  Research has shown that as the education level of a group goes up, the impact to the community in which they lives is more and more positive.

Further, I don’t understand why we would choose this one product to draw the line in the sand.  For example, we don’t prevent illegal aliens from buying groceries.  Or gasoline.  Or clothes.  Why would we exclude those folks from the one thing that may actually result in them trying to become legal?  I mean, if a person who is here illegally takes the time, the effort and the cost to go to school, almost certainly that person is going to want to reap the rewards of that education.  That is going to mean obtaining a job with pay commensurate to the education level.  And that, in turn, is going to result in them wanting to obtain legal status.  And THAT is what we want.  We want people who come here, want to study and sacrifice and then go to work in our communities.  And anything that we can do to make that easier, we should be doing.

Good for the North Carolina Board of Community Colleges.

Two Parallels in One Article

I’ve admitted before that I am no economist.  Fact is, I haven’t even ever taken a class in economics.  However, I did major in mathematics and work significantly with statistics at my current job.  As I tell my boss, “I’m nifty with numbers”.

So, as I wax poetic on all of these economic issues I do so with a bit of trepidation.  See, really, from an “expert’s” point of view, I don’t know what I’m talking about.

Which makes seeing two of my most often repeated mantras in text at one time very exciting.  This article from Mises.org just made my morning:

Mandating benefits for employees imposes costs on employment. The would-be worker bears the cost. It makes the worker more expensive to hire. The employer has to pay not only a salary but also a benefit. If you make it more expensive to hire people, fewer people will be hired.

It is no different from eggs at the supermarket. If they are $2 each, you will purchase fewer of them — you will economize. This is nothing but the law of demand: consumers will demand less of a good at a higher price than of a good at a lower price. A salary plus benefits amounts to a price that the employer must pay to purchase the work of a laborer. At a higher price, less work will be purchased by the employer.

You should read the whole article; it’s fantastically simple.  And for once, I see in print, what I seem to intuit.  And furthermore, it is verbalized with economic expertize that I simply can’t claim:

There is no real reason to prove these assertions empirically since they flow from the logic of economics.

The article is entitled  “The Jobs Program” and deals with health care:

Sadly, there is no way that free health care can be granted to all living things with the stroke of a pen. Broadening availability will require that the entire sector be turned over to the private sector, so that it can be controlled through the price system like everything else.

But while Mr. Rockwell is speaking about the current health care bill, his article could easily be speaking about the new minimum wage increase slated this month.

Strange Numbers

This past Thursday, workers at a Smithfield Foods went to work covered by a Union contract.  And from all accounts, they are very very happy to finally be so covered.   For example, the article mentions as benefits:

  • Guaranteed sick leave
  • Time-and-a-half holiday pay
  • $1.50 an hour raise over the next four years

“We really did accomplish something with this union,” said Mattie Fulcher.  “We might not have gotten the raise that we wanted, but that will come in time. This is our first contract, and it is a start.”

Now, it’s hard to gauge “success” of this contract for the members.  Among the most glaring omissions of the article are the pre-contract benefits.  For example, what have the pay increases for the average worker been for the past 4 years?  Or, what was the pay multiplier for holidays and overtime before the Union came in to “save the day”?  We do get an idea of what pre-contract life might have been in respect to sick leave:

Fulcher said that on Thursday she got a 40-cent-per-hour raise…and she began earning sick time for the first time since going to work for Smithfield. The sick time is unpaid, but in the past workers earned disciplinary points that could lead to firing if they stayed home sick.

Okay, so lemme get this straight.  The new Union contract says that Ms Fulcher is able to begin to accumulate sick time.  Sick time that is unpaid.  And this is different than in the past when the worker was afforded unpaid sick time but could, if abused, be fired for taking too much sick time?  Now, the article doesn’t mention this specifically, it does point out that employees were given “discipline points”; whatever that means.  Look, I work in corporate America and my sick leave policy is pretty straight forward and generous.  If you are sick, stay home.  As often as you are sick.  And guess what?  few of us ever really call in sick.  But when we do, our bosses mark it down and track us.  Cause, ya know, far be it from an employee to take every other Friday off and claim to be sick.  Sheesh.

Next on the hit list, guaranteed hours:

The contract will also guarantee workers at least 30 hours of work each week…

Awesome.  Really awesome for peope who wanna work more than 29 hours a week.  Really REALLY bad for folks who don’t.  Cause guess what?  Those people get fired.  No company in their right mind is going to pay someone 30 hours of pay for 15 hours of work.  Nice.

And the last piece of good news:

Union members will begin paying dues of about $7 a week…

So, Ms Fulcher gets a $0.40 per hour raise AND gets to pay $7 bucks a week.  Let’s say, just for fun, that she works 40 hours a week.  40 hours at $0.40 is $16.  Assume a 15% tax burden and that 16 bucks goes to $13.60.  Of which $7 goes to the Union.  In the end, she gets $6.60 a week, or about $26.40 a month.  The Union’s take?  7 bucks.  7 bucks or $28 a month.  Guess who makes out better here?  The worker or the Union?  In this specific case, even considering that Ms. Fulcher kept her job, the Union made more money than she did.  But let’s not forget the folks that lost their job as a result of this.  In the end, they have lost the most.

Minimum Wage Going Up – If You’re Lucky

So, the next phase for the minimum wage hike is set for July 2009.  Right around the corner.  And this might seem like good news, heck, even in my own household I’m told this is a good idea.  To which I reply “The real minimum wage is $0.00.”  See, if you don’t have a job, you don’t get paid.  Which brings me to the point of it all I guess.  Or, rather, what should be the point.  See, government is really really bad at setting expectations, conducting data driven analysis, implementing a solution and then tracking that solution for results.  Heck, even private industry is generally bad at this, but really, government is horrible.  The reason?  It’s easier to manufacture spin than it is to demonstrate results.  Spin is easy.  Results are hard.  One gets you elected, the other gets the other guy elected.

So, let’s take minimum wage.  Let’s see if we can’t try to:

  1. Identify what we are trying to accomplish.
    1. Or, perhaps, more specifically WHO were are trying to help or assist.
  2. Identify some metrics that we can use to study data and later, measure results.
  3. Get some data, run some analysis.
  4. Since we have already implemented this policy, we’ll skip the whole “should we implement it” phase.
  5. Go back and see if the policy has worked.

Alright, so, let’s see if we can work to identify what we are trying to accomplish with a minimum wage law.  In my search, I found this, a study entitled “The Who and Why of the Minimum Wage” from The Economic Policy Institute.  The EPI is a liberal economic think tank; imagine Cato or Heritage for the Democrats. Right away we are given a hint of a possible metric:

Raising the wage floor is an essential part of a strategy to support working families.

Now, I’m going to clarify here.  All families, ALL of them, are working families.  While I don’t make the minimum wage, nor does my wife, I would take umbrage with anyone who tried to claim that ours is not a working family.  Yet, somehow, I understand from this study that mine is not the family we are trying to “support”.  The author is trying to support the poor or near poor, working family.  So, alright, we have a start.   We want to increase the income of the families, or people, who make the minimum wage.

To be clear, the authors do devote a significant portion of the study to those making more than the minimum wage, they do claim that the minimum wage is only a start.

Moving on to bullet #2 we need to see if we can identify a metric that we can use.  That would be something that would be able to give us an idea as to where we are now and then compare it to after we have implemented our change.  For me, one metric that jumps right out is the Annual Income of the target population.  So, we have as a metric “Annual income of people who made minimum wage before the increases of that minimum wage went into affect”.  If the law works, that metric should go up.  If it didn’t work, that metric would go down.

The third bullet point is what they always skip, and since they did, we can’t recreate it here.

So now we move on to number 5.  Let’s see if the policy worked.  Here we go!

First task, who earns the minimum wage?  Let’s check.

  • 2.2 million workers with wages at or below the minimum made up 3.0 percent of all hourly-paid workers.
  • Workers under age 25 represented only about one-fifth of hourly-paid workers, they made up half of those paid the Federal minimum wage or less.
  • About 7 in 10 workers earning the minimum wage or less in 2008 were employed in service occupations, mostly in food preparation and serving related jobs.
  • The industry with the highest proportion of workers with hourly wages at or below the Federal minimum wage was leisure and hospitality (about 14 percent). About three-fifths of all workers paid at or below the Federal minimum wage were employed in this industry, primarily in the food services and drinking places component. For many of these workers, tips and commissions supplement the hourly wages received.

Do you know what this means?  This means that A). Very very few people make the minimum wage. B). Those that do are young.  And C). A large portion of minimum wage or less earners are bringing in tips.

As an aside, I used to tend bar, at one point I did it for a living.  When I did, I would calculate an annual “salary” based on wage and tips adjusting for taxes [that I didn’t pay on tips].  Every year I brought in more than 40K.  Often I was making better than 44k.  And this did not include the added benefit of eating most meals at the restaurant as well as a significant discount on my “liquid” needs.  While I didn’t have health insurance provided, I was young and in good health; though I did smoke and did work in a smoky environment.

Needless to say, in 2008, the vast vast majority of workers in America did not make the minimum wage.  While the numbers above reflect the 2008 year, as recently as 2005, 67% of teens and young adult making the minimum wage:

  • Worked part time jobs – Again, I worked a part time job in school, high school and college.  In each case, I was paid the minimum wage at the time.
  • Had average family incomes of 64k.

Folks, I get the fact that we wanna help people who are struggling, but the facts is the facts; almost everyone makes more than the minimum wage.

In Related News

This is just the kind of reporting that makes me upset.  How are people to understand what is really going on when our press and our broadcasters continue to deliver this type of information to people.  I have quoted the entire article below:

New jobs part of stimulus package for N.C.

North Carolina could gain 105,000 new jobs as a result of the economic stimulus package, according to a White House estimate released this morning.

The White House said the figure for each state was compiled by analyzing “detailed estimates of the working age population, employment, and industrial composition of each state.”

The release does not provide any details on what sort of jobs would be created.

And in related news, I plan to date Britney Spears.