Accéder au contenu principal

The minimum wage and aggregate demand

The debate about whereas or not the minimum wage should be raised may be summarized as follow: on one side, opponents argue that a higher mandatory minimum wage would prevent employers to hire unexperienced / underqualified workers. If you think about it, it makes perfect sense: just imagine what would happen if, somewhere in the United States, the government was to impose a—say—100 dollars minimum wage per hour. It is pretty obvious that it would put people out of work since many companies—especially small companies—would simply not be able to pay such rates. Of course, it is also means that a 1 dollar minimum wage would probably have no effect whatsoever on the unemployment rate since, as far the United States are concerned, even the less experienced / qualified workers are worth much more than that. So it really is a matter of numbers: a $15 minimum wage is likely to put a number people out of work but the question is whether or not that number is significant.

On the other side, the proponents of such a raise argue that, because low-income workers have a higher marginal propensity to consume (which is true), a 15 dollars minimum wage would boost aggregate demand and therefore compensate (or even more than compensate) the cost effect. Admittedly, it also makes sense: modulo the share of imported goods and services, a higher solvable demand is likely to increase the sales of American corporations which, in turn, might boost demand for workers, lower unemployment and therefore push wages up. Again, it’s a matter of numbers: putting aside moralists and the economically illiterates, the whole debate—as I understand it— is about which of these two effects will have the stronger influence on the economy.

Now here is a weird fact: I don’t what the figures are in the United States but in France [1], it happen that 28% of minimum wage workers are living with an above median income [2]. Yes, really and no, it’s only marginally related to the redistributive system: these workers are simply married with a high-wage earner and, as a result, they actually have a relatively high level of income. Thinking about it, I know many households in that situation starting by my own, a few years ago, when my wife was getting the minimum the wage [3] while I was probably in the top decile of French wage earners.

So while it’s true that low-income households have a higher marginal propensity to consume, it is not always true—far from it— that minimum wage workers belong to low-income households. Another example that might even not appear in statistics depending on how they are built, is the case of youngsters in their first job that still live with their parents: of course, mum and dad may be poor but they may also be wealthy and even very wealthy.

Taking this into account, a raise in the minimum wage would only have the desired effect—boost the aggregate demand—for a fraction of minimum wage workers. For those who belong to average or high-income households, these additional dollars might end up as savings; especially if the raise causes a rise in unemployment in the first place.

---
[1] Source: Insee, 2011 (in French).
[2] These are after tax and redistribution incomes, adjusted for the number of people belonging to households.
[3] Her wages were raised many times since then (and much faster than the minimum wage in case you wonder).

Commentaires

Posts les plus consultés de ce blog

Brandolini’s law

Over the last few weeks, this picture has been circulating on the Internet. According to RationalWiki, that sentence must be attributed to Alberto Brandolini, an Italian independent software development consultant [1]. I’ve checked with Alberto and, unless someone else claims paternity of this absolutely brilliant statement, it seems that he actually is the original author. Here is what seems to be the very first appearance of what must, from now on, be known as the Brandolini’s law (or, as Alberto suggests, the Bullshit Asymmetry Principle):The bullshit asimmetry: the amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it.— ziobrando (@ziobrando) 11 Janvier 2013To be sure, a number of people have made similar statements. Ironically, it seems that the “a lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes” quote isn’t from Mark Twain but a slightly modified version of Charles Spurgeon’s “a lie will go round the w…

Les prix « avant l’euro »

(J’ai l’intention de compléter cet article au fur et à mesure. Si vous avez des prix à proposer (avec des sources crédibles), n’hésitez pas à le me suggérer dans les commentaires.)L’euro a été introduit en deux temps. La première étape a eu lieu le 1er janvier 1999 à minuit, quand le taux de change irrévocable des différentes monnaies nationales par rapport à l’euro a été fixé définitivement — soit, pour ce qui nous concerne, 1 euro = 6.55957 francs. La seconde étape, l’introduction des pièces et billets en euro, s’est étalée sur un mois et demi : du 1er janvier 2002 au 17 février 2002 ; date à laquelle les espèces en franc ont été privées du cours légal [1] — c’est-à-dire qu’il était interdit de les utiliser ou de les accepter en règlement d’une transaction.SalairesÀ compter du 1er juillet 2000, le SMIC horaire brut était fixé à 42.02 francs soit, pour avec une durée légale du travail de 39 heures par semaine (169 heures par mois), 7 101.38 francs bruts par mois. Le 1er juillet 2001,…

Le marché des actions US est-il si cher que ça ?

Avec un Price-to-Earnings Ratio (cours sur bénéfices nets) désormais nettement supérieur à 20, le marché des actions américaines apparaît désormais très cher et même, selon nombre de commentateurs, trop chers. Cela fait plusieurs mois que le mot en B (« bulle ») a été prononcé [1] et force est de reconnaître que, sur la seule base de ce ratio, c’est effectivement le cas. Néanmoins, un rapide retour sur la théorie de la valorisation donne un éclairage tout à fait différent.Si le PER est un ratio très couramment utilisé sur les marchés, les chercheurs qui s’intéressent à la valorisation des actions utilisent plus volontiers son inverse : le Earnings Yield. En notant $E$ le niveau actuel des bénéfices nets et $P$ le prix du marché, le Earnings Yield s’écrit simplement : $$\frac{E}{P} $$ C’est donc la même mesure mais exprimée sous forme de taux plutôt que de ratio. Si nous utilisons plus volontiers cette présentation c’est que, contrairement au PER, elle a une signification très précis…