Re: Do Most New Jobs Pay Over Average?
Hello Pen-l, I have been excavating data on job growth for the past few months and have become rather depressed over what I have found in the predictions of the BLS and others. Thus I was quite surprised to read that all of the new jobs formed recently were paying above average. To reiterate an earlier posting, I'm not sure what sort of semantics are at work. Nevertheless I do want to point out an article in the July 1994 Monthly Labor Review by William Goodman, stating that "women filled the majority of the jobs added in the latest recovery of employment (2/92 to 4/93) and men filled substantially fewer jobs than they did before the recession began." Since women earn less than men, on average, it would seem that the conclusion reached by the NY Times is nearly a mathematical impossibility, in addition to not making sense. John Keefe [EMAIL PROTECTED]
whoops
Sorry for sending the request for a Pen-L list to the wrong address. While I'm here, though, I would like to mention that Julie Matthaei and I are about to being an update of our book, Race, Gender and Work. Our plan is to include 1990 Census data and additional material on the economic experiences of women in the 1980s, and we expect to have the new edition available for spring 96 adoption. If you have used the book and would like to share your comments with us, we would much appreciate hearing from you. Send comments to the address above. Thanks. *** Teresa Amott Dept. of Economics Bucknell University Lewisburg, PA 17837 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 717/524-1652 (w) 717/524-3760 (fax)
New Zealand's unions
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 1994 08:43:32 -0900 Reply-To: Forum on Labor in the Global Economy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> From: "Ellen Dannin ([EMAIL PROTECTED])" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: State NZ Unions (fwd) The enclosed message is from the Pacific Rim Industrial Relations discussion group. Big things have been happening in New Zealand. In 1991, the Employment Contracts Act was enacted as part of a package of social legislation based on concepts made popular at the University of Chicago. The Kiwis were especially influenced by Professor Richard Epstein at the University Chicago Law School. The ECA was supposed to have come into effect 5-1-91 - a date that proved a bit controversial. It was changed to 5-515- 91. In a nutshell, the ECA provides no role for unions specifically. Its basic philosophy is freedom of contract. The ideal was bargaining on an individual basis. It does, however, permit bargaining on a collective basis. The ECA had a disastrous impact on union membership. Figures (of course) vary, but it appears that New Zealand union density declined roughly 50% the first year. One heard stories about hordes of applicants lining up for no-wage jobs. The ECA is an idea which is being promoted worldwide. Alberta seems to be leaning in favor last I heard, ditto, the Netherlands. I asked Raymond Harbridge of University of Victoria at Wellington about his latest research which seems to show that, despite this inhospitable environment, unions have stemmed the tide of loss. Here is his response. Ellen J. Dannin California Western School of Law 225 Cedar Street San Diego, CA 92101 -- Forwarded message -- Date: Tue, 18 Oct 1994 12:13:56 +1300 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: State NZ Unions Part of the real difficulty down here is that the Govt (clever sods that they are) decided not to collect various types of labour statistics any longer - clearly official data on unions and union membership and collective bargaining were the most affected by this decision, but other data which showed things that maybe weren't ideal to everybody have also been dropped - the most recent example appears (says he cautiously fearing a law suit) to be that data reporting income distribution by quintiles will no longer be available by quintiles in the new Real Wage Index - thus the official data will no longer be able to be used to show that the rich have got richer and the poor poorer etc. Anyway, Harbridge and Hince have become de-facto Registrars of Unions and number crunches and we undertake an annual survey of unions (which in a country that is really only an slightly overgrown fishing village isn't actually all that hard). As Ellen points out our most recent data is for the year ended 31 Dec 1993 and this was published in the August issue of the NZJIR (subs available from Alan Geare at the Management Dept, University of Otago, P O Box 56, Dunedin) and in our Source book of New Zealand Trade Unions and Employee Organisations which is 120 pages and available from us for $NZ20 or $A20 (airmail postage included!). Now that the ads are out of the way - here's the story : Table 1: Unions, membership and density under the Employment Contracts Act. Unions Membership Density(a) Density(b) May1991 (1)80 603,118 63% 52% Dec 1991 (2)66 514,325 55% 45% Dec 1992 (3)58 428,160 46% 37% Dec 1993 (4)67 409,112 43% 34% Note: Union membership is reported as full time equivalent union members. Density(a) is membership as the percentage of the full time workforce as recorded in the Quarterly Employment Survey (QES) undertaken by Statistics NZ. The QES reports the number of employees and working owners in activity units employing 2.5 or more full time equivalent employees. Density(b) is membership as a percentage of the full time employed workforce as reported by the Household Labour Force Survey. In reporting density we have chosen to exclude part time employees from the "workforce" as the reported union membership represents full time equivalent members. (1) Department of Labour, unpublished data made available to the authors. (2) Harbridge and Hince (1993). (3) Industrial Relations Centre Survey, December, 1992. (4) Industrial Relations Centre Survey, December, 1993. My view, correctly reported by Ellen, is that the nadir may have been reached, that growth may occur, and that the union decline may have bottomed out. Some reasons for this - well it is linked in part to my views about collective bargaining coverage. Under the pre ECA system, unions had 100,000 fewer members than the total number of workers covered by union negotiated awards and collective agreements. There were many reasons for this - the main o
Economics at HBCU's
I am interested in submitting a proposal for a panel/workshop on Teaching Economics at a Historically Black College/University to the Teaching Economics: Instruction and Classroom Based Research Conference to be held at Robert Morris College (near Pittsburgh) February 16-18, 1995. I would like to hear from others who are interested in this subject, especially any who might want to participate in such a session. The proposed panel/workshop would be a forum for discussion of the issues and experiences specific to teaching economics to a predominantly African- American student body at a historically Black college or university (HBCU). Its primary intent is to generate exchange of experiences and ideas for improving economic pedagogy in the HBCU environment. The contact person for information on the Conference is Allan Zeman, (412) 227-6844, Robert Morris College, 600 Fifth Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15219- 3099; e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] The deadline for proposals is November 1, so please respond promptly if you are interested. Raymond A. Miller Department of Business and Economics Southern University at New Orleans 6400 Press Drive New Orleans, LA 70126 (504) 286-5301 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Do Most New Jobs Pay Over Average?
I've seen similar articles (reporting on a recent BLS study, which I've not
seen) and suspect a semantical trick. The growth is purportedly in
*categories* that includes high incomes, but not necessarily in jobs that
actually yield high incomes. The dispersion of incomes (and perhaps even
more so, per hour compensation) may be quite high in these categories, so
the category might not accurately reflect the specific component. For
example, how many store clerks and fast food employees have been redubbed
"manager" or "asst. manager" or "supervisor"? How much of the growth is in
these jobs? How many temporary employees have been grouped as part of
"business services," because they are employed through an employment
agency? Have their titles been inflated ("administrative technician,"
sales professional") as a marketing ploy? I'd be better persuaded if these
articles would refer to more highly disaggregated data and more specific
examples. As it stands, I think a fair portion of these results are an
artifact of job title inflation. Joe
>Have people seen the lengthly article under this headline in this
>?Monday's NYT?
>? The article allows that workers wages have been falling "more or less
>?steadily for 20 years" if "workers" is understood to exclude managers and
>?supervisers, which strikes me as a reasonable definition. But it's central
>?claim is that most of the new jobs created in the last 2.5 years (approx.
>?5.5 million jobs) are in occupations that pay more, not less, than the
>?average hourly wage, which is now about $15.50." The article elaborates:
>?"This year alone, 72 percent of the 2.5 million new jobs have been for
>?managers, from the chief executive to the branch sales manager, and for
>?professionals, from surgeons and nurses to software programmers And
>?despite its reputation for low wages, the service sector is adding most of
>?the higher-wage jobs."
>
> The spin on this article seems designed to try to contradict the new
>conventional wisdom that economic restructuring is leading to income
>polarization in this economy. In fact, it doesn't contradict this picture;
>it just buries it in statistical averages. Still, I was suprised that most
>new jobs were created in the high income end of the spectrum. Does this
>seem credible to others who know more about US labor market than I? If it is,
>I suppose the next question is how long this kind of job growth can go on
>if income of lower skill, lower wage workers continues to fall, and the
>economy proves less and less capable of even generating jobs of these kinds.
>Any comments?
>
>Ian Robinson
Joseph E. Medley
Economics
University of Southern Maine
Portland, Maine 04103
(207)-780-4293
Re: Do Most New Jobs Pay Over Average?
This week's Time Magazine has a cover feature on "Boom for Whom" which takes the opposite tack from the NY Times. It includes the following "bad news": median family income has dropped to the levels of 1980; consumer debt as a % of disposable personal income has risen from 60% in 1980 to 80% currently; average weekly overtime has risen from 2.75 hours in 1980 to 4.25 currently; temporary employement as a % of total employment has risen from about 0.8% in 1985 to over 2% today. The article states "There is much evidence, in fact, that the US is developing something of a two-tiered society. While corporate profits and executive salaries are rising rapidly, real wages are not growing at all." Louis Proyect On Tue, 18 Oct 1994 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Have people seen the lengthly article under this headline in this > Monday's NYT? > The spin on this article seems designed to try to contradict the new > conventional wisdom that economic restructuring is leading to income > polarization in this economy. >
Do Most New Jobs Pay Over Average?
Have people seen the lengthly article under this headline in this ?Monday's NYT? ? The article allows that workers wages have been falling "more or less ?steadily for 20 years" if "workers" is understood to exclude managers and ?supervisers, which strikes me as a reasonable definition. But it's central ?claim is that most of the new jobs created in the last 2.5 years (approx. ?5.5 million jobs) are in occupations that pay more, not less, than the ?average hourly wage, which is now about $15.50." The article elaborates: ?"This year alone, 72 percent of the 2.5 million new jobs have been for ?managers, from the chief executive to the branch sales manager, and for ?professionals, from surgeons and nurses to software programmers And ?despite its reputation for low wages, the service sector is adding most of ?the higher-wage jobs." The spin on this article seems designed to try to contradict the new conventional wisdom that economic restructuring is leading to income polarization in this economy. In fact, it doesn't contradict this picture; it just buries it in statistical averages. Still, I was suprised that most new jobs were created in the high income end of the spectrum. Does this seem credible to others who know more about US labor market than I? If it is, I suppose the next question is how long this kind of job growth can go on if income of lower skill, lower wage workers continues to fall, and the economy proves less and less capable of even generating jobs of these kinds. Any comments? Ian Robinson
Davis Bacon Act
SHOULD IT STAY OR SHOULD IT GO? The Davis-Bacon Act (and "little" DB Acts in the States) were originally intended to protect workers and contractors from being underbid in their areas. While originally an Anti-trust measure and protective of a skilled but contingent work force, prevailing wages help to prevent workers from being marginalized into the ranks of the poor. However, economic literature on the act has often taken the focus of efficiency and cost-effectiveness of labor on projects, rather than than the general social and industry good it was to (and does often) create. The traditional argument for Davis-Bacon wages has been that the government, in offering higher wages, hires more productive labor, which usually, it turns out happens to be union labor. Thus, Davis-Bacon wages have often been confused for "union wages," despite the fact that this rule only holds when unions have a 30% or more presence in the area. Sometimes Davis-Bacon supports union wages, sometimes it supports whatever the area wage is. Now, productivity is at issue because the union-nonunion productivity ratio has been dwindling, although recently making gains again. This is probably, as Steve Allen suggests, due to the fluctuations in union apprenticeship program enrollment. Often cited as the best study on the Davis-Bacon Act was the 1979 report by GAO titled "The Davis- Bacon Act Should be Repealed." However, as a result of more careful inquiry into its methodology, GAO has officially backed down on their 1979 position on the report, and calls for further inquiry should they support the other position. As an intern there, I had a hand in this reasoning, of which you may find some interest. The Davis-Bacon laws on prevailing wages have often been the target of claims that the government is costly and wasteful. While it is true that the law is very difficult to administer, and is costly, it is unclear whether governments actually lose money by offering people higher wages for government work in construction. Governments that support this law, may, in fact get "more bang for their buck" in terms of higher productivity and quality of work. Claims that Davis-Bacon "causes inflation" are unfounded. While Davis-Bacon wages inflate costs for employers who would otherwise pay half the union rate, it was not THE cause of inflation during the 1970's, and it is certainly not a cause of inflation now that unions represent less and less of the work force, and are therefore unable to demand the same differential in "union wages." The only areas where it might be the case are New York, Chicago and San Francisco, where unionization rates remain high for construction workers. An increase in federal and state investment and increased wages might be just the thing for a stagnating economy. The claim that Davis-Bacon supports large companies is probably a valid one, but then small projects would probably not be doing a lot of this work anyway. Usually state and federal projects are very large, requiring huge amounts of physical capital and tradesmen and tradeswomen who have been through apprenticeship programs (usually offered through unions) and know their trade. Davis-Bacon has also been critized for keeping minorities from getting jobs. Supposedly this happens because if union labor is hired and unions keep out minorities then the act keeps minorities from getting jobs. I believe that the problem is more systemic in our social and labor market structure, and that increasing wages for everyone can only improve the general situation, especially if we can apply a Keynesian multiplier to the effect of higher wages. The argument that decreasing wages for federal and state jobs will lead to higher employment just doesn't hold; demand for fed and st projects depends more on the availability of human and financial capital than it does on wage increases. In addition, federal and state projects already have rules on affirmative action hiring, so the Davis-Bacon act would HELP them, not hurt them. As far as Davis-Bacon policy is concerned, I prefer to take the hippocratic oath. We don't know what the effects the Act are, except that it's repeal will mean a spiralling downward in wages, which hurts people who are already threatened with loss of a job, loss of life, loss of their unions. Why add injury to injury by repealing the law? There are other ways of being cost-effective on projects, having nothing to do with wages and a lot to do with management. Heather Grob Economist Center to Protect Workers Rights, BCTD 111 Massachusetts Ave Washington, DC 20001 (202) 962-8490
Re: Crime & Work
About a decade ago, the Vera Institute of Criminal Justice did a very large project on work and crime, with multiple volumes coming out of the project. Particularly, there was an extensive review of the literature and a substantial project looking at the transition to work in three communities in Brooklyn. I highly recommend you get these volumes. Good luck. Gary W. Nickerson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
