by Dr. Roy Cordato
Senior Economist, Emeritas
As noted previously, this newsletter has expanded its focus. In addition to issues related to the environment, we will now also include discussions of topics related to economics. As in the past, the newsletter will discuss relevant analysis done by the JLF and other think tanks as well as items in the news.
Keynesian Claptrap and the Case for a Minimum Wage Increase
Keynesianism is indeed a disease on the body politic in democratic society. An economic doctrine of technocratic arrogance, it…gives scope to the opportunistic behavior of politicians who become unconstrained by Keynesianism in practice.
Living Economics: Yesterday, Today,and Tomorrow
The Keynesian disease has found its way into the debate over increasing the minimum wage. In addition to arguments about how people need to receive a livable wage or, in the words of Wilmington’s Rep. Mike McIntyre, how "those who work full time should be able to make an honest day’s pay to provide for their families" — hardly a problem that can be fixed by a minimum wage — it is also being claimed that a $10.10 per hour minimum wage will stimulate the economy. That’s right, higher labor costs will actually be good for business and good for economic growth.
So how does this work? An analyst from the NC Justice Center puts it succinctly: "because low-wage workers tend to spend a larger proportion of their income, raising the minimum wage is an important stimulus to the broader economy." This is knee-jerk Keynesianism, pure and simple.
In the basic Keynesian model, it is spending on consumer goods, as opposed to saving and investment, that drives an economy and causes it to grow. It is the same "reasoning" that was used as an excuse for Obama’s failed stimulus package in 2009 and Bush’s the year before. So if wealth is transferred by increasing the minimum wage from those who spend a smaller proportion of their income, in this case business owners/employers, to those who spend a larger proportion of their income, low wage workers, then the "broader economy will be stimulated."
The problem is the theory’s assumption, namely that the revenue that will be transferred to low wage workers and spent on consumption goods will be more advantageous to economic growth than it would be if left in the hands of businesses, where it would be reinvested, saved in the form of retained earnings, or distributed to shareholders. This is an assumption of the naive Keynesian theory where saved money is idle money.
In reality, business profits, which are, in the absence of increased labor productivity, where these higher wages must come from, do not go into a mattress. Without business profit and individual saving there could be no economic growth. It is profit and saving that fuels investment and business expansion. Previously earned profits and personal savings finance all new factories, new stores, new office buildings, and ultimately new employees. Economic growth cannot occur without saving and investment, and saving and investment cannot occur without the generation of business profits or the decision on the part of individuals to save, i.e., not consume, some of their income. All consumption spending is dependent upon having goods and services to spend money on, which is necessarily the result of this previous investment.
Higher wages are the result of capital accumulation and economic growth, not the cause of it. To argue that new economic growth will be stimulated by a coerced increase in the minimum wage shows an unfortunate ignorance of this fact. It is an ignorance that is embedded in the Keynesian model itself.
Lastly, all of this assumes that, on net, the wealth transfer from employers to employees will actually occur. As has been discussed previously in this newsletter, this is a tenuous assumption at best. The fact of the matter is that increases in the minimum wage will cause some people to lose their jobs and make it impossible for some of those looking for work to find it. This is because, as the minimum wage increases, fewer low skilled workers will qualify for the positions that are available. So while some people will end up with higher wages, others will end up with no wages at all. Therefore even from a flawed Keynesian perspective, to argue that there will be a net transfer of wealth from those with a "lower marginal propensity to consume," to invoke Keynesian jargon, to those with a "higher marginal propensity to consume," one would have to factor in all those workers whose wages have fallen to zero as a result of the minimum wage increase. The Congressional Budget office estimates this number to be over a half million.
Click here for the Economics & Environment Update archive.
You can unsubscribe to this and all future e-mails from the John Locke Foundation by clicking the "Manage Subscriptions" button at the top of this newsletter.