If I read my notes correctly, Symone at MSNBC's The Weekend (1 Sept 2024, 9:30 AM±) said Kamala wants higher-paying jobs for more Americans.
Sounds good to me. We've been underpaid for decades. But K must consider and confront Republican criticism of her call for higher pay. The R will say INFLATION. You know they will. They will tie Harris to Biden. They will tie her to the so-called "Biden inflation". Trump is doing that already. The R will make harsh criticism. K will need a powerful rebuttal.
The R view will be something like this: Labor cost is a big part of the cost of output. So an increase in wages can be expected to lead directly to an increase in the price of output.
It's like a reflex. But there is more. In addition to labor costs, a business has "non-labor" costs. The non-labor costs consist largely of purchases from other businesses. Embedded in those costs is the cost of labor at those other businesses. Thus, business costs consist to a large extent of the sum of direct and indirect (embedded) labor costs. So the R have a very strong argument when they say K's focus on better wages will cause inflation.
All else aside, wage increases that drive prices up are self-defeating.
Kamala needs an economic plan that can prevent the drubbing the R are more than willing to give. K also needs a way to raise wages without creating inflation. Here is my plan: To create higher-paying jobs, Kamala should take advantage of a cost tradeoff: The increasing cost of labor should be offset by reducing the cost of finance.
Between 1949 and 1981, there was a cost tradeoff we have not yet recovered from. Corporate interest costs increased by about 6½ percent of corporate spending. During those same years, corporate compensation of employees decreased by almost 7 percent of corporate spending. This cost tradeoff was good for corporations, but not for their employees.
Employee Compensation and Interest Cost relative to Corporate Deductions |
There
was plenty of inflation in the 1948-1981 period, inflation that drove corporate spending up. So those numbers, the 6½
percent interest-cost increase and the 7 percent wage-cost decline, are
much bigger (in dollars) than the numbers suggest.
To boost wages without causing inflation, K can engineer a cost tradeoff where increased labor costs are offset by slower growth of finance, slower growth of debt, and slower growth of interest cost. Kamala can offset the rising cost of wages by reducing the scope and cost of finance.
The amount of interest paid, barring complications, depends on the interest rate and the size of the debt on which interest is paid. Interest paid rises and falls with the rate of interest and the quantity of debt.
Corporate interest cost, the red line on the graph, rises along with interest rates and the quantity of debt from 1948 to 1981. Since 1981, however, interest rates have been generally falling while the quantity of debt has been generally rising. So the red line tends to run flat, with lows only at extreme lows in the interest rate: 5 years in the early 1990s, 5 years in the early 2000s, and most of the time since 2008.
My plan is, and Kamala's plan must be, to rejigger economic policy in every nook and cranny so as to turn incentives-to-be-in-debt into incentives-to-pay-down-debt. The tax deduction for interest paid, for example, is good for those who are in debt. So, that tax deduction makes debt higher than it would otherwise be. We must change that tax deduction. We must replace it with a tax deduction (or a tax credit) for making extra payments against loan principal. This will help people and businesses pay down debt. It will make debt lower than it would otherwise be.
The objective is to bring debt down for people and for businesses.
By relying less on credit and more on income, businesses will reduce their financial costs. They will be able to use the freed-up funds to increase wages without increasing overall business costs, without squeezing profit, and without the need to raise prices. The change in policy will make the red line on the graph come down, so corporations have more money available to spend on wage increases, and more money left over to boost their profit.
Consumers will see living standards improve as businesses increase wages without increasing prices. In addition, the new policy of increasing reliance on income (and reducing reliance on credit) will lead to less borrowing, less debt, and smaller debt service payments for consumers. With finance taking a smaller bite out of our disposable income, more income will be available to spend and to save -- and this is in addition to our higher income arising from the business interest-cost savings.
As we come to rely less on credit and more on income, the quantity of money will have to rise. But as long as money grows at a replacement rate (as credit-use falls), inflation should be comparable to what it was for many years before the so-called Biden inflation: generally acceptable. And because income comes to us without the cost of interest, inflation should be lower than what we had for those many years before the Biden inflation. Or economic growth higher. Or both.
Kamala's new policy will augment labor share, increase aggregate demand, and boost economic growth. It will also help reduce private-sector debt, which is the necessary precondition for reducing the federal debt.
Go Kamala!
The employee compensation data comes from BEA Table 1.13 row 4:
Domestic Business: Corporate Business: Compensation of employees
The data on interest paid comes from BEA Table 7.11 row 3:
Monetary interest paid: Domestic Business: Corporate business
The data for total deductions of active corporations comes from several sources.
Recent data from three sources:
- Tax Policy Center: Corporate Tax Items, 1998 to 2020
- Tax Policy Center: Corporate Tax Returns, 1990 to 2013
- IRS: Statistics of Income, SOI Tax Stats - Table 5 - Returns of active corporations
Older data from multiple sources:
- Historical Statistics (Bicentennial Edition), Series V 132, 1948-1970
- Statistical Abstract, various editions: SA1976-06 Table 844, SA1980-06 Table 948, SA1984-05 Table 907, SA1988-05 Table 846, SA1992-05 Table 834, SA1996-17 Table 835
The most recent data on corporate deductions at IRS (as of 5 Sept 2024) is for 2020.
My Excel Spreadsheet: Corporate Cost Components (7 Sept 2024).xls at Google Drive
1 comment:
It struck me during proofread that Symone's remark Kamala wants higher-paying jobs for more Americans might not mean better wages for existing jobs. It might mean better, newer, high-tech jobs. Maybe that's what Kamala wants, I dunno.
To get better jobs like that, people have to get educated in some high-tech field, enough to qualify for employment. This usually boils down to those people being seen as not only needy but also uneducated. I don't want to be seen that way. I don't imagine anyone does.
And how does it work out? Today we have all those people who got all those student loans and went to school and got all that education, and when they got out there were not enough good jobs for them, so they got shit jobs and cannot afford to make the payments on their student loans.
Telling people to get educated is not the right solution. That's not where the problem lies. The problem is the lack of better-paying jobs. This is the problem that needs to be fixed.
What I'm talking about in the "Kamala" post is that wages fell behind years ago, in the 1949-1981 period, and we should start by getting wages back up to where wages should be, and see how that works out before we go telling people to go get educated.
It is always necessary to go back in time, looking for the origins of today's problems, to see how those problems started. If we only look at the situation today, the problems we see cannot be fixed because they are results of problems we don't even know about.
Post a Comment