Tag Archives: income distribution

At One Time, You Could Work Your Way Through College – But Not Any More.

Posted on by

Earnings from Min Wage vs. University Costs, 1963-2013

 

At one time, not that long ago, a student could work at a minimum wage job over the summers and during holidays, and be able to cover the total cost (including room and board) of attending a four-year state university.  That is now far from possible.

With students now returning to school, it is perhaps a good time to look at what has happened to the affordability of college in recent decades for middle class families.  The chart above provides one indicator.  It compares what a student could earn in a summer job at the minimum wage, or in year-round work at the minimum wage while attending school (i.e. during summers, holidays, and part time during the academic term), as a ratio to what it would cost to attend a four-year state university.

The state university costs are for in-state tuition and required fees, plus the cost of on-campus room and board.  The figures are from the National Center for Education Statistics of the US Department of Education (with figures for 2013 calculated based on the 2012 to 2013 growth in the College Board estimates).  The university cost figures are for four-year, degree granting, state colleges and universities (i.e. they do not include two-year community colleges), and cover all such state schools.  The cost of attending the elite state schools (such as Berkeley, UVA, or the University of Michigan) would be more.  The years shown on the chart are for the beginning of the respective academic years (i.e. 2013 is for the 2013/14 academic year), and the minimum wage rate used is that which was in effect in July of that year.

The chart indicates that one could have covered the cost of attending a state university in the 1960s and 70s solely through minimum wage work.  Based on just a 17 week summer break, one would have earned enough to cover an average of 82% of the full cost of attending school.  An industrious student working full time over the summer and during vacation breaks (such as Christmas), plus 10 hours per week during the academic term, would have been able to cover the full cost and more – an average of 143% of the cost of school.  Hence summer work plus a bit more during vacations would have sufficed to cover the full cost of college.  In terms of dollar figures, the full cost of attending a state university in 1963/64 would have been $929, in the then current dollars.  A student could have earned $782 just from working at minimum wage over the summer, or $1,357 by working at minimum wage over the summer, during vacations, and 10 hours per week during the academic term.

These are, of course, just simple indicators.  One might have been able to earn more than the minimum wage, and/or worked a different number of hours.  But the point is that in the 1960s and 70s, when baby boomers such as myself were going to college, it was possible for the student alone, simply by working at the minimum wage, to have paid for the full cost of attending a four-year state university.

That began to change in the 1980s, as Reagan took office.  The change is indeed striking.  Affordability then began to fall, and it has fallen steadily since, as seen in the chart above.  By 1986, a student working even full time over the summer and during vacation breaks, and 10 hours a week during the academic term, no longer would have been able to cover the full cost of attending school.

The share of schooling costs that could be covered by work then continued to decline (with some bumps up when the minimum wage was sporadically changed) until the present day.  By 2013, summer work would only cover a quarter of the cost of schooling, while more comprehensive work over the entire year would only cover less than half.  In dollar terms, the average cost of attending a state university (for tuition, room, and board) was $18,037 per year in 2013.  But a student working over the summer at the minimum wage would have only been able to earn $4,930, or only a bit over a quarter of the cost of attending school.  Working full time over the summer and during vacations, plus 10 hours per week during the academic term, the student could have only earned $8,555, or less than half the cost of attending school.

As a consequence, students must now rely on their parents (when their parents can afford it), or a scarce number of scholarships (highly limited, especially for state schools), or on student loans.  Otherwise, they must give up on attending university.

The result has been an explosion in student loan debt outstanding.  As of June 30, 2014, student loan debt totaled an estimated $1,275 billion (based on Federal Reserve Board estimates), or five times the level outstanding in 2003 of $250 billion (the earliest figures I could find on a comparable basis; the amounts were so small earlier, that the Fed did not separately break them out).  Student loans have long been common in the US (I had them when I went to school in the early 1970s).  But the amounts outstanding then were relatively small, were at low interest rates, and were for most of us easily manageable.  It is different now.  Student loan debts have exploded in recent years, with a five-fold increase over just the past decade.

The declining affordability of college by this measure is of course a consequence of what has been happening to the two components of the measure.  One has been the unwillingness of Congress to allow the minimum wage to keep up with inflation.  As noted in an earlier post on this blog, the minimum wage in the US has stagnated over the last half century, and is indeed lower now (in real terms) than it was in 1950, when Harry Truman was president.  Real GDP per capita is 3.5 times higher now than it was in 1950, and real labor productivity has increased similarly.  These are not small increases.  I find it amazing (and shameful) that the real minimum wage is lower now than it was then.

For the period since 1963 (the earliest date in the chart), real GDP per capita and real labor productivity are both now 2.7 times higher than what they were then.  But the real minimum wage is close to 20% less now than it was in 1963.

The fall in the real minimum wage fall since the 1960s is half the story.  Note that the inflation measure used for determining the real minimum wage is the general consumer price index (the CPI).  This is the price index for the overall basket of goods and services a US household will purchase.  But the price index is an average over all the goods and services that households buy, and individual items can have price increases that are more than, or less than, this overall average.

In particular, the cost of attending a state university has increased by a good deal more than the overall CPI.  Based on the overall CPI, the real cost of attending a state university (for tuition, room, and board) is now 2.5 times what it was in 1963.  The cost of the tuition component alone is now 4.5 times higher.  The basic cause has been the cutbacks in state budgetary support for their colleges and universities, with tuition and other charges then increased to make up for it.

As a result, the minimum wage has fallen in real terms (based on the overall CPI) since the 1960s, at the same time that the real cost of attending school (relative to the overall CPI) has increased sharply.  The two factors together account for the steep fall in the share of state university costs that one can pay for by working at the minimum wage.  The curves in the chart at the top of this post show that path.

It is important to recognize that this declining affordability of attending state schools was not inevitable, but rather the result of policy choices.  The minimum wage has not been adjusted to reflect general inflation, even though real GDP per capita and labor productivity have both grown substantially.  And as was discussed in another post on this blog, there is no evidence that raising the minimum wage by the modest amounts now being discussed would lead to adverse effects on employment.

Government support for state colleges and universities has also been scaled back, leading to tuition and other cost increases substantially higher than that reflected in the general price index.  This has also been a policy choice.  And it is a policy choice that has prioritized the present generation (with tax cuts a prime example) over the coming generation, that is denying many of the coming generation the educational opportunities we ourselves had.

The Obama Bull Market Rally on Its Fifth Anniversary

Posted on by

S&P 500 Index, March 9, 2009, to March 10, 2014

Bull Markets, 1940-2014, updated to March 10, 2014

 
   Bull Market Rallies Since 1940
  Ranked by overall growth in real terms
Start Date End   Date Calendar Days Nominal % Change Real % Change Real Rate of Growth
Dec 4, 1987 Mar 24, 2000 4,494 582% 361% 13%
Jun 13, 1949 Aug 2, 1956 2,607 267% 222% 18%
Aug 12, 1982 Aug 25, 1987 1,839 229% 181% 23%
Mar 9, 2009 Mar 10, 2014 1,827 177% 151% 20%
Apr 28, 1942 May 29, 1946 1,492 158% 124% 22%
Oct 22, 1957 Dec 12, 1961 1,512 86% 76% 15%
Oct 9, 2002 Oct 9, 2007 1,826 101% 75% 12%
Jun 26, 1962 Feb 9, 1966 1,324 80% 69% 16%
May 26, 1970 Jan 11, 1973 961 74% 57% 19%
Oct 6, 1966 Nov 29, 1968 785 48% 37% 16%
Oct 3, 1974 Nov 28, 1980 2,248 126% 34% 5%

Today marks the fifth anniversary of the Obama bull market rally.  The rally began on March 9, 2009, just six weeks after Obama was inaugurated.  A reader of this blog suggested that on this anniversary, an update of previous posts on the strong performance of the stock market during Obama’s tenure (see here and here) might therefore be timely and of interest.

Stock market prices have indeed continued to rise, and as the table above shows, stocks during Obama’s term in office have now posted the fourth highest gains of any stock market rally since 1940.  Market rallies are defined as at least a 25% rise in the S&P 500 Index (in real terms), without a 20% fall.  Equity prices (as measured by the S&P 500) have risen by 177% in nominal terms since March 9, 2009, as of the close today.  The increase in real terms (using the CPI inflation index) has been 151%.  And since this rally is on-going, it could move further up in rank.  In addition, in just twelve more days (assuming the rally does not suddenly collapse) this rally will be the third longest in terms of calendar days of all market rallies since 1940.

It is also interesting to see how steady the upward progression has been, especially since September 2011.  This is shown in the graph at the top of this post.  I do not believe anyone had predicted this.

The rally could also end tomorrow.  All rallies eventually come to an end, and this one will as well.  But the rise in prices already achieved, the fourth largest since 1940, needs to be recognized.

Should Obama be given credit for this historic market rally?  Not fully.  I doubt that equity prices in themselves are a primary objective of what Obama has been trying to achieve.   Rather, the objective has been a stronger economy.  Regulatory as well as policy measures have been taken with the aim of strengthening the system, and this ultimately benefits business (as well as the population) as a whole.  This then helps equity prices.  Unfortunately, and as this blog has discussed in earlier posts, fiscal drag from cuts in government spending has held back the pace of the recovery, and this fiscal drag is continuing.  The economy could be doing better.  Nevertheless, there has been a partial recovery.  But it is not yet complete, nor as rapid as one would have had without the fiscal drag.

But what this strong growth in the stock market does clearly indicate is that the charges by Republican politicians that Obama has been bad for business (indeed a disaster for business many of them have said), has no basis.  If there were any truth to the charge, stock market prices would not be up by 177% in nominal terms (and by 151% in real terms) over the last five years, leading to the fourth biggest rally in stock prices in three-quarters of a century.

Rising Income Inequality: Full Employment Would Have Kept the Bottom 20% From Falling Behind

Posted on by

Real Income Growth of Bottom 20% vs Unemployment Rate, 1968-2012

A.  Introduction

President Obama highlighted in this year’s State of the Union address, as well as in other recent speeches and events, the importance of and concerns about the worsening distribution of income in the US.  As this blog noted in a post two years ago, income distribution has worsened markedly in the US since about 1980, when Reagan was elected.  This deterioration since 1980 is in sharp contrast to the period from the end of World War II until 1980, when incomes of all groups in the US moved upward together.  The paths then diverged sharply after 1980, with large increases in the incomes of the rich (and in particular the extremely rich:  the top 1%, top 0.1%, and especially the top 0.01%), while the real incomes of the bottom 90% were flat or even falling.

An important question, of course, is what to do to achieve more equitable growth, and in particular more rapid growth in the real incomes of those in the lower strata of the population.  Much of the discussion has focussed on measures such as improving our educational and training systems, to prepare workers for better paying jobs.  There is no doubt that such measures are important, and need to be done.  Their impact will, however, only be over the long term – in a generation for measures such as improvements in the educational system.

This blog post will focus on a more immediate action that can be taken:  returning the economy to full employment and keeping it there.  We will find that based on historic patterns, slack in the labor market due to less than full employment has been negatively associated with growth in the real incomes of the bottom 20% of households.  Furthermore, based on statistical regression parameters estimated from the historical data, the greater degree of slack in the US labor market since 1980 compared to that in the thirty years before 1980, largely suffices in itself to account for the relative deterioration of real incomes since 1980 of the bottom 20% of households compared to the top 20%.

This is an important result.  Note that the claim is not that greater slack in the labor market (on average) in the decades since 1980 was the sole cause of the deterioration of relative incomes of the poorest 20% vs. the richest 20%.  There were undoubtedly numerous reasons for this.  But what the finding does indicate is that had the unemployment rate after 1980 matched what it had been in the three decades before 1980, this would have largely sufficed in itself to offset the other factors, and would have led to a rate of growth in the real incomes of the bottom 20% close to what it was for the top 20%.

B.  The Relationship Between Real Income Growth of the Bottom 20% and the Unemployment Rate

The scatter diagram at the top of this post shows the relationship between the annual real income growth of the bottom 20% of households since 1968, and the average rate of unemployment in the same year.  The income data for the bottom 20% comes from the series produced by the US Census Bureau, and measures household cash income before tax and from all cash sources (so it will include Social Security, for example, but not payments under Medicare).  The series starts in 1967 (so 1968 is the first year for which one can compute the growth), and goes to 2012.  The unemployment rate comes from the standard series produced by the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, where the annual rate is the simple average of the monthly rates over the year.

The scatter diagram suggests there is a relationship between slack in the labor market (a higher unemployment rate) and the annual change in the real incomes of the bottom 20% of households, but that it is by no means a tight one.  Other factors matter as well.  But a simple ordinary least squares regression of the annual change in the real incomes of the bottom 20% against the average unemployment rate in that year, does suggest that the unemployment rate is an important and statistically significant factor.

The regression fitted line slopes downward with a coefficient of -0.8228, indicating that on average, a 1% point increase in the unemployment rate in the year will be associated with a 0.8228% point fall in the growth rate that year of the real incomes of the bottom 20%.  The t-statistic on the 0.8228 slope coefficient is 3.3, where any t-statistic greater than about 2.0 is generally seen as statistically significant (with a greater than 95% degree of confidence).  That is, with a greater than 95% degree of confidence, the results suggest that the coefficient is significantly different from zero (where zero would indicate no relationship).

The R-squared of the regression (an indication of correlation) is relatively modest at just 0.1982.  It can vary from zero to one.  This indicates that there is more than just the unemployment rate that accounts for the annual change in the real incomes of the bottom 20%.  But this does not mean that the unemployment rate does not matter.  The t-statistic for it is highly significant.  Rather, the modest R-squared indicates there are other factors as well which have not been identified here.

Similar regressions were run for the changes in the real incomes of the other quintiles of the household income groups.  The estimated coefficients became progressively closer to zero, from -0.82 for the bottom 20%, to -0.62 for the second 20%, to -0.52 for the middle 20%, to -0.47 for the fourth 20%, and then dropping sharply to -0.25 for the top 20%.  This suggests that the link to unemployment as a factor explaining the growth in the real incomes of the group became progressively less important for the richer groups.  And the t-statistic for the coefficient for the top 20% was only 1.0, indicating the estimated coefficient (of -0.25) was statistically not significantly different from zero (and hence that one cannot reject the hypothesis that no relationship is there).  The R-squareds for the regressions similarly fell steadily, from 0.1982 for the bottom 20%, to 0.19 for the second 20%, to 0.16 for the middle 20%, to 0.14 for the fourth 20%, and then dropping sharply to an extremely low 0.02 for the top 20%.

The results suggest that slackness in the labor market, as measured by the unemployment rate, was a significant factor in explaining the annual growth in the real incomes of the bottom 20% (with more unemployment leading to lower or indeed negative growth).  The results also suggest that higher unemployment did not have a statistically significant impact on the growth in real incomes of the top 20%.

C.  The Impact of Less Slack in the Labor Market

From 1950 to 1979, when growth was similar for all income groups (see this earlier blog post), the monthly unemployment rate averaged 5.17% in the US.  But from 1980 to 2012, the monthly rate averaged 6.44%, or 1.27% points higher.  The index of real incomes of the bottom 20% of households (in the US Census data cited above) had risen from 100.0 in 1967 (the earliest year with such data) to an index value of 118.9 in 1980.  But since then it has risen hardly at all, reaching only 119.5 in 2012.  The 1980 to 2012 growth rate was only 0.015% per year (note not 1.5% per year, but rather only one-hundreth of that).

Suppose the labor markets over 1980 to 2012 had been as close to full employment as they had been over the period 1950 to 1979.  Applying the estimated regression coefficient of -0.8228 to the 1.27% point difference in the average unemployment rates, the annual growth rate of the real incomes of the bottom 20% would have been 1.045% points higher (equal to 0.8228 x 1.27% points), and hence would have reached a growth rate of 1.06% a year (equal to 1.045% + 0.015%).  With such a growth rate, the real incomes of the bottom 20% would have reached an index value of 166.5 in 2012  This would have been close to the index value of the real incomes of the top 20% in that year of 169.8 (with 1967 set equal to 100.0).  Relative incomes would have grown similarly since 1967, and inequality (for the bottom 20% compared to the top 20%) would not have grown.

This is an interesting result.  It suggests that the higher unemployment rates we have on average suffered from since 1980 can account both for the stagnation of the real incomes of the bottom 20%, and the increasing inequality when comparing this group to the top 20%.  Note it does not offset all of the increasing inequality seen since Reagan was elected.  The real incomes of the top 1%, top 0.1%, and especially the top 0.01% have grown by far more than the incomes of the top 20%.  But keeping up with the top 20% would still be a major accomplishment.

A return to the economic performance that the US enjoyed in the three decades before Reagan would not be impossible.  To keep the average unemployment rate at the 5.17% rate achieved between 1950 and 1979 would not mean that all recessions need be avoided.  There were a number of recessions in the three decades before 1980.  But the recessions since 1980 (dating from January 1980 at the end of the Carter Administration, from July 1981 at the beginning of Reagan, from July 1990 during Bush I, from March 2001 at the beginning of Bush II and December 2007 at the end of Bush II) have been especially severe.  Avoiding those high peak rates of unemployment would have brought down the average.  Specifically, the average unemployment rate (based on the monthly figures) over 1980 to 2012 would have matched the 1950 to 1979 average if one would have been able to avoid those months since 1980 when the unemployment rate reached 6.4% or more.

D.  Conclusion

There is increasing recognition that the rise in inequality in the decades since 1980, and the stagnation since then in the real incomes of those in the lower strata of the population, cannot go on.  But the solutions commonly proposed, such as better education and training, will take decades to have an impact.

The analysis in this post indicates that the more immediate action of bringing the economy back to full employment and then keeping it close to full employment, would have a major positive impact on the real incomes of those in the bottom 20% of households, and would lead to a more equitable distribution.  The analysis suggests that had the unemployment rate over 1980 to 2012 been at the level achieved over 1950 to 1979, then the rate of income growth of the bottom 20% since 1980 would have been similar to that of the top 20%.  The higher rate of unemployment since 1980, on average, may well explain why growth was broadly equal among income groups in the three decades before 1980, but not in the three decades since.

While there are many factors that underlie income growth and distributional changes, particularly for those at the very top of the income distribution (the top 1% and higher), the results suggest that getting the economy back to full employment should be seen as critically important and valuable.  And there is no mystery in how to do this:  As earlier posts on this blog have noted, the fiscal drag from government cutbacks since 2009 can fully explain why full employment has yet to be achieved in this recovery.  Had government been spending been allowed to grow simply at its historical average rate, the economy would already have returned to full employment by now.  Had government spending been allowed to grow at the higher rate it had under Reagan, the US would likely have been back at full employment in 2011 or early 2012.

Unemployment matters.  Not only is it a direct and personal tragedy for those who have lost a job because of the macro mismanagement of the economy, it is also a waste of resources for the economy.  The evidence reviewed in this post suggests further that the greater degree of slack in the US labor market since 1980 may well explain the stagnation of real incomes of the poorer strata of the population, and the widening degree of inequality of recent decades for those other than in the extreme upper strata.