Opinion Editorial |
|
| Monday, August 21, 2000 | |
Unemployment Inflation And The Minimum Wage |
One of the hottest issues in economics today is something with the odd name of NAIRU, which stands for non-accelerating
inflation rate of unemployment. The idea behind NAIRU is that there is a level of unemployment that is consistent with stable inflation.
Any fall in unemployment below that level runs the risk of causing inflation to rise. The reason NAIRU is important is because the
Federal Reserve lives by it. If it believes that the current rate of unemployment is below NAIRU, then it will keep monetary policy tight
and interest rates high in order to forestall inflation.
There are many problems with the NAIRU concept. But one of the most important is that no one really knows what it is.
It is not calculated on a monthly basis, like the official unemployment rate, and can only be estimated after the fact. Yet the Federal
Reserve takes policy actions based on NAIRU that affect the economy today. Press reports indicate that the Fed puts NAIRU at between 5
percent and 5.25 percent presently. With unemployment at 4 percent, this suggests that current unemployment is in the inflationary range.
That explains why the Fed has been raising interest rates despite the lack of inflation in the Consumer Price Index.
The idea behind NAIRU is that there are structural factors in the economy that prevent unemployment from ever falling to
zero or even close to it. Even in a full-employment economy there will always be frictional unemployment resulting from people quitting
jobs or natural restructuring of the economy, as jobs shift from slow growing sectors to fast growing sectors. In the 19th century, for
example, vast numbers of workers shifted from agriculture to manufacturing, causing temporary unemployment as the shift occurred.
The great economist Irving Fisher was the first to suggest NAIRU. In a 1926 article in the International Labor Review,
he noticed that changes in prices tended to forecast changes in employment. Thirty-two years later, British economist A.W. Phillips
reversed the relationship, indicating that changes in unemployment forecast changes in inflation. Henceforth, this relationship became
codified as the Phillips Curve, which shows that low unemployment causes inflation.
This would be a matter of purely academic interest except that the Federal Reserve treats NAIRU as gospel truth,
tightening monetary policy whenever the unemployment rate falls. Chief among the Fed's inflation hawks is Governor Lawrence H. Meyer, who
obsesses about the low unemployment rate and its inflationary potential. Apparently, he has many allies on the Federal Reserve's Open
Market Committee, which meets tomorrow and may once again raise interest rates in response to low unemployment.
Leaving aside theoretical objections to the NAIRU concept that have been leveled by economists such as Milton Friedman,
it is worth looking at the factors that constitute NAIRU. A new study by Federal Reserve economist Peter Tulip is instructive. His
research shows that for quite some time the largest single component of the NAIRU has been the minimum wage.
The minimum wage raises the NAIRU because it puts a floor under wages, preventing them from falling regardless of
economic conditions. No matter how high the unemployment rate is or how low market wage rates may fall, the minimum wage mandates that
workers must be paid a minimum of $5.15 per hour. And this rate applies only to cash wages, regardless of how large a worker's benefits
might be. Increases in the minimum wage also tend to push up the wages of workers whose wages are just above the new minimum. Higher
wage costs force employers to raise prices, thereby contributing to inflation.
Tulip concludes that a 10 percent rise in the minimum wage raises the NAIRU by about half a percentage point.
Legislated increases in the minimum wage in the 1960s and 1970s were the largest factors in the rise of NAIRU, causing it to almost
double. By the late 1960s, the minimum wage was responsible for more than half of the NAIRU.
When Ronald Reagan became president in 1981, he put a stop to rises in the minimum wage. He understood that a higher
minimum wage made the job of reducing inflation more difficult and also raised unemployment. Thus, although a small number of workers
might be helped by a higher minimum wage, many, many more were hurt. Freezing the nominal (money) value of the minimum wage during the
1980s caused its real value to steadily decline. The result was a concomitant fall in the NAIRU from more than 7 percent in 1980 to less
than 5 percent by the end of the decade, according to Tulip.
The decline in the NAIRU allowed the Fed to ease monetary policy without fear of re-igniting inflation, contributing to
strong growth in the 1980s. Unfortunately, George Bush caved-in to congressional demands to raise the minimum wage, contributed to the
Fed's tight money policy in the early 1990s. Increases in the minimum wage imposed by Bill Clinton are also causing the NAIRU to rise and
forcing the Fed to tighten monetary policy. Since monetary policy has a far greater impact on economic growth and unemployment -- and
hence the well-being of workers -- than does the minimum wage, this suggests that raising the minimum wage is at best a Pyrrhic victory
for them.
Source: Bruce Bartlett, senior fellow, National Center for Policy Analysis, August 21, 2000.
For more on the Minimum Wage
The NCPA is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit public policy organization. We depend entirely on the financial support of individuals, corporations and foundations that believe in private sector solutions to public policy problems.
The NCPA is headquartered in Dallas, Texas, with an office in Washington, D.C.
Richard Walker, Dallas, TX 972-386-6272 Sean Tuffnell, Dallas, TX 972-386-6272 Joan Kirby, Washington, DC 202-220-3082 Internet: http://www.ncpa.org Home | Support Us | All Issues | Social Security Debate Central | Contact Us |