Second-best policies for the poor

Good piece from the editors at NR on The Fifty-Year War – which we’ve essentially lost.

The war on poverty has been conducted partly in earnest and partly self-servingly. No doubt programs such as Head Start were launched with a great deal of idealism, but as their ineffectiveness became apparent, it was not idealism that sustained them but political self-interest. Providing at best temporary relief to the poor, the permanent welfare bureaucracies benefit Democrats by creating thousands of well-paid positions for their political allies and subsequent campaign contributions for their candidates. Head Start today is a money-laundering program through which federal expenditures are transmitted to Democratic candidates through the Service Employees International Union, which represents many Head Start teachers. The National Treasury Employees Union, which represents, among others, the welfare bureaucrats at the Administration for Children and Families, is a large political donor that gives about 94 percent of its largesse to Democrats. This is not coincidental. The main beneficiaries of the war on poverty have not been and will not be the poor; the beneficiaries are the alleged poverty warriors themselves. The war on poverty is war on the Roman model in which soldiers are paid through plunder.

The result: a large and expensive welfare state that provides relatively little welfare, and a destructive and ruinous war on poverty that has not reduced poverty.

Nice companion bit from Andrew Biggs in a post at The Corner, in which he wonders, “Why do progressives put so much focus on raising the minimum wage when it’s so clearly a second-best solution to helping the working poor?”  (The EITC having proven a much more effective solution.)

From Why Do Liberals Like Second-Best Policies for the Poor?

In his most recent Sunday New York Times column, Harvard economist Greg Mankiw outlined two ways to help boost the incomes of the working poor:

PLAN A The government subsidizes the incomes of low-wage workers. These subsidies are financed by increasing taxes on middle- and upper-income Americans.

PLAN B  The government again subsidizes the incomes of low-wage workers. But under this plan, the subsidies are financed by taxing those companies that hire low-wage workers.

Plan A, Mankiw shows, is superior to Plan B across the board.

Plan A is fairer: It levies the costs of subsidies broadly rather than shifting them onto employers of low-wage workers, who are not responsible for the low skills of their employees and, indeed, offer them jobs and the opportunity to improve their skills.

2. Plan A is better for low-wage workers: It does not generate incentives for employers of low-wage workers to substitute machines for employees, and it does not increase the cost of goods produced by low-wage workers relative to other goods. Plan B does both those things, and can hurt low-wage workers as a result.

Mankiw intends his comparison to show the superiority of the Earned Income Tax Credit (which is Plan A) over raising the minimum wage (Plan B). And it does. Moreover, it’s really not a tough argument to understand, and Mankiw isn’t the first one to make it.

But that raises the question: Why do progressives put so much focus on raising the minimum wage when it’s so clearly a second-best solution to helping the working poor? It’s not as if President Obama’s economic advisers don’t understand Mankiw’s points. Yet the president’s policy focus in his recent speech on economic inequality was raising the minimum wage.

I have three answers, which are based less on what liberal policy wonks think than on the political interests and gut instincts of the progressive mass movement.

Politics: Raising the minimum wage is a nice wedge issue, in that it’s popular with the public (who haven’t been exposed to Mankiw’s arguments) but unpopular with small businesses, who are a core Republican constituency. It simply puts conservatives in a tight spot politically and allows progressives to score points.

Economics: As I recently wrote over at Real Clear Markets, many progressives believe that programs like the EITC programs allow employers like McDonalds to pay lower wages than they otherwise would. In this story, while the EITC is technically paid to low-wage workers, in effect it’s a multi-billion dollar subsidy to their employers. This isn’t implausible on its face. For instance, while half of payroll taxes and a certain share of health-insurance costs are nominally paid by employers, they result in lower wages for employees. But the research I’ve seen concludes that the EITC doesn’t work this way. The EITC draws more low-skilled individuals into the labor force, which through supply-and-demand will slightly lower wages paid to low-skilled workers. But employers aren’t targeting EITC recipients for pay cuts. And in any case, EITC payments more than make up for the fall in wages, so low-paid workers still come out ahead. So while liberal front groups like the National Employment Law Project make these kinds of arguments, you don’t see them very much from more respected liberal analysts.

Emotion: This is probably the most important point. I don’t believe I’m overstating things much in saying that when the progressive man-on-the-street sees something bad happen to one person – say, low wages – he believes it’s very likely someone else’s fault. Progressives’ job, in this mindset, is to find that person-at-fault and make him pay. In this case, progressives blame the employers of low-wage workers, who they assume could easily afford to pay more but choose not to.

Now, progressives could make their emotional impulses consistent with economic reality by placing the blame on, say, liberal social policies that encourage single-parent families, the negative effects of which – including on children’s future earnings – are almost too numerous to mention. Or progressives might think twice about the Democratic party’s excessive deference to teachers’ unions. If we did nothing other than fire the worst 5 percent of public-school teachers and re-allocate their students to other classrooms, the average lifetime earnings of their students would rise by around $250,000. Sad to say, well-intentioned but nevertheless misguided progressive social and educational policies contribute to the low skills of the working poor that, in the labor market, will result in low wages.

But if progressives did make this connection and point the finger at the true villains behind low wage, they wouldn’t be progressives anymore: They’d be neo-conservatives.

This entry was posted in Economics, Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Second-best policies for the poor

  1. Paul Marks says:

    The American “Great Society” Welfare State has indeed failed to reduce poverty (indeed poverty was declining before it and the introduction of the “Great Society” stalled the decline).

    However, the left will not accept this and we just carry on spending money, till bankruptcy (in fact if not in name).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s