Equitable Growth comments to the Federal Trade Commission on the agency’s proposed competition hearings

This summer, the Federal Trade Commission announced it would hold a series of hearings throughout the fall and winter on “whether broad-based changes in the economy, evolving business practices, new technologies, or international developments might require adjustments to competition and consumer protection enforcement law, enforcement priorities, and policy.” The hearings will cover 11 broad topics and asked for comments on those topics and the hearings in general.

The Washington Center for Equitable Growth submitted comments identifying three overarching questions the hearings should address related to competition policy:

  • Is monopoly power prevalent in the U.S. economy?
  • Do the antitrust laws as applied by the courts correctly balance the benefits and costs of deterring anticompetitive conduct and permitting procompetitive conduct?
  • Does the Federal Trade Commission have the resources it needs to fulfill its competition mission?

The complete comment submitted to the Federal Trade Commission can be downloaded below.

Download File
Comments for FTC Hearings from Equitable Growth

Read the full PDF in your browser

Weekend reading: “Labor market inequalities” edition

This is a weekly post we publish on Fridays with links to articles that touch on economic inequality and growth. The first section is a round-up of what Equitable Growth published this week and the second is the work we’re highlighting from elsewhere. We won’t be the first to share these articles, but we hope by taking a look back at the whole week, we can put them in context.

Equitable Growth round-up

In keeping with the quiet mood around Washington, DC during the congressional recess, Equitable Growth had a relatively light load of publications released this week. On Monday, I summarized the econometric analysis in a recent paper studying the impact of Norway’s universal childcare program on parents’ participation in the labor market. Their findings buttress the detailed analysis Equitable Growth conducted in 2015 on the benefits of early childhood education. Our Friday feature graphic below is drawn from this report.

Yesterday, Brad Delong released his worthy reads for the week, covering recent writing and research on inequality and equitable growth. In addition to elevating some of the recent work of our policy stream leads in family economic security, competition, and wages, he highlights a recent addition to Equitable Growth’s working paper series by Ioana Marinescu and Herbert Hovenkamp on the negative output and wage effects of anticompetitive mergers in labor markets as well as Paul Krugman’s column for The New York Times on supply chains and trade wars.

Links from around the web

Equitable Growth received a shout-out this week from Jeff Miller in his weekly analysis of the week ahead in equities markets. Positing that we have the “best chart pack on JOLTs,” Miller points to our analysis demonstrating that the quit rate in the United States is at a historic high and that tightening labor markets have resulted in fewer hires for each opening. [seeking alpha]

Despite this general strength in the labor market, there remain significant pockets of weakness, particularly affecting minority groups. Stephen Gandel emphasizes continuing racial inequities limiting work opportunities for blacks despite the millions of jobs that have been created over the past decade. In particular, Gandel illustrates a disturbing recent trend in which minority groups (including African Americans) are receiving a much smaller portion of the job gains generated over the past few years. [bloomberg]

Claire Cain Miller discusses the rising costs of parenthood across the U.S. income distribution. In addition to citing other recent studies on the topic, Cain Miller summarizes the findings of a recent working paper by economists Ilyana Kuziemko and Jenny Shen of Princeton University, Jessica Pan of the National University of Singapore, and Ebonya Washington of Yale University. Finding significant negative effects on employment of childbirth, the co-authors argue that women, especially with those with a college education, currently underestimate the employment costs of motherhood. In particular, the authors emphasize the rising pressures to balance working long, inflexible hours with providing extensive enrichment experiences for their children. [nyt]

Matthew Yglesias writes about one way to deal with these and other contemporary concerns of American workers: changing corporate governance to increase worker power. In addition to detailing elements of Senator Elizabeth Warren’s plan to impose the moral obligations of personhood on corporations that claim the legal status of personhood, Yglesias cites evidence showing the negative effects on growth, productivity, and wages due to the exclusive focus on shareholder profits characterizing corporate governance in recent decades. Citing evidence from Germany, Yglesias argues that a renewed form of “stakeholder capitalism” in which workers gaining seats on corporate boards would increase pay equality, innovation, productivity, and sustainability in corporate decision-making. [vox]

Melody Hahm points out that the average annual salary for U.S. nurses of $63,000 is more than double the global salary of $26,698. Hahm also cites a 2017 Equitable Growth working paper on men’s increasing participation in the nursing profession authored by economists Elizabeth Munnich of the University of Louisville and Equitable Growth grantee Abigail Wozniak of the University of Notre Dame. Munnich and Wozniak point to rising educational attainment, liberalizing gender role norms, increasing demand for health care workers, and the effects of automation on male-dominated occupations as central causes for this changing gender composition in nursing. [yahoo finance]

Noah Smith argues that the implications of artificial intelligence for labor markets have been arguably exaggerated in recent policy debates. Despite substantial investments in AI technology by large tech companies, Smith points to data proving that artificial intelligence has neither produced boosts to productivity and private investment nor slowed the gradual, ongoing recovery of labor force participation to pre-recession levels. Smith argues that the applicability of AI to only certain cognitive tasks may limit its impacts on labor markets, but cautions that worker displacement could be substantial if the number of AI-compatible tasks grows in the future. [bloomberg]

Friday figure

Figure is from Equitable Growth’s, “The benefits and costs of investing in early childhood education.”

Posted in Uncategorized

Brad DeLong: Worthy reads on equitable growth, August 10–16, 2018

Worthy reads from Equitable Growth:

  1. An excellent contribution to Equitable Growth’s working paper series from Ioana Marinescu and Herbert Hovenkamp, who lay out the analysis of how antitrust policy should be done, given that compensated firms face their counterparties not just in the product markets but in labor markets, too. They write in “Anticompetitive mergers in labor markets” that “increased market concentration in labor markets threatens to facilitate coordinated interaction among employers that could lead to lower output and wage suppression in employment markets.” I think this is the most important thing I have seen out of our shop here at Equitable Growth this summer.
  2. Michael Kades writes in “Why market competition matters to equitable growth” that “the stakes are much higher than an ideological battle or technical adjustments to a legal regime.” He’s right. We need to understand how antitrust practice affects the degree of monopoly in the United States and how monopoly affects equitable growth and societal well-being. Today, we do not. I think that attempting to understand these two issues is the most important analytic issue for policy-relevant economic research in the United States today.
  3. The analysis of rising inequality and its effects in the United States and elsewhere over the past generation has suffered from a relative downplaying of the role of the family and how income gets earned and then transformed into well-being. Central to this is the rapidly changing economic role of women in the workforce, but that is not all of it. We need more and better analyses of how public policy needs to shift in the context of changing family structure and rising inequality. Elisabeth Jacobs presents some of our thinking about how Equitable Growth is and will be trying to support this effort in her column “Rethinking 20th century policies to support 21st century families.”
  4. Kate Bahn reminds us in her tweet: “This needs to be screamed from the rooftops every Jobs Day. We cannot have a substantive conversation about how tight the labor market is without examining demographic disparities.” She then sends us to Equitable Growth alumnus John Schmitt quoting Janelle Jones, who writes: “Despite Drop in Black Unemployment, Significant Disparities Remain.”
  5. Not to put the pressure on or anything, but I expect very good things from our Equitable Growth grant to Matthew Staiger to research “Parental Resources And The Career Choices of Young Workers,” which will have “a specific focus on the impact of parental resources on entrepreneurship and job mobility.”

Worthy reads not from Equitable Growth:

  1. Questioning the utility of history for rational self-government, David Walsh tweets: “That Twitter is the major forum for this says a lot about the pitiful state of our institutional capacity.”
  2. Erica Groshen and Robert Groves argue in “Better Data for a Better Economy” that “mov[ing] the Bureau of Labor Statistics—the source of statistics on jobs, wages, working conditions, productivity and prices—from the Labor Department to the Commerce Department is worth consideration.”
  3. Nancy L. Yu, Preston Atteberry, and Peter B. Bach note in “Spending On Prescription Drugs In The US: Where Does All The Money Go?” that “the U.S. pharmaceutical industry is characterized by a complex and often opaque system of distribution and reimbursement.”
  4. No surprise—throwing people off Medicaid has substantial costs and no benefits at all, observes Thomas DeLeire in “The Effect of Disenrollment from Medicaid on Employment, Insurance Coverage, Health and Health Care Utilization.” He writes this after examining the consequences of this action: “From July through September 2005, TennCare, the Tennessee Medicaid program, disenrolled approximately 170,000 adults following a change in eligibility rules.”
  5. A very good point is made by Ben Golub in his tweet that there is good reason not to take a markup-free model as our benchmark from which we begin our analysis of President Trump. He writes: “Krugman thinks efficiency loss of a trade war is small (Harberger triangle size) even though trade is now in intermediates along supply chains. This view is, I think, wrong because it ignores the most important thing about supply chains: complexity.”
  6. Read Cathy O’Neil’s “Mark Zuckerberg Is Totally Out of His Depth,” in which she writes: “I might be the only person on Earth feeling sorry for the big boys of technology. Jack Dorsey from Twitter, Mark Zuckerberg from Facebook, all those Google nerds: They’re monumentally screwed, because they have no idea how to tame the monsters they have created.”
  7. “There are three possible stories about how supply chains might increase the costs of trade war, and while two of them are right, I suspect that many economists are buying into the third, which isn’t,” writes Paul Krugman in “Supply Chains and Trade War (Very Wonkish).”
  8. “Every once in a while in history, cause and effect smack us in the face,” observes Michael Tomasky in “What Are Capitalists Thinking?” He writes that “the kind of capitalism that has been practiced in this country over the last few decades has made socialism look far more appealing. … If you’re 28 like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez … what have you seen during your sentient life?”
  9. In “Trump’s trade policy is an exercise in futility,” Douglas Irwin notes: “Yet for all the Sturm und Drang … of his trade policy, the president is likely to end up being terribly disappointed by the results of his efforts.”
Posted in Uncategorized

Universal childcare’s benefits might cover much of its costs

New research on the universal childcare program in Norway shows that the benefits of universal childcare can cover much of the associated costs.

Several decades of research in economics and psychology show that childcare boasts substantial positive effects on human capital development and labor market outcomes—for both parents and kids. A critical question for policymakers, then, is how these benefits affect the net fiscal impact of a publicly financed, comprehensive childcare system that ensures access for all families in the United States.

A new study on Norway’s universal childcare program sheds light on at least one way in which such a program’s benefits might cover part of its costs. With the goal of making quality, affordable childcare available to all children, a bipartisan reform enacted by the Norwegian Parliament in 2002 dramatically increased state subsidies for childcare enrollment, lowered parental fees, and upped public investment in the construction of new childcare facilities. Exploiting differences between municipalities in the rate of childcare expansion in the aftermath of this reform, authors Martin Eckhoff Andresen, research economist at Statistics Norway, and Tarjei Havnes, associate professor of economics at the University of Oslo, estimate the effects of childcare use on labor supply, earnings, and tax payments for parents of 2-year-old children.

Disaggregating the effects of the expansion in childcare availability on mothers by relationship status, Andresen and Havnes find large and statistically significant labor-supply responses for all mothers. Specifically, three co-habiting or married mothers entered the labor force—largely into full-time employment—for every 10 2-year-old kids enrolled in childcare. The results for single mothers were somewhat weaker: One single mother entered part-time employment for every five toddlers enrolled in childcare.

These effects translated into higher annual earnings for mothers. On average, co-habiting and married mothers saw their wages increase by $6,000, and single mothers saw their wages increase by $2,400. In contrast to the strong impact on maternal labor supply and earnings, the expansion of childcare had little empirical effect on fathers. This nonresult probably reflects persistent social norms that assign mothers a disproportionate responsibility for child rearing, particularly when children are toddlers.

Andresen and Havnes use their labor supply and earnings estimates to calculate the fiscal impact of Norway’s universal childcare program. Specifically, the authors find that at least 13 percent of the cost of expanding childcare for co-habiting mothers is offset by increased tax revenue generated through the additional employment of mothers in the 2 years following the program’s expansion. Additionally, the authors argue that the actual responses and budgetary savings may in fact be larger than their estimates, as initial take-up of public formal childcare may be incomplete.

In conjunction with other recent empirical studies, Andresen and Havnes’s findings provide suggestive evidence that the fiscal impact of universal childcare may grow stronger over time. Their data show that the increase in mothers’ attachment to the labor market persists and remains significant for at least 4 years following the parliamentary expansion. According to contemporary research into the gender wage gap, this increase in long-run labor force participation should allow mothers’ wages to avoid the wage penalties associated with prolonged absences from the labor force and instead increase gradually over time. The authors argue that as a result of these labor market changes, expanding access to childcare in Norway produced an enduring increase in the nation’s tax base.

While the social welfare system, childcare infrastructure, and tax system in Norway are different than those in the United States, there is nevertheless strong reason to believe that childcare expansion might have similar (if not larger) impacts in the U.S. context. First, the results of this study are consistent with others conducted in Quebec, Spain, Belgium, and elsewhere, which also found boosts in mother’s labor supply and government tax revenue from universal childcare. Additionally, Andresen and Havnes’s findings are similar to those in several other studies conducted in the United States, which verify positive effects on mothers’ employment from public childcare subsidies. Finally, in the context of the United States, where both childcare access and women’s labor force participation levels are significantly lower than those in Norway, there may even be more room to increase women’s labor force participation and wages, thereby driving up tax revenues over the long-term despite potentially larger short-term costs due to more robust uptake.

In the United States today, the underprovision of childcare services has substantial negative effects, depressing earnings and labor force participation for parents and driving suboptimal social and economic outcomes for children. Andresen and Havnes’s new paper illustrates that expanded childcare may come with substantial positive effects both for parents’ employment and aggregate tax revenues. Beyond these effects on parents, research documents that childcare expansion can also produce dramatic improvements in children’s health, cognitive and social skills, educational outcomes, and labor market opportunities. In light of Andresen and Havnes’s findings, the implications of these improved outcomes for aggregate economic growth and additional tax revenues in the United States could be an exciting topic for future empirical research.

Posted in Uncategorized

Weekend reading: “Home is where the wealth is” edition

This is a weekly post we publish on Fridays with links to articles that touch on economic inequality and growth. The first section is a round-up of what Equitable Growth published this week and the second is the work we’re highlighting from elsewhere. We won’t be the first to share these articles, but we hope by taking a look back at the whole week, we can put them in context.

Equitable Growth round-up

The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics earlier this week released the newest data from the Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey covering the month of June. Kate Bahn and Austin Clemens put together four graphs utilizing JOLTS data.

In a new working paper by Mark Paul, Darrick Hamilton, William Darity, Jr., and Khaing Zaw, the authors find that wage gaps vary across different races and genders, with white men earning the highest average wage while black women earn the lowest. The gender wage gap is heightened when comparing hourly wages to salaried wages. Here is a summary of this working paper.

In a slide presentation at the Office of Management and Budget’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Greg Leiserson discusses a cost benefit analysis of tax regulations. He argues that current frameworks for creating cost benefit analyses fails to provide beneficial guidelines to assess tax regulations, yet altering the framework risks bringing up political questions. He believes that such analyses should emphasize transparency over formulating absolute conclusions, and that the priority of these analyses should be on revenues, avoidance and evasion behavior, compliance costs, and distributive impacts.

Brad DeLong compiles his most recent worthy reads on equitable growth both from Equitable Growth and outside press and academics.

Links from around the web

In a series of charts and infographics, The Wall Street Journal indicates that healthcare costs in the United States are relatively high not because Americans buy more health care but rather due to healthcare growing more expensive annually. Merger and acquisitions among healthcare companies and increasing costs of middlemen contribute to rising healthcare costs, which have no impact on the quality of care, as the United States ranks lower among other member nations of the OECD on most indicators of health quality. [wsj]

Today’s top 10 percent of wealthholders in the United States hold three times the amount of wealth compared to the bottom 50 percent of U.S. households. Noah Smith claims that this divergence in the distribution of wealth is because the bottom 90 percent hold most of their wealth in houses, whereas the top 10 percent hold wealth in stocks. After the Great Recession of 2007-2009, stock prices recovered quickly and are now 50 percent higher than pre-crisis levels, while the housing market has yet to return to pre-crisis prices. [bloomberg]

Citing Raj Chetty’s work, Robert Samuelson argues that growing downward mobility in the United States is inevitable because children born into the upper middle class in recent decades are struggling to make more than their parents. He credits income inequality that constrains spending, lack of housing construction, and low-quality schools for declining mobility. [wapo]

Women may have experienced the gender wage gap as early as their teenage years, with one University of Maryland study finding that girls spend more time doing household chores yet receive smaller allowances compared to boys. In addition, boys’ chores tend to include personal hygiene, such a brushing their teeth, whereas girls’ chores are predominantly related to household cleaning. This parallels U.S. households today, as married men spend half the time women spend on housework. [nyt]

Friday figure

Figure is from Equitable Growth’s JOLTS Day Graphs: June 2018 Report Edition

Posted in Uncategorized

Brad DeLong: Worthy reads on equitable growth, August 3–9, 2018

Worthy reads from Equitable Growth:

  1. “Economic developments over the past 20 years have taught—or ought to have taught—the U.S. Federal Reserve four lessons,” I write in “The Ahistorical Federal Reserve.” But as I note, “the Fed’s current policy posture raises the question of whether it has internalized any of them. … The proper inflation target … should be 4 percent per year. … The two slope[s of] the Phillips Curve … are smaller. … Yield-curve inversion … monetary policy is too tight. … Principal shocks have not been inflationary.”
  2. “Multiple identities cannot readily be disaggregated in an additive fashion,” write Mark Paul, Khaing Zaw, Darrick Hamilton, and William Darity Jr. in their working paper, “Returns in the labor market: A nuanced view of penalties at the intersection of race and gender.” Instead, the four co-authors note that “the penalties associated with the combination of two or more socially marginalized identities interact in multiplicative or quantitatively nuanced ways.”
  3. Raymond Fisman, Keith Gladstone, Ilyana Kuziemko, and Suresh Naidu write in their 2017 working paper, “Do Americans want to tax capital? Evidence from online surveys,” that “our regression results yield roughly linear desired tax rates on income of about 14 percent … positive desired wealth taxation … 3 percent when the source of wealth is inheritance, far higher than the 0.8 percent rate when wealth is from savings. … These tax rates are consistent with reasonable parameterizations of recent theoretical optimal wealth tax formulae.”
  4. Read Equitable Growth’s latest JOLTS charticle: “The quit rate … historically high level. … The ratio of unemployment-to-job openings trended upward slightly in June to just under 1.0. … The Beveridge Curve continues to be at levels similar to those in the expansion of the early 2000s.”

Worthy reads not from Equitable Growth:

  1. I am confident that there will be jobs. I am much less confident that there will be enough middle-class jobs after reading Adam Ozimek’s “Robots and Jobs: A Check on Fear,” in which he writes: “When it comes to discussing the effects of automation on labor markets, I see far too much partial equilibrium thinking.”
  2. If you take the appropriate measure of labor market tightness to be the prime-age employment rate, there is no wage growth puzzle. So, why does the Federal Reserve take the unemployment rate as the relevant labor market tightness variable and wring its hands about the wage-growth puzzle, rather than taking the prime-age employment rate as its relevant labor market tightness variable? It is a mystery, says Adam Ozimek in his tweet “Wage growth is right on target folks!
  3. The rise of the factory—the shift from home production to production under the eye of a boss, at a workplace—was underway long before mechanization in numeric calculation, as well as in craft piecework, writes Lorraine Daston in his 2017 paper, “Calculation and the Division Of Labor, 1750-1950.”
  4. Successful place-based policies require what we used to call “local boosters.” One problem with so much of the so-called red states is that the local rich are no longer boosters for their communities—indeed, no longer feel a part of the community in any meaningful way, writes Noah Smith in “How to Save the Troubled American Heartland” after reading the new book by James Fallows and Deborah Fallows, who he says “notice a number of common approaches among towns that are on the mend. Two of these … universities and immigration.”
  5. I find myself wishing that Ricardo Hausmann had given us some numbers here: How much in the way of resources has the government raised from society via its inflation? And how have those resource flows declined since the 2015 decision to monetize the fiscal deficit? Read his “The Venality of Evil,” in which he writes that “inflation in Venezuela … [at] 1,000,000 percent by year’s end … GDP … 45 percent below its 2013 level by the same time.”
  6. Noah Smith wonders if he can make a supply-and-demand argument to people who are allergic to “supply and demand” with a spoonful of sugar. He has three types of housing: newly built yuppie fish tanks, old housing that can switch between working class and yuppie, and newly built “affordable housing,” unattractive to yuppies. Read his “YIMBYism explained without ‘supply and demand’,” in which he writes: “YIMBYism is the idea that cities need to build more housing in order to relieve upward pressure on rents.”
Posted in Uncategorized

Slide presentation: Cost benefit analysis of tax regulations

Equitable Growth’s Director of Tax Policy and Senior Economist Greg Leiserson on August 6 gave a presentation to the Office of Management and Budget’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs on the cost benefit analysis of tax regulations. In the presentation, Leiserson argues that the traditional “A-4 framework” for conducting cost benefit analyses does not provide useful guidance in the evaluation of tax regulations, yet a new framework for tax regulations would unavoidably implicate deeply political questions. As a result, Leiserson proposes that the analysis should emphasize transparency rather than a definitive conclusion. The focus of the quantitative analysis should be revenues, avoidance and evasion behavior, compliance costs, and distributive impacts.

Download the presentation as a pdf.

Posted in Uncategorized

JOLTS Day Graphs: June 2018 Report Edition

Every month the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics releases data on hiring, firing, and other labor market flows from the Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey, better known as JOLTS. Today, the BLS released the latest data for June 2018. This report doesn’t get as much attention as the monthly Employment Situation Report, but it contains useful information about the state of the U.S. labor market. Below are a few key graphs using data from the report.

1.

The quit rate held steady for June, maintaining it’s historically high level.

2.

The vacancy yield continued it’s longterm downward trend, declining slightly further from May to June.

3.

The ratio of unemployment-to-job openings trended upward slightly in June to just under 1.0, indicating that the number of open jobs is about equal to the number of unemployed workers actively looking for work.

4.

The Beveridge Curve continues to be at levels similar to those in the expansion of the early 2000s.

Posted in Uncategorized

Discriminatory penalties at the intersection of race and gender in the United States

New research finds that wage gaps differ significantly across genders and races, and that there is no single gender or race penalty.

Race and gender disparities in wages are a relentless and troubling feature of U.S. labor markets. Economists have investigated the gender wage gap and racial wage gap for more than half a century, yet most empirical research still considers these two types of wage gaps in relative isolation, treating race and gender wage gaps separately. Examining these two wage gaps through the lens of intersectional theory, however, enables researchers to understand how workers with multiple socially salient identities such as race and gender are affected in ways that are qualitatively different from the mere sum of the effects of each identity taken separately on outcomes in U.S. labor markets.1

Intriguingly, the intersectionality of race and gender and the comparative advantage or disadvantage for individuals holding multiple identities are topics that are increasingly more common in the press.2 A recent article in the Washington Post on the gender pay gap observed that “women of color get hit twice: they suffer the effects of the gender wage gap plus those of the racial wage gap.” Others emphasize how focusing on one socially salient identity such as gender alone overlooks the importance of holding multiple identities. In The Atlantic, for example, Adia Harvey Wingfield challenges the “now famous” statistic that women make 79 cents on the dollar vis-á-vis men, arguing that “it obscures even wider gaps faced by women of color.” And a recent op-ed in the New York Times acknowledges that penalties or privileges associated with certain identities depend on the bundle of identities that the individual holds, noting that “the racial pay gap is narrower among women” in comparison to men.

A new working paper made possible with the generous support of the Nathan Cummings Foundation, “Returns in the Labor Market: A Nuanced View of Penalties at the Intersection of Race and Gender,” seeks to quantify some of the insights from intersectional theory and critical race theory in order to more thoroughly examine what many in the press already understand intuitively. Specifically, we investigate whether the magnitude of the gender and racial wage gaps varies across group identity. Do blacks and whites face different gender wage gaps? Do men and women face different racial wage gaps? We then present evidence that holding multiple identities cannot readily be disaggregated in an additive fashion, but rather the penalties associated with holding a combination of two or more socially marginalized identities interact in more quantitatively nuanced ways.

Our work provides a robust illustration of why economists should take intersectionality theory seriously in their analyses of labor market discrimination moving forward. We seek to deepen the understanding of how the possession of one socially salient identity such as being a woman or being black may oversimplify the effects of the complex of social identities that interact in ways which researchers still need to identify.

Our first finding: Wage gaps vary significantly across groups

There are substantial hourly wages and annual salary gaps (henceforth wages) across race and gender.3 As expected, our research finds that white men attain the highest average wages. We then observe that white women receive the highest wages after white men, with hourly wages that are 78 percent of those received by white men. This gender wage gap is exacerbated when we analyze annual wages as opposed to hourly wages, with white women receiving only 69 percent of the annual wages received by white men. Our results are confined to workers that are employed for pay, and thus the more pronounced differences in annual wages may reflect greater hours worked and fewer bouts of unemployment for white men.

The wage gap between black and white men is similar in magnitude to the gap between white women and white men. Black men receive just 76 cents on the dollar in hourly wages compared to white men. Annual wage gaps are even larger. This may be due to a number of factors, including the fact that black men are more likely to experience incarceration and unemployment and are more likely to be working part-time during a given year.

Black women endure the largest wage gap observed, as they receive wages that are just 61 percent, on average, of those received by white men. In terms of the mean annual wage gap, black women receive just 56 percent of what white men receive. (See Table 1 for the summary statistics for mean wages in 2016 for our sample, which consists of black and white workers.4)

Table 1

Our second finding: There is no single “gender” or “race” penalty

Individuals who hold multiple socially salient identities face different race or gender penalties once we control for productivity-linked traits, as well as other variables that may contribute to differences in wages.5 By analyzing how gender or race relate to wages across different groups, we are able to identify, for instance, that black women relative to black men and white women relative to white men face substantially different wage disparities associated with their gender.

Our findings show that black men earn 26.9 percent lower wages than comparable white men. The use of controls in our model provides us with the statistical basis for estimating the adjusted wage gap that isolates differences in wages due to labor market characteristics from differences in which labor market characteristics translate into wages due to an individual’s race. The controls (labor market characteristics) reduce this pay gap, explaining 15.6 percent—more than half of the gap—yet 11.3 percent of the gap remains unexplained. This unexplained portion is typically interpreted as statistical evidence for race (or gender) discrimination. As we can see, black men face a larger race pay gap than black women, largely because the results compare black women to white women, whose wages are at least somewhat suppressed, vis-à-vis white men, as a result of their gender.

Second, we see that gender pay differences also differ by race, with white women facing a larger gender pay gap than black women, in this case, because black women are compared to black men, whose wages are suppressed, vis-à-vis white men. In sum, particularly for black women, the magnitude of the penalty for any particular identity is conditional on the combination of other identities the individual possesses—there is no single “gender” or “race” penalty. (Our findings are highlighted in Table 2, where we display differences associated with the race penalty for men and women.)

Table 2

Finally, we quantify and frame some aspects of intersectionality. While critical race theory and the national media often have discussed a presumed “double burden” faced by individuals holding two socially salient disadvantaged identities, this study provides important analytical and empirical insight about the actual magnitude of the burden economywide for black women.

Using white men as the reference group, we examine the wage penalties of black women, a group that holds two socially marginalized identities, to determine if this disadvantage is above and beyond the penalties associated with simply adding isolated penalties ascribed to black women due to their gender relative to black men and their race relative to white women. The wage gap between these two groups amounts to black women receiving 64 cents on the dollar compared to white men. Further, black women are penalized approximately 20 cents on the dollar due to discrimination in this comparison. We find that the wage gap between black women and white men is larger than the sum of the two individual penalties. This confirms that to truly understand the labor market experience for black women, one cannot simply examine racial and gender discrimination in isolation.

Economists typically fail to fully explore or explain the persistence of discrimination in U.S. labor markets. While standard economic models assume the competition will eliminate discrimination, making it merely a temporary phenomenon, the real world has proven that discrimination is resilient and omnipresent.6 Our paper demonstrates that in addition to discrimination based solely on a singular identity such as race or gender, some groups face compounded discriminatory penalties based on the intersection of their identities. The finding highlights the critical role intersectionality should play in the economic analysis of discrimination.

—Mark Paul is an assistant professor of economics at New College of Florida and a fellow at the Roosevelt Institute. Darrick Hamilton is a professor of economics and urban policy at the Milano School of International Affairs, Management and Urban Policy and Department of Economics at the New School for Social Research, is director of the Doctoral Program in Public and Urban Policy at The New School, and is co-associate director of the Samuel DuBois Cook Center on Social Equity at Duke University. William Darity Jr. is the Samuel DuBois Cook Professor of Public Policy, African and African-American Studies and Economics and the director of the Samuel DuBois Cook Center on Social Equity at Duke University.

Posted in Uncategorized

Weekend reading: “all wages all the time” edition

This is a weekly post we publish on Fridays with links to articles that touch on economic inequality and growth. The first section is a round-up of what Equitable Growth published this week and the second is the work we’re highlighting from elsewhere. We won’t be the first to share these articles, but we hope by taking a look back at the whole week, we can put them in context.

Equitable Growth round-up

As part of the recent launch of our new website, Michael Kades authored a reintroduction of our work on antitrust. Kades gives an overview of the history of competition policy in the United States and highlights recent research into increasing market concentration and monopsony power.

Women’s ability to access reproductive rights has implications for their ability to engage with the labor market. Kate Bahn previews her forthcoming research with co-authors Adriana Kugler at Georgetown University, Melissa Mahoney at the University of North Caroline, Asheville, and Annie McGrew at the University of Massachusetts Amherst into how differing access to contraception and abortion affects women’s moves from one job to another. The authors find that women’s likelihood of moving from one occupation to another is reduced by 5.8 percent in states with Targeted Restrictions of Abortion Providers laws, while men’s chances are unaffected.  Furthermore, these laws reduce transitions into higher paid occupations by 7.6 percent, with no effect on men.

Brad DeLong rounds up his latest worthy reads on equitable growth from both inside and outside Equitable Growth.

Equitable Growth released its monthly Jobs Day Graphs with data from July. The graphs show that wage growth and the prime-age employment rate continue to grow yet neither of these job indicators have recovered fully from the Great Recession.

Links from around the web

Harvard Kennedy School professor and Equitable Growth Steering Committee member Jason Furman offers an explanation for the “wage puzzle” of low wage growth relative to the last time the United States had sustained low unemployment rates in the late 1990s: “this is simply what a high-pressure economy looks like when productivity growth rates and inflation are both relatively low.” [vox]

In response to Furman’s piece, Josh Bivens of the Economic Policy Institute argues that instead of adjusting our expectations downwards for what wage growth “should” look like in the face of simultaneously low inflation and low productivity, their simultaneity should be taken as evidence of just how slack the labor market remains. [epi]

Jeff Bezos’ $150 billion fortune isn’t just a testament to his business skills, argues Annie Lowrey—it’s also a result of deliberate policy choices that have favored capital and corporations over workers. [the atlantic]

Debate about whether high wages led to people finding ways to automate production—kicking off the Industrial Revolution—isn’t just for economic historians: it also has implications for policymakers trying to understand the recent productivity slowdown. [economist]

In an interview with Henry Farrell in The Washington Post, Columbia University economist and Equitable Growth grantee Suresh Naidu explains how Amazon.com Inc.’s Mechanical Turk platform is an example of monopsony power in action. [wapo]

Friday figure

Figure is from “Equitable Growth’s Jobs Day Graphs: July 2018 Report Edition

 

Posted in Uncategorized