Source: Maureen Minehan, Employment Alert, Volume 36, Issue 23, November 12, 2019
At Salesforce, the provider of customer relationship management solutions, volunteerism is a deeply ingrained core value. From restoring local habitats to helping children in need, Salesforce employees can participate in numerous activities on- and off-the-clock to address myriad needs in their communities. “From the beginning, giving back was the best decision we ever made—it created a culture that attracts and retains the best and the brightest, and allows our employees to be change makers in their own communities,” the company says.
Still, in keeping with the adage that no good deed goes unpunished, questions sometimes arise about the compensability of employees’ volunteer work. If a non-exempt employee volunteers during non-work hours for a company-sanctioned cause or event, are those hours compensable? Can companies offer bonuses or other inducements to encourage employees to volunteer?
Source: Lawrence Mishel and Julia Wolfe, Economic Policy Institute, August 14, 2019
From the summary:
What this report finds: The increased focus on growing inequality has led to an increased focus on CEO pay. Corporate boards running America’s largest public firms are giving top executives outsize compensation packages. Average pay of CEOs at the top 350 firms in 2018 was $17.2 million—or $14.0 million using a more conservative measure. (Stock options make up a big part of CEO pay packages, and the conservative measure values the options when granted, versus when cashed in, or “realized.”) CEO compensation is very high relative to typical worker compensation (by a ratio of 278-to-1 or 221-to-1). In contrast, the CEO-to-typical-worker compensation ratio (options realized) was 20-to-1 in 1965 and 58-to-1 in 1989. CEOs are even making a lot more—about five times as much—as other earners in the top 0.1%. From 1978 to 2018, CEO compensation grew by 1,007.5% (940.3% under the options-realized measure), far outstripping S&P stock market growth (706.7%) and the wage growth of very high earners (339.2%). In contrast, wages for the typical worker grew by just 11.9%.
Why it matters: Exorbitant CEO pay is a major contributor to rising inequality that we could safely do away with. CEOs are getting more because of their power to set pay, not because they are increasing productivity or possess specific, high-demand skills. This escalation of CEO compensation, and of executive compensation more generally, has fueled the growth of top 1.0% and top 0.1% incomes, leaving less of the fruits of economic growth for ordinary workers and widening the gap between very high earners and the bottom 90%. The economy would suffer no harm if CEOs were paid less (or taxed more).
How we can solve the problem: We need to enact policy solutions that would both reduce incentives for CEOs to extract economic concessions and limit their ability to do so. Such policies could include reinstating higher marginal income tax rates at the very top; setting corporate tax rates higher for firms that have higher ratios of CEO-to-worker compensation; establishing a luxury tax on compensation such that for every dollar in compensation over a set cap, a firm must pay a dollar in taxes; reforming corporate governance to give other stakeholders better tools to exercise countervailing power against CEOs’ pay demands; and allowing greater use of “say on pay,” which allows a firm’s shareholders to vote on top executives’ compensation.
Source: Jacob Bundrick, Weici Yuan, Economic Development Quarterly, OnlineFirst, September 20, 2019
From the abstract:
Interstate competition for economic development has led many states to adopt targeted economic development incentive programs known as deal-closing funds. Deal-closing funds allow state officials to provide discretionary cash grants to select businesses to attract and retain economic development projects. However, whether these targeted business subsidies increase prosperity in the local economy remains unclear. The authors use evidence from Arkansas’s Quick Action Closing Fund to analyze how effective deal-closing funds are at increasing incomes and decreasing poverty. Specifically, the causal effects of the Quick Action Closing Fund on Arkansas’s county-level per capita personal income and poverty rates are estimated using a synthetic control approach. The results largely suggest that the business subsidy program fails to increase incomes and lower poverty rates over the long term, at least at the county level. These findings should serve as a caution to policy makers who wish to improve incomes and poverty rates with targeted business subsidies.
Source: Cynthia Estlund, Law and Contemporary Problems, Vol. 82 no. 3, 2019
….At the same time, each of those three big ideas holds within it an essential component of a sound three dimensional response to the uncertain but real prospect of job losses. In lieu of UBI [universal basic income], we should expand universal social benefits—starting with health care and higher education—and income support for the working and non-working poor. In lieu of a federal job guarantee, we should ramp up public investments in infrastructure, social and community services, and early education, all of which would address unmet societal needs while creating decent jobs. And in lieu of (or at least before) reducing weekly hours of work across the board, we should expand access to paid leaves, holidays, and vacations, as well as voluntary part-time work and retirement security; we could thereby spread work and meet varied individual needs and preferences through days, weeks, months, and years of time off.
In combination, these three interventions—expanded universal social benefits and income support, public investments in physical and social infrastructure and the job creation those will entail, and wider access to paid leaves and respites from work—would advance core objectives of each of the three big ideas while muting their disadvantages. Together they would both cushion and offset automation-related job losses, while spreading the work that remains and maintaining or boosting incomes. This trio of policies could and should also be funded in a way that helps to redistribute income from the top to the bottom of an egregiously and increasingly lopsided income distribution.
…..In what follows, I will fill in the outlines of this argument. Part II will briefly set out some normative priors about the multiple ends we should be pursuing as we face a future of less work. A long Part III will take up each of the Three Big Ideas, briefly tracing their genealogy and identifying some strengths and weaknesses of each. Part IV will return to the core aspirations of the Three Big Ideas, and sketch a combination of the three – a three-dimensional strategy – that can preserve much of the good while avoiding much that is problematic in the more single-minded Three Big Ideas. ….
Source: PHI, September 3, 2019
From the abstract:
This research brief provides the latest annual snapshot of U.S. nursing assistants employed in nursing homes, including key demographics and a variety of wage and employment trends. This year’s research found that 581,000 nursing assistants support older people and people with disabilities in nursing homes. Nursing assistants are injured more than three times more frequently than the typical American worker, and earn a median hourly wage of $13.38 and a median annual income of $22,200.
– The number of nursing assistants employed in nursing homes in the U.S. declined from just over 599,000 in 2008 to 581,000 in 2018.
– Nursing assistants earn a median hourly wage of $13.38 and a median annual income of $22,200.
– Nursing homes will need to fill nearly 680,000 nursing assistant job openings between 2016 and 2026.
Source: PHI, September 3, 2019
From the abstract:
This research brief provides the latest annual snapshot of the U.S. home care workforce, including key demographics and a variety of wage and employment trends. This year’s research found that nearly 2.3 million home care workers earn a median hourly wage of $11.52 and about $16,200 annually. One in six home care workers lives below the federal poverty line and more than half rely on some form of public assistance.
– Nearly 2.3 million home care workers provide personal assistance and health care support to older adults and people with disabilities.
– From 2016 to 2026, the home care sector will need to fill 4.2 million home care worker job openings.
– With a median hourly wage of $11.52 and inconsistent work hours, home care workers typically earn $16,200 annually.
Source: Joseph Marchand, Jeremy G. Weber, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, Early View, August 29, 2019
From the abstract:
Whether improved local economic conditions lead to better student outcomes is theoretically ambiguous and will depend on how schools use additional revenues and how students and teachers respond to rising private sector wages. The Texas boom in shale oil and gas drilling, with its large and localized effects on wages and the tax base, provides a unique opportunity to address this question that spans the areas of education, labor markets, and public finance. An empirical approach using variation in shale geology across school districts shows that the boom reduced test scores and student attendance, despite tripling the local tax base and creating a revenue windfall. Schools spent additional revenue on capital projects and debt service, but not on teachers. As the gap between teacher wages and private sector wages grew, so did teacher turnover and the percentage of inexperienced teachers, which helps explain the decline in student achievement. Changes in student composition did not account for the achievement decline but instead helped to moderate it. The findings illustrate the potential value of using revenue growth to retain teachers in times of rising private sector wages.
Source: MIT Task Force on the Work of the Future, Fall 2019
….How can we move beyond unhelpful prognostications about the supposed end of work and toward insights that will enable policymakers, businesses, and people to better nav-igate the disruptions that are coming and underway? What lessons should we take from previous epochs of rapid technological change? How is it different this time? And how can we strengthen institutions, make investments, and forge policies to ensure that the labor market of the 21st century enables workers to contribute and succeed?
To help answer these questions, and to provide a framework for the Task Force’s efforts over the next year, this report examines several aspects of the interaction between work and technology. We begin in Section 1 by stating an underlying premise of our project: work is intrinsically valuable to individuals and to society as a whole, and we should seek to improve rather than eliminate it. The second section introduces the broader concerns that motivated the Task Force’s formation. Here we address a paradox: despite a decade of low unemployment and generally rising prosperity in the United States and industrialized countries, public discourse around the subject of technology and work is deeply pessimistic. We argue that this pessimism is neither misguided nor uninformed, but rather a reflection of a decades-long disconnect between rising productivity and stagnant incomes for the majority of workers…..
Source: Sylvia Allegretto, The Atlantic, September 6, 2019
When classroom jobs were female college graduates’ best option, U.S. schools could skimp on wages. To fill vacancies now, districts and state legislatures need to offer competitive pay.
Source: Juin-jen Chang, Hsieh-Yu Lin, Nora Traum, Shu-Chun Susan Yang, International Monetary Fund (IMF), IMF Working Paper No. 19/125, June 2019
From the abstract:
A New Keynesian model with government production, public compensation, and unemployment is fit to U.S. data to study the macroeconomic and fiscal effects of public wage reductions. We find that accounting for the type of government spending is crucial for its macroeconomic implications. Although reductions in public wages and government purchases of goods have similar effects on total output and the fiscal balance, the former can raise private output slightly, in contrast to the substantial contractionary effects of the latter.In addition, the baseline estimation finds that exogenous public wage reductions decrease private wages. Model counterfactuals show that sufficiently rigid nominal private wages can reverse the response of private wages, as the rigidity dampens the labor reallocation effect from the public to private sector that exerts downward pressure on private wages.