“How to fix capitalism: eight solutions for America’s broken system,” at The Guardian.
Since the 1970s, a variety of developments — technological advance, globalization, heightened product market competition, the shareholder value revolution in corporate governance, and looser labor markets — have increased firms’ incentive to resist wage increases and enhanced their leverage vis-à-vis workers. Things have been particularly bad in the United States, where labor unions are weak and have been getting weaker. Here’s how Elizabeth Warren put it in a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed:
“Corporate profits are booming, but average wages haven’t budged over the past year. The U.S. economy has run this way for decades, partly because of a fundamental change in business practices dating back to the 1980s…. Building on work by conservative economist Milton Friedman, a new theory emerged that corporate directors had only one obligation: to maximize shareholder returns…. Before ‘shareholder value maximization’ ideology took hold, wages and productivity grew at roughly the same rate. But since the early 1980s, real wages have stagnated even as productivity has continued to rise.”
Figure 1 is helpful for assessing wage trends. The data only go back to 1995, but they give us information on wages that includes employer-provided benefits and payroll taxes and they allow us to compare across countries. What we see is that the median American’s compensation has grown much more slowly than the US economy and that compensation growth in the United States has lagged behind that of most other rich democratic nations.
Strengthening unions probably would be the most effective way to ensure regular wage increases for middle- and low-paid workers. But accomplishing that is a very tall order. As figure 2 makes clear, America’s declining unionization rate isn’t a recent phenomenon. Nor is it mainly a function of Reagan administration hostility in the 1980s. Unionization in the US has been falling steadily for more than half a century. Indeed, union decline isn’t a peculiarly American problem. Unionization rates have been falling in almost all affluent nations. Only five still have a rate above 40%, and four of those (Belgium, Denmark, Finland and Sweden) are helped by the fact that access to unemployment insurance hinges on union membership. It’s well and good to wish for bigger, stronger unions, but no one has yet figured out an effective strategy to achieve that.
Are there alternatives to stronger unions? One possibility is “codetermination,” whereby employees elect a portion of their company’s board of directors. Shareholder obsession with short-run profits is one of the key obstacles to wage growth. Giving employees more voice in firms’ decision making might mitigate this.
Opponents of codetermination tend to argue that it will weaken firms’ performance. However, it appears to have had no such adverse effect in the European countries where large firms operate under codetermination rules.
Few companies will opt for codetermination unless they are legally obligated to, so Democratic lawmakers have introduced legislation — the Reward Work Act and the Accountable Capitalism Act — requiring employee election of 33% or 40% of the board of directors in large US corporations. These bills have no hope of becoming law at the moment, but the political environment will shift at some point, perhaps as soon as 2021.
It’s worth noting that even if such a requirement eventually is enacted, codetermination’s reach would be limited. In the Accountable Capitalism Act, the codetermination requirement would apply to companies with annual revenues of $1 billion or more. The roughly 1,300 firms that meet this criterion employ approximately 45 million Americans, or about one-third of the workforce.1
Germany is a helpful test case for gauging codetermination’s impact on wages in a country that doesn’t have especially strong labor unions. While German unions and collective bargaining remain powerful in some manufacturing industries, they have weakened considerably in much of the rest of the economy, as figure 2 shows. But codetermination is solidly entrenched. German workers have been able to elect half of the directors in firms with 2,000 or more employees since the early 1950s and one-third of the directors in firms with 500 to 2,000 employees since the mid-1970s.2
So has Germany had healthy wage growth? No, it hasn’t. As figure 1 above shows, Germany’s record has been similar to that of the United States: growth of median compensation has been much slower than growth of the economy, and it has lagged well behind compensation growth in most other affluent democratic countries.3 Germany’s slow wage growth owes partly to its reunification with the former East Germany in 1990 and its intentional creation of a low-wage (“mini-jobs”) segment of the labor market in the early 2000s. Still, its wage performance gives us little reason for optimism about codetermination’s ability to boost wages in the US.
There are other arguments for codetermination. It might do better at restraining top executives’ pay. It might make firms less likely to downsize during recessions. Perhaps most important, there is a good case on fairness grounds for enhancing employees’ ability to influence decision making in the company they work for. But the evidence supporting codetermination as a remedy for wage stagnation isn’t, in my view, especially strong.
- This is an estimate. The 1,000 companies in the “Fortune 1000” have 34 million employees in total, and the firm at the bottom of the list has revenue of $1.8 billion. ↩
- There is only one other rich democratic nation, the Netherlands, that has strong codetermination and a moderate-to-low unionization rate. But unlike in Germany, in the Netherlands collective bargaining coverage remains very high — 85% as of 2014. ↩
- This is true for household income as well. ↩
Tyler Cowen poses a question:
“There is a Swedish election on Sunday [September 9], and to counter the Sweden Democrats many of the other Swedish parties are moving to the right on immigration, the median voter theorem in slow motion, so to speak. Exactly what kind of institutional failure is this? Political? Intellectual? Democratic? The absence of real democracy? I should stress that I am happy to live near Somali and Yemeni women in hijab (and not) in northern Virginia, and I believe American assimilation continues to work reasonably well, including for Muslims and in fact especially for Muslims overall. But the formula seems to work less well in Sweden, with its tighter social structures and more generous welfare benefits. What exactly went wrong? What is the final equilibrium? Will anyone ever be able to say again ‘if only they had a Nordic-style social welfare state’?”
He’s right that Sweden is struggling with this. If you want to know more, I found James Traub’s “The Death of the Most Generous Nation on Earth” and Sasha Polakow-Suransky’s Go Back to Where You Came From particularly helpful.
Comparison with the United States is problematic. Sweden’s refugee inflow since 2000 has been the largest among the rich democratic countries, and it has dwarfed America’s.
From 2000 to 2016, a total of 1.2 million refugees entered the United States. Had the refugee inflow in the US matched that of Sweden, the number would have been 21.6 million. That’s more than the population of Nevada, New Mexico, Nebraska, West Virginia, Idaho, Hawaii, New Hampshire, Maine, Rhode Island, Montana, Delaware, South Dakota, North Dakota, Alaska, Vermont, and Wyoming combined.
Is Sweden doing badly on immigration? If the benchmark is its own performance in other areas — poverty, employment, health, happiness — or its successful absorption of refugees from World War II through the 1990s, then the answer, at least as of 2018, may be yes. What if the benchmark is US immigration performance? Here are a few relevant indicators:
Employment rate among immigrants with less than secondary education
- Sweden: 53%
- US: 65%
- 2012. Data source: OECD, Indicators of Immigrant Integration 2015, figure 5.2.
Share of immigrants with income below 60% of the country’s median household income
- Sweden: 27%
- US: 37%
- Data source: OECD, Indicators of Immigrant Integration 2015, table 8.1.
Immigrant life satisfaction
- Sweden: 7.2
- US: 6.9
- 2005-2017. Average response to the question “Please imagine a ladder, with steps numbered from 0 at the bottom to 10 at the top. The top of the ladder represents the best possible life for you and the bottom of the ladder represents the worst possible life for you. On which step of the ladder would you say you personally feel you stand at this time?” Data source: Gallup World Poll, via the World Happiness Report 2018, online appendix.
Migrant acceptance index
- Sweden: 7.9
- US: 7.3
- 2016-17. Three questions: “I would like to ask you some questions about foreign immigrants — people who have come to live and work in this country from another country. Please tell me whether you, personally, think each of the following is a good thing or a bad thing? How about: Immigrants living in [country name]? An immigrant becoming your neighbor? An immigrant marrying one of your close relatives?” “Bad thing” response is scored 0, “it depends” or “don’t know” is scored 1, “good thing” is scored 3. The three items are added together, so the index ranges from 0 to 9. Data source: Gallup World Poll, via Neli Esipova, John Fleming and Julie Ray, “New Index Shows Least-, Most-Accepting Countries for Immigrants,” Gallup, 2017.
Vote share for the anti-immigrant party or candidate in the most recent national election
- Sweden: 20% (2018, Sweden Democrats, projected)
- US: 46% (2016, Donald Trump)
Over at Foreign Affairs.
Income inequality in the United States is high compared to other rich democratic nations, and it has risen sharply since the late 1970s. During that period, household incomes in the middle have grown slowly — much more slowly than the economy (GDP per capita or per household). It looks very likely that top-end income inequality has been a key cause of slow income growth in the middle. The two are arithmetically related, the timing fits, and the key hypothesized causal path, wages, behaves as predicted. The high and rising income share of the top 1 percent appears to have cut income growth since 1979 for the median American household roughly in half.
The full paper is here.
The United States has long been committed, more than any other rich democratic country, to the notion that employment is the key to poverty reduction. This presupposes that people in work can get enough hours at a sufficiently high wage to earn a decent income. How has this approach fared? An assessment here.
A look at 30 outcomes from 1932 to 2016.
A discussion on social democracy, big government, American politics, income inequality, and more.
My answer is here.
My answer is here.
I learn from virtually everything I read by Mike Konczal, and agree with much of it. But the essay he and Patrick Iber have written on Karl Polanyi, progressivism, and the 2016 Democratic nomination contest leaves me with more questions than answers.
Iber and Konczal aim to highlight a tension within the American left between a “social democratic” vision of how to address social problems and a “progressive but market-friendly” vision. They say Bernie Sanders, a social democrat, believes access to education and healthcare should be a right, available to all persons regardless of income or wealth, whereas Hillary Clinton, a market-friendly progressive, thinks education and healthcare should remain market commodities, with access hinging at least partly on a person’s ability to pay. Sanders, according to Iber and Konczal, “offers a straightforward defense of decommodification — the idea that some things do not belong in the marketplace — that is at odds with the kind of politics that the leadership of the Democratic Party has offered more or less since Carter.”
What does treating education or healthcare as a right imply for policy?
Though Sanders favors free college for everyone, that isn’t what he would provide. He proposes zero tuition (for in-state students at four-year public universities). But that wouldn’t cover room and board, which costs $10,000 a year or more for a typical student. Offering “free” college that doesn’t include room and board is a bit like offering “free” healthcare that covers the cost of surgery but requires patients to pay out of pocket for the hospital room. In the Sanders plan, low-income students, but not middle-income ones, “would be able to use federal, state, and college financial aid to cover room and board, books, and living expenses.” So for Sanders, like for Clinton, college education wouldn’t be genuinely decommodified.
That’s the case in Sweden too, which is why a large portion of young Swedes leave college with fairly large student loan debt despite paying zero tuition. Earlier in the life course, Swedes benefit from high-quality child care and preschool. But while public funds heavily subsidize the cost, parents do have to pay for this early education, up to 10% of household income. Is Sweden failing to treat education as a right?
How about healthcare? I share Sanders’ preference for a single-payer system, but that wouldn’t necessarily decouple access to healthcare from one’s income. Medicare pays, on average, only about two-thirds of elderly Americans’ total medical expenses, so “Medicare for all” arguably wouldn’t ensure everyone a right to what we think of as minimally adequate healthcare.
If we believe in a right to healthcare and education, shouldn’t the same be true for food and housing? If so, does that mean everyone should receive a basic food allowance? A housing allowance? What if providing a meaningful housing allowance to all Americans turns out to be extremely expensive? Wouldn’t we want to consider a policy that ensures housing for those least able to afford it but provides less help to those with higher incomes? That would be a “market-friendly” approach, in Iber and Konczal’s formulation, but it might also be the best one.
To me, labeling Bernie Sanders’ proposals “social democratic” and Hillary Clinton’s “market friendly” obscures more than it clarifies. And applying an overarching principle, such as universal right to access, doesn’t get us very far in figuring out the policy details for education (early, K-12, college), healthcare, food, housing, and more.