Predistribution is no silver bullet for wage stagnation

The pressures militating against wage growth are strong and will grow even stronger in the future. But public insurance offers a way forward.

'Predistribution' may be a smart approach for the centre-left, but it's likely to prove an inadequate remedy for the problem of wage stagnation facing the UK’s lower-half households. A predistributive approach would aim to address the problem without increasing government transfers. It could embrace a range of strategies. One is more and better education for children who grow up in less-advantaged circumstances. This would increase the likelihood of them finding employment in analytical fields that pay relatively well. But even if successful, it will leave a non-trivial number of people in low-end jobs.

Increasing manufacturing jobs would help, but manufacturing's share of employment has been shrinking for decades in all rich nations, and that's certain to continue. Boosting trade union membership could counteract the downward pressure on wages, but unionisation rates, too, have been falling in almost all affluent countries, and nobody has worked out how to reverse this.

A tight labour market ('full employment') puts upward pressure on wages; achieving that on a regular basis, though, would require greater tolerance of inflation by the Bank of England. The minimum wage can be raised, but it tends to have limited impact above the very bottom of the wage distribution.

Allowing employees to elect a percentage of their company's board of directors ('codetermination') could help to prevent long-term wage stagnation, yetfirms won't opt for this unless it is required by law. Profit-sharing would ensure that pay increases when company profits rise, but here too the uptake is likely to be small.

Rising employment is a way to boost household incomes even if wages are stagnant. However, it's by no means a given that we can continue to generate employment growth. Also, not all low-end households will benefit from a rising employment rate. And even if this strategy works well, it will eventually hit a ceiling; once we reach maximum employment – perhaps 85 per cent of working-age men and 80 per cent of working-age women – there will be no more possibility of relying on rising employment to secure rising incomes.

Finally, a means of improving material wellbeing even if wages and employment are stagnant is to increase provision of public goods and services. From paid parental leave and childcare to spending on roads and parks, these increase the sphere of consumption for which the cost to households is minimal or zero.

Pursuit of the more promising elements of a predistributive approach would undoubtedly do some good. But I'm sceptical that such an approach will be up to the task. The pressures militating against wage growth in lower-half jobs– competition, globalization, technology, nearsighted shareholders ­– are strong, and in all likelihood they will grow even stronger going forward. We may need to do more. Fortunately, we have another option.

Public insurance is a widely used tool for mitigating economic and social risks. Schools, government-financed health insurance, public pensions, unemployment compensation and most government transfers are versions of public insurance. We contribute collectively via taxes, and those who experience the risk event or condition receive transfers or services.

Through this lens, wage stagnation is a new social risk. There is a simple insurance mechanism for alleviating it: an employment-conditional earnings subsidy, along the lines of the UK's working tax credit (gradually being replaced by universal credit) and the US earned income tax credit. These programmes provide a subsidy, in the form of a refundable tax credit, to households with low earnings. The amount of the subsidy increases with earnings up to a point, then flattens out, and then decreases as earnings reach into the middle class.

These employment-conditional earnings subsidies help to compensate for low wage levels, but in their current form they don't address the problem of wage stagnation. To do the latter, the amount of the subsidy needs to rise over time in sync with economic growth. One way to achieve this would be to index it to GDP per capita. Or, decisions about yearly changes could be entrusted to an independent commission.

This won't compensate fully for wage stagnation. If the subsidy amounts to a quarter or even half of a household's earnings and the subsidy rises in line with the economy but earnings don't, then the household's income (earnings plus subsidy) growth will lag behind growth of the economy. It's a partial remedy, not a full solution. But it will help.

What, then, should we do – predistribution or public insurance? If forced to choose between the two, I would opt for defending and expanding employment-conditional earnings subsidies. But over the long run, we ought not think in terms of one or the other. We'll very likely need both.

Lane Kenworthy is professor of sociology and political science at the University of Arizona. A full version of this article is published by IPPR in Juncture.

Ed Miliband at the Labour conference in Brighton last month. Photograph: Getty Images.

Lane Kenworthy is professor of sociology and political science at the University of Arizona

Getty
Show Hide image

Can the disciplined Democrats defeat Trump’s maelstrom of chaos?

The Democratic National Convention has been exquisitely stage-managed and disciplined. But is it enough to overcome Trump’s news-cycle grabbing interventions?

The Democratic National Convention did not begin auspiciously.

The DNC’s chair, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, was unceremoniously launched as if by an ejector-seat from her job on the eve of the convention, after a Wikileaks dump of internal emails painted a picture of a party trying to keep the insurgent candidate, Vermont senator Bernie Sanders, from blocking Hillary Clinton’s path to the nomination.

One email, in which a staffer suggests using Sanders’ Jewish faith against him as a candidate in order to slow his insurgent campaign, was particularly damning in its optics and Schultz, who had tweeted with some hubris about her Republican opposite number Reince Priebus during last week’s Republican convention in Cleveland, had to fall on her sword.

Clinton’s pick of Tim Kaine as a running-mate – a solid, safe, and unexciting choice compared to a more vocal and radical campaigner like Elizabeth Warren – was also criticised, both by the media, with one commentator calling him “a mayonnaise sandwich on wholewheat bread”, and by the left of the party, who still held out hope that the Democratic ticket would have at least one name on it who shared the radical vision of America that Sanders had outlined.

On top of that, Kaine, who is a Catholic, also disappointed many as a vice-presidential pick because of his past personal history of opposition to abortion. Erin Matson, the co-director of the reproductive rights group ReproAction, tweeted that Kaine being added to the ticket was “tremendously disappointing”.

On the other side, Donald Trump had just received a poll bump following a terrifying speech which recalled Richard Nixon’s 1968 convention address. Both speeches appealed to fear, rather than hope; many are calling Trump’s keynote his “Midnight in America” speech. Just before the Democrats convened, analyst par excellence Nate Silver and his site, 538.com, forecast Trump’s chance of victory over Clinton in November at above 50 per cent for the first time.

On top of that, Bernie Sanders more vocal supporters arrived at the Democratic convention – in Philadelphia in the grip of a heatwave – in relative force. Protests have already been more intensive than they were at the RNC, despite all expectations to the contrary, and Sanders delegates disrupted proceedings on the first day by booing every mention of Hillary Clinton’s name.

But then, things appear to turn around.

The second day of the convention, which saw Hillary Clinton formally nominated as the first female presidential candidate in American history, was less marred by protest. Bernie Sanders addressed the convention and endorsed his erstwhile rival.

Trump’s inability to stop prodding the news cycle with bizarre non-sequiturs turned the focus of what would otherwise be a negative Democratic news cycle back onto him; an unforced error which led to widespread, if somewhat wild, speculation about his possible links with Putin in the wake of the news that Russia had been behind the email hack and lightened some of the pressure on the Democrats.

And then Michelle Obama took the stage, delivering an oration of astonishing power and grace (seriously, watch it – it’s a masterclass).

Compared with the RNC, the Democratic National Convention has so far been exquisitely stage-managed. Speakers were bookended with pithy, designed-for-virality videos. Speakers started on time; headliners played in primetime.

Both Trump and Clinton have now addressed their conventions before their headline speech remotely, via video link (Trump also engineered a bizarre early-convention pro-wrestling-style entrance), which put observers of both in mind of scenes from V for Vendetta.

But the imagery of Clinton’s face appearing on screen through a graphic of shattering glass (see what she did there?) will likely be one of the moments that sticks most in the memory of the electorate. It must kill the reality TV star to know this, but Clinton’s convention is getting better TV ratings so far than the RNC did.

Michelle Obama’s masterful speech in particular provided stark contrast with that of Melania Trump – an especially biting contrast considering that parts of the latter’s speech last week turned out to have been plagiarised from the former. 538’s forecast saw Clinton slide – barely – back into the lead.

A mayonnaise sandwich Tim Kaine might be, but he is nonetheless looking like a smart pick, too. A popular senator from a key swing state – Virginia – his role on the ticket is not to be a firebrand or an attack-dog, but to help the former secretary of state reach out to the moderate middle that Trump appears to be leaving entirely vacant, including moderate Republicans who may have voted for Mitt Romney but find Trump’s boorish bigotry and casual relationship with the truth offputting. And the electoral mathematics show that Trump’s journey to victory in the electoral college will be extremely difficult if Kaine swings Virginia for Clinton.

Ultimately, the comparison between the Democratic convention in Philadelphia so far and last week’s chaotic, slapdash and at times downright nutty effort in Cleveland provides a key insight into what this election campaign is going to be like: chaos and fear on one side, but tight discipline on the other.

We will find out in November if discipline is enough to stop the maelstrom.

Nicky Woolf is a writer for the Guardian based in the US. He tweets @NickyWoolf.