Want to see what a “recovery” looks like in terms of job openings? Here’s the FRED graph:
Note the increasing line for total non-farm jobs, and the almost parallel line for total private sector job openings. What can we tell from the two lines at the bottom — that government employment and jobs in education and health services have not seen the increases indicated in the total job market or in the private sector job market.
What makes the greenish line (education and health care services) line so disturbing is that two health care related sectors — health care support and health care practitioners/technical — are projected to grow by 28% and 22% respectively by 2022. [BLS] Education, library/media, and training positions show a projected 11% increase in this decade. [BLS]
As we might expect given a aging population, personal care assistance jobs are projected to increase to 580,800 by 2022, and home health aide positions are projected to increase to 424,200 in the same period. [BLS] That’s the good news for job seekers, the less exciting news is that personal care aides earn an average of $19,910 per year, while home health aides earn an average of $20,820. [BLS]
The third highest projection for new jobs comes in the retail sales category, 434,700 but with average earnings of $21,110. The only high projection category which would put an employee in ‘middle class’ territory is that of registered nurses, with a projected need for 526,800 in the next few years and estimated average earnings of $65,470 annually. [BLS]
Unfortunately, what we have here is a situation in which three areas of projected high job growth over the next 18 years (personal aides, retail sales, and home health care) are jobs which would not support a family of four on a single income above the federal poverty guidelines. The estimated $19,910 a personal care aide is estimated to earn annually would barely keep a three person family at the poverty line.
If we extrapolate the numbers, by 2022 we will have an increased number of home health aides, each earning approximately $20,820. That’s about $10.00 per hour, or a total contribution of $8,831,844,000 to the national economy. This sounds nice until we get out MIT’s Living Wage Calculator.
A living wage for a adult + one child in Reno, Nevada is currently calculated at $20.39 per hour. For a family of four it’s about $19.22. [MIT] The current estimated wage for home health aides ($10.01/yr) doesn’t come close to either living wage calculation.
How about our retail sales person? Nationally, we’re projected to need about 434,700 more of them by 2022. The 2012 median wage in retail sales is $21,410 or about $10.29 per hour. How does this compare to the Living Wage Calculation for Las Vegas, Nevada? One adult + one child would need an hourly wage of $20.67 and two adults and two children would need earnings of $19.50/hr. The $10.29 isn’t close — again.
There are at least three elements to consider in all these numbers. (1) Those jobs which are now identified as high growth tend to be in low wage positions; (2) Low wage positions don’t meet the Living Wage standards; and (3) If we continue to pay relatively low wages for high growth area jobs then we can reasonably expect to have more families qualify for public assistance.
Oh, but if we raise minimum wages for employees what of the KIDS? For starters, most minimum wage workers aren’t children. Yes, most young people start out earning minimum wages, however this group only constitutes 19.8% of all minimum wage earners. [BLS table 1] 80.2% of all minimum wage workers are over 25.
If we drill down into the table we find that those “kids” aged 16-19 comprise about 5.4% of the minimum wage workforce, and men over 25 constitute 39.4% of the minimum wage workforce, while women over 25 are 40.8% of that total. In short, it doesn’t do for us to hide behind the kid’s jeans during any attempt to argue that raising the minimum wage will be “bad for them.”
Well, there’s always that old canard that increasing the minimum wage reduces job growth. For all the numbers tossed into the speculative pool — the FACTS of the matter don’t match the mythology.
Once more from the MIT economic study:
“Dube’s research looks at the effects of minimum wage differentials across state borders where the minimum wage is higher on one side of the border than the other. His research looks at the service industry, which he said employs the majority of minimum wage workers. According to his findings, both the short and long term effects of the increased wage on unemployment were negligible.”
What does raising the minimum wage do? The Dube Study looked in that corner as well:
“Finally he added that work done by economists at the Federal Reserve showed minimum wage increase led to significant increases in purchases of durable goods. “From a perspective of stimulating demand, minimum wages will tend to increase demand by increasing the purchasing power of those workers.”
So, on one hand we have negligible impact on employment levels versus significant increases in the purchases of durable goods — which one sounds like a better common sense option?