The Atlanta Fed's macroblog provides commentary and analysis on economic topics including monetary policy, macroeconomic developments, inflation, labor economics, and financial issues.
- BLS Handbook of Methods
- Bureau of Economic Analysis
- Bureau of Labor Statistics
- Congressional Budget Office
- Economic Data - FRED® II, St. Louis Fed
- Office of Management and Budget
- Statistics: Releases and Historical Data, Board of Governors
- U.S. Census Bureau Economic Programs
- White House Economic Statistics Briefing Room
July 21, 2006
What Does Labor Compensation Measure?
In one of my posts yesterday I staked out an old position of mine: Payments made to workers should be broadly measured, including both explicit monetary remuneration and non-cash benefits. Not surprisingly, I received several comments arguing that increases in labor compensation have, in the recent past, been driven by rising health care costs.
In making sense of all this, I think it helps to consider two different questions we might want to ask when considering payments to workers. The first is, "What does it cost a business to purchase one hour of a worker's time?" To answer this question, a broad (benefit inclusive) measure of labor compensation is clearly the right one.
Now consider the second question: "Does an increase in payments made by firms to workers make workers better off?" On this issue, the answer may very well depend on the difference between compensation paid in dollars and compensation paid in benefits.
Maybe, but not necessarily. Consider two workers, both of whom receive the same total amount of compensation, and both of whom spend exactly the same amount on health care. Now suppose that those expenditures rise by 10% for both workers. We'll further suppose that worker 1's wages rise by 10%, while worker 2's employer holds his or her salary constant but picks up the tab for the higher medical costs. Would you say that worker 1 is better off than worker 2? Neither would I.
The issue, of course, is that, left to their own devices, worker's would not choose to purchase the same quantity of health care when prices rise. They therefore would not be indifferent between a dollar received in cash -- which they could allocate as they wish -- and a dollar received in health care benefits -- which they have no option to spend any other way.
That is an argument to which I am extremely sympathetic, and I am all for policies that disentangle the provision of insurance from employment. (A good debate on these issues can be found here.) But it is an issue that has little to do with macroeconomic performance.
So, if you what you are interested in is what sorts of payment arrangements generate the highest level of well-being for employees, using narrow wage-and-salary measures of labor compensation may be justified (though not totally -- those benefit payments probably still yield utility). But if what you are talking about is how well the economy is doing in generating income for workers, an inclusive measure of labor compensation is a must.
UPDATE: Although you probably read it there before reading it here, Greg Mankiw shares my sentiment, Brad DeLong does not. Brad does make the point -- I'm paraphrasing -- that if you are worried about the distribution of labor compensation, and if the payments to people in the part of the income-distribution you care about are well-captured by average hourly earnings, that would be a reason to prefer the series that excludes fringe benefits. Fair enough, but I'll repeat my earlier argument that it would serve everyone well to be explicit that we are than using a notion of economic well-being that discounts average performance and focuses on who gets what.
Meanwhile at Angry Bear, I believe that, as is often (though not always) the case, pgl and I have converged.
UPDATE, AGAIN: The Liberal Order suggests:
... let's not also forget to account for workplace safety regulations and other observed changes in safety. For example, the manufacturing jobs that exist today are on average much safer than those of thirty and forty years ago. The increases in safety act as a compensating differential. This means that increases in productivity must also be weighed against increases in workplace safety.
A key issue is whether these changes add to the marginal cost of labor or simply the average cost of labor (as would be the case, for example, if safety provisions are more like fixed capital). It's an interesting point, and an interesting question.
UPDATE ONCE MORE: knzn has some thoughts as well.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to blogs that reference What Does Labor Compensation Measure? :
- Behind the Increase in Prime-Age Labor Force Participation
- An Update on Labor Force Participation
- Another Look at the Wage Growth Tracker's Cyclicality
- GDPNow's Second Quarter Forecast: Is It Too High?
- Are Small Loans Hard to Find? Evidence from the Federal Reserve Banks' Small Business Survey
- Slide into the Economic Driver's Seat with the Labor Market Sliders
- The Fed’s Inflation Goal: What Does the Public Know?
- Going to School on Labor Force Participation
- Bad Debt Is Bad for Your Health
- Working for Yourself, Some of the Time
- July 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- Business Cycles
- Business Inflation Expectations
- Capital and Investment
- Capital Markets
- Data Releases
- Economic conditions
- Economic Growth and Development
- Exchange Rates and the Dollar
- Fed Funds Futures
- Federal Debt and Deficits
- Federal Reserve and Monetary Policy
- Financial System
- Fiscal Policy
- Health Care
- Inflation Expectations
- Interest Rates
- Labor Markets
- Latin America/South America
- Monetary Policy
- Money Markets
- Real Estate
- Saving, Capital, and Investment
- Small Business
- Social Security
- This, That, and the Other
- Trade Deficit
- Wage Growth