Skip to main content

An economist rides to the rescue on the Prevailing Wage law

Over at First State Politics, Dave Burris has been taking a beating from the usual suspects about his stand against the Prevailing Wage law in Delaware.

It's therefore intriguing to see that in the Sunday Snooze Journal Dave gets some back-up from Dr. Eleanor Craig, a well-regarded economist who formerly chaired the Delaware Economic and Financial Advisory Council.

Dr. Craig explains why, among other things, Delaware's lack of a right to work law and its prevailing wage law provides a huge disincentive for manufacturing jobs to come to the First State:

Delaware's prevailing wage law mandates union wages on all government contracts, increasing labor costs by 20 percent. Since half of the construction costs of buildings such as schools is labor, this adds 10 percent to all government contracts, increasing the cost of the same government services in Delaware, when compared with other states without prevailing wages.

Other state law differences are significant.

Delaware's personal income taxes are the third highest of any state, when measured on a per capita basis, and 32 percent higher than those in the average state.


Now before anybody jumps me--yes, Dr Craig is comparing Delaware to Mississippi, and I don't want to make Delaware into Mississippi for a whole lot of reasons (many of which include mosquitos large enough to show up on air traffic control radar), but....

As Dr Craig notes:

Delaware's economic health is being threatened by government actions which make other states, like Mississippi, the preferred choice for both new and old business.

The Philadelphia Federal Reserve Bank compares the health of all 50 states with an indicator model.

For the past year, ending November 2007, Delaware was ranked with the 10 states with the poorest growth prospects for income and employment, and Mississippi ranked in the 10 states with the highest potential for economic growth.

In fact, Delaware's employment growth in 2007 was one- quarter that of the U.S. and our personal income growth was three quarters as high as that in the average state.

For comparable measures, the State of Delaware also significantly lagged the other states in our region -- Maryland, New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania.


There are elitists among us who pontificate daily about their sensitivity to the working poor:

The people receiving this prevailing wage are buying homes and shopping at establishments operated by your Chamber of Commerce friends. Be careful what you wish for.

I am happy to pay an additional 14-19% on county building projects to support this good policy. I sleep better knowing the guy hauling shingles can feed and take care of his kids.


And another:

God bless the American electricians, masons, steelworkers, and carpenters, and drywallers, and helpers! Let’s not begrudge these hard laboring salt of the earth folks a little slice of the great big subsidy pie.


And my personal favorite:

Boy oh boy. You really do have contempt for people who have to work for a living, don’t you?


But the grim reality is that you can't have it both ways.

You can't simultaneously insist on fixing wages at an arbitrary level and keeping jobs in the State.

You can't simultaneously applaud the prevailing wage law and then turn around and sock those people with the third-highest State income tax in the country and claim you're the worker's friend.

All the prevailing wage laws that the General Assembly can pass won't matter worth a damn if nobody is willing to come to the State and pay those wages. That's why Wal-Mart finds people lining up for $10/hour jobs in Delaware.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

Libertarian National Committee Deathwatch Part 1

As the LNC continues to lurch towards collapse, with the latest news of mass layoffs at HQ, I've decided to begin tracking those things leading the national party to irrelevance, even as state and local parties gain power. As news, rumors and rhetoric break out, I shall chronicle them in this ongoing series at Delaware Libertarian. Organizations approaching failure have a number of characteristics. One of the most striking is renunciation of their purpose and effort to reinvent themselves as a "me-too" provider of services in the marketplace. In this, the LNC has been on a collision course with destiny for a while now. Recently, for example, it hired Republican Party web site developer TerraEclipse to redesign the LNC web site . Terra created a web site very similar to those of the clients it brags most about -- far-right Republican conservatives like Tom McClintock and BJ Lawson. A quick look at the web site they built for the LNC is instructive. The tagline on the ...

Soda tax debate reveals fundamental progressive assertions about your lack of individual rights and the "responsiblities" of the State

I thought it would be at least amusing to use the Delawareliberal comments as sub-headings regarding each category of what is wrong with the proposed tax on sodas and juice drinks. But there are so many different little strands of each comment that it would be impossible to pull them all out. So, instead, I'm going to let you read them in more or less the order they appeared, and note the assumptions. pandora: I’m perfectly okay with taxing sodas and juice drinks. Mainly because they’re total crap, and one of the main reasons our country’s children are overweight. They are also dirt cheap. Assumptions here: (1) Because "I" am perfectly okay with a new tax it should be imposed on everybody; (2) it is the government's responsibility to keep children from being obese; (3) the cheapness of the product to be taxed justifies charging people more for it. John Manifold: Soda fattens your kids [and you and your husband], shortens their lives, costs more than water [a...