If, like me, youâ€™ve been dying to hear some good news, then you surely welcomed Amazonâ€™s decision to raise its minimum wage to $15 for all its 350,000 workers, including seasonal employees and temps, according to the company.
Amazon Chief Executive Jeff Bezos also owns The Washington Post.
Given that the wage trends of low- and middle-wage workers is core to my research agenda, Iâ€™d like to briefly get into why the company made this decision at this moment. The decision is to some extent â€śbespoke,â€ť in that Amazon is a uniquely large, hugely dominant firm capitalized at $1 trillion, run by one of the richest people in the world. But that too is fodder for the analysis that follows.
Itâ€™s a tight labor market:
Hereâ€™s how my old pal and top-flight wage analyst Sylvia Allegretto, a labor economist at the University of Berkeley, put it in The Post: â€śWe have a tight labor market, and these are tough jobs with high turnover rates. You add in that Amazon is competing for workers, and it makes sense that it is raising wages.â€ť
Once the labor market hits full employment - an all too rare occurrence in recent decades - even employers of the magnitude of Amazon have to kick up pay to hire and keep the workers they need. Economists call demand for labor â€śderivedâ€ť demand, as it is derived from the consumer demand for the goods and services workers produce. Such demand is strong right now, and companies either staff up to meet that demand or leave profits on the table.
But isnâ€™t Amazon a price maker, not a price taker?
Thereâ€™s an important strain of work in economics these days that looks at the few firms - think Amazon, Google, Apple - that dominate their industry. Given that these firms have the market power to set prices and wages, why would Amazon raise its minimum? Even in a tight labor market, shouldnâ€™t its size and clout preclude that move?
As Allegretto implies, maybe they could resist pay hikes at five percent unemployment but less so at below four percent. I cannot underscore enough the importance of this insight. It means that if the Federal Reserve believes the lowest sustainable unemployment rate is five percent instead of four percent, literally millions of low-wage workers, disproportionately minorities and women, will never get a chance to reap the benefits of the expansion.
That said, given Amazonâ€™s clout, it took more than low unemployment to enforce this change. It also took . . .
When Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., scourge of the top tenth of the top one percent, and Bezos, denizen of that privileged niche, are exchanging loving tweets, attention must be paid. Sanders, along with Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., has long called out Amazon for its labor practices, and they recently introduced a bill, subtly entitled the Stop BEZOS Act.
While I share their goal of pushing for higher pay for low-wage workers, I thought their bill, which charged companies for the public benefits its workers received, was misguided in that it would vilify legitimate benefit receipt and lead firms to discriminate against hires they thought might draw such benefits. But I have no question that their pressure was instrumental in driving this change.
Is there anything not to like about Amazonâ€™s decision?
It should index its minimum wage for inflation, but we can argue about that later. The change is probably not as costly to the company as you might expect, as its fulfillment-center workers in higher-wage states already make around $15 an hour.
But my research finds that Amazon has a lot of workers in Texas, Florida, Indiana and Kentucky, lower-wage states where the bump to $15 will constitute a real, much-welcomed raise.
Itâ€™s also the case that some of these higher labor costs will land right back in Amazonâ€™s coffers. Think of this move as a bit like the service-sector version of Henry Ford, who recognized that unless he raised his workersâ€™ pay, they couldnâ€™t afford the cars they were making. Iâ€™m not saying $15 an hour is a living wage - which is why federal wage-supports like the Earned Income Tax Credit are a complement to the policy, contrary to the Sanders/Khanna BEZOS Act - but itâ€™s certainly a strong move in that direction.
Will the change show up in higher inflation?
I doubt it. Wages and prices are slowly rising anyway, and while 350,000 is a lot of employees, there are 160 million workers in the labor force.
Finally, one last hand-clap for Amazonâ€™s announcement, which included a decision to use its significant political heft to push for raising the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour. At one level, this can be seen as a play for its competitors to face the same wage floor Amazon just imposed on itself. But the statement also made the persuasive case for a higher federal floor: â€śWe will be working to gain congressional support for an increase in the federal minimum wage. The current rate of $7.25 was set nearly a decade ago . . . We intend to advocate for a minimum-wage increase that will have a profound impact on the lives of tens of millions of people and families across this country,â€ť the company said.
So, please join me in taking a break from the abject terror and chaos that characterizes life in todayâ€™s political economy and basking in some genuinely great news.
OK . . . break over.
Jared Bernstein, a former chief economist to Vice President Joe Biden, is a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.