What has been driving living standards? Richard Blundell October 14

advertisement

What has been driving living standards?

HM Treasury Labour Market Conference

October 14 th 2013

Richard Blundell

University College London and Institute for Fiscal Studies

Thanks to Jonathan Cribb, Wenchao Jin, Robert Joyce and Cormac O’Dea.

This research is funded by the ERSC Centre (CPP) at IFS.

© Institute for Fiscal Studies

Outline

I will look (briefly) at Incomes, Earnings and Consumption

All three measures have something important to say.

1.

  Incomes: Working-age and Pensioners

2.

  Earnings: Wage Changes, Employment and Productivity

3.

  Consumption: Durable and Non-durable Expenditures

4.

  Prospects

Under each heading some summary points and supporting evidence.

Draw on three references to recent IFS research:

Ø   Living Standards, Poverty and Inequality in the UK.

–   IFS Report R81 , http://www.ifs.org.uk/comms/r81.pdf

Ø   What Can Wages Tell Us about the Productivity Puzzle?

–   IFS Working Paper, W13/11; forthcoming Economic Journal , http://www.ifs.org.uk/wps/ wp201311.pdf

Ø   Household Consumption through Recent Recessions.

–   Fiscal Studies , 34(2), June 2013, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1475-5890.2013.12003.x/abstract

©  Ins&tute  for  Fiscal  Studies    

 

1. Incomes

•   Leading up the recession:

•   income growth had slowed in early 2000s.

•   pensioners/ working-age childless were doing relatively well/ badly

•   During recession and immediately afterwards:

•   real earnings for those in work fell; benefits/tax credit incomes were robust.

•   employment rates fell for young adults but not for older ones.

•   As a result: a)   income inequality fell (despite rise in earnings inequality among workers) b)   young adults did worst; pensioners did best (again)

©  Ins&tute  for  Fiscal  Studies    

 

1996-­‐97  to  2011-­‐12:  pensioners  did  rela&vely  well;   working-­‐age  childless  rela&vely  badly  

4.0%  

3.5%  

3.0%  

2.5%  

2.0%  

1.5%  

1.0%  

0.5%  

0.0%  

-­‐0.5%  

-­‐1.0%  

10   20  

Parents and children

Working-age without children

Pensioners

30   40   50  

Percentile point

60   70   80   90  

Notes and source: see Figure 5.2 of Living Standards, Poverty and Inequality in the UK: 2013

...and  on  an  aFer-­‐housing-­‐cost  (AHC)  basis  

4.0%  

3.5%  

3.0%  

2.5%  

2.0%  

1.5%  

1.0%  

0.5%  

0.0%  

-­‐0.5%  

-­‐1.0%  

10   20  

Parents and children

Working-age without children

Pensioners

30   40   50  

Percentile point

60   70   80   90  

Notes and source: see Figure 5.2 of Living Standards, Poverty and Inequality in the UK: 2013

Trends  not  uniform:  slower  growth  from  early  2000s  

125  

Mean  income   Median  Income  

120  

115  

110  

105  

100  

Source: Family Resources Survey, various years

©  Ins&tute  for  Fiscal  Studies    

 

Trends  not  uniform:  slower  growth  from  early  2000s  

125  

Mean  income   Median  Income  

120  

115  

110  

105  

100  

Source: Family Resources Survey, various years

©  Ins&tute  for  Fiscal  Studies    

 

...  and  large  falls  aFer  the  recession  

125  

Mean  income   Median  Income  

120  

115  

110  

105  

100  

Source: Family Resources Survey, various years

©  Ins&tute  for  Fiscal  Studies    

 

Income  sources,  2007–08  to  2009–10:  steady   income  growth  due  to  benefits/tax  credits  

Earnings  

Benefits  and  tax  credits  

Savings  and  private  pension  income  

Self-­‐employment  income  

Other  

Taxes  and  other  deduc&ons  

Total  income  

-­‐0.7  

-­‐0.1  

0.4  

0.3  

0.2  

2.2  

2.4  

-­‐2   -­‐1.5   -­‐1   -­‐0.5   0   0.5   1   1.5   2   2.5   3  

Contribu&on  to  income  growth  between  2007–08  to  2009–10  

(in  percentage  points)    

Source:  Table  2.4  of   Living  Standards,  Poverty  and  Inequality:  2013  

Notes:  This  is  a  very  slightly  different  sample  to  the  overall  income  sta&s&cs.  Households  with  nega&ve   incomes  are  dropped.  This  makes  a  small  difference  to  falls  in  income

 

©  Ins&tute  for  Fiscal  Studies    

 

Income  sources,  2009–10  to  2011–12:  large  income   falls  due  to  falling  earnings  

Earnings  

Benefits  and  tax  credits  

Savings  and  private  pension  income  

Self-­‐employment  income  

Other  

Taxes  and  other  deduc&ons  

Total  income  

-­‐5.7  

-­‐1.0  

-­‐2.0  

-­‐0.7  

-­‐0.4  

-­‐7.5  

-­‐10   -­‐8   -­‐6   -­‐4   -­‐2  

Contribu&on  to  income  growth  between  2009–10  to  2011–12  

(in  percentage  points)    

0  

Source:  Table  2.4  of   Living  Standards,  Poverty  and  Inequality:  2013  

Notes:  This  is  a  very  slightly  different  sample  to  the  overall  income  sta&s&cs.  Households  with  nega&ve   incomes  are  dropped.  This  makes  a  small  difference  to  falls  in  income

 

©  Ins&tute  for  Fiscal  Studies    

 

2  

2.4  

4  

Income  sources:  2007–08  to  2011–12  

Earnings  

Benefits  and  tax  credits  

Savings  and  private  pension  income  

Self-­‐employment  income  

Other  

Taxes  and  other  deduc&ons  

Total  income  

-­‐5.9  

-­‐1.5  

-­‐1.6  

-­‐0.1  

-­‐5.3  

-­‐10   -­‐8   -­‐6   -­‐4   -­‐2  

Contribu&on  to  income  growth  between  2007–08  to  2011–12  

(in  percentage  points)    

0  

Source:  Table  2.4  of   Living  Standards,  Poverty  and  Inequality:  2013  

Notes:  This  is  a  very  slightly  different  sample  to  the  overall  income  sta&s&cs.  Households  with  nega&ve   incomes  are  dropped.  This  makes  a  small  difference  to  falls  in  income

 

©  Ins&tute  for  Fiscal  Studies    

 

1.2  

2.7  

2   4  

Weekly  earnings  inequality  (among  workers)  rose   between  2007-­‐08  to  2011-­‐12...

 

0.0%  

-­‐1.0%  

-­‐2.0%  

-­‐3.0%  

-­‐4.0%  

-­‐5.0%  

-­‐6.0%  

-­‐7.0%  

-­‐8.0%  

-­‐9.0%  

-­‐10.0%  

-­‐11.0%  

-­‐12.0%  

10   20   30   40   50   60  

Percentile point

Note: towards bottom, much driven by falls in hours worked

(not falls in hourly wages)

70   80   90  

Notes and source: see Figure 3.10 of Living Standards, Poverty and Inequality in the UK: 2013

...but  net  result  was  s&ll  a  fall  in  income  inequality  

8%

4%

0%

-4%

-8%

2007–08 to 2009–10 2009–10 to 2011–12 2007–08 to 2011–12

-12%

10 20 30 40 50 60

Percentile point

Source:  Figure  3.5  of   Living  Standards,  Poverty  and  Inequality:  2013  

70 80 90

©  Ins&tute  for  Fiscal  Studies    

 

Median  income  changes  by  age  (BHC,  GB)  

2007–08 to 2011–12 2001–02 to 2007–08

4%

3%

2%

1%

0%

-1%

-2%

-3%

-4%

0s 10s 20s 30s

Age

40s 50s

Notes and source: see Figure 5.7 of Living Standards, Poverty and Inequality in the UK: 2013

60s 70s

2. Earnings: Wages and Employment

•   Average real hourly wages fallen since this recession began.

–   Why and will the trend continue?

•   ‘Effective labour supply’ is higher now than during previous recessions, due (perhaps) to welfare policy changes and wealth shocks,

–   increasing in the long-run (due to social and policy changes) and in the short-run (due to wealth shocks and long term real wage declines).

•   Workforce composition has shifted towards more productive types,

–   as in previous recessions, yet real wages have fallen.

•   These real wage falls have occurred within individuals:

–   unprecedentedly high proportions of employees experienced nominal wage freezes,

–   especially in the lower-middle of the wage distribution and in the absence of collective agreements.

©  Ins&tute  for  Fiscal  Studies    

 

In  contrast  to  previous  recessions,  real  output  per   hour  has  at  best  been  stagnant  since  2008:  why?  

Real  output  per  hour  

120  

115  

110  

105  

100  

95  

90  

0   1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   16   17   18   19   20  

Quarter  since  the  labelled  one  

1979Q4   1990Q2    2008Q1   Linear  trend  (90Q2-­‐08Q1)  

Average  real  hourly  wages  have  also  been  stagnant  

120  

Average  real  male  hourly  wage  (using  GDP  deflator)  

115  

110  

105  

100  

95  

0   1   2   3   4   5  

Years  since  the  year  in  which  the  recession  began  

1979   1990   2008   Linear  trend  1990-­‐2008  

6  

The  UK  is  different.....    

1.15  

1.1  

1.05  

1  

0.95  

0.9  

0.85  

2007   2008   2009   2010   2011   2012  

UK,  GDP  per  hour  

US,  GDP  per  hour    

France,  GDP  per  hour  

Germany,  GDP  per  hour  

UK,  average  wage  

US,  average  wage  

France,  average  wage  

Germany,  average  wage  

Employment  and  labour  market  par&cipa&on  

•   Labour  market  par&cipa&on  has  held  up  beier  during  this   recession  than  previous  ones.  For  example:  

–   Employment  rates  fell  less  (and  unemployment  rates  increased   less)  

Employment  and  labour  market  par&cipa&on  -­‐   employment  rate  of  23-­‐64-­‐year-­‐olds  by  recession  

2.0%

0.0%

-2.0%

-4.0%

-6.0%

0 1 2 3 4 5

-8.0%

-10.0%

Year since the start of recession

Source: LFS every year. No data point for year 1980, 1982. Quarter 2 is used for years since 1992. male, from 1979 female, from 1979 male, from 1990 female, from 1990 male from 2008 female, from 2008

Change  to  the  propor&on  of  23-­‐64-­‐year-­‐olds  who  are   unemployed  by  recession  

6.0%  

5.0%  

4.0%  

3.0%  

2.0%  

1.0%  

0.0%  

0   1   2   3   4   5  

Source: LFS every year. No data point for year 1980, 1982. Quarter 2 is used for years since 1992. male,  from  1979   female,  from  1979   male,  from  1990   female,  from  1990   male  from  2008   female,  from  2008  

Employment  and  labour  market  par&cipa&on  

•   Some  increase  of  par&cipa&on  can  be  aiributed  policy   changes,  e.g.  :  

–   Labour  supply  has  increased  among  lone  parents  as  a  result  of   job  search  condi&ons  aiached  to  benefit  claims  

–   Older  workers  are  re&ring  later  as  a  result  of  increased  SPA  for   women  

Change  to  lone  mothers’  par&cipa&on  rate  since   policy  change  

4%  

2%  

0%  

-­‐2%  

-­‐4%  

-­‐6%  

-­‐8%  

14%  

12%  

10%  

8%  

6%  

0   1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   15  

Quarter  since  the  last  quarter  before  policy  change   youngest  kid  12-­‐15,  2008Q3   youngest  kid10-­‐11,  2009Q3   youngest  kid  7-­‐9,  2010Q3   youngest  kid  5-­‐6,  2011Q3  

Impact  of  SPA  increase  for  women  on  employment  

60%  

55%  

50%  

45%  

40%  

35%  

30%  

Counterfactual  male  60-­‐64  employment  rate  

LFS  employment  rate  60-­‐64  men  

Counterfactual  female  60-­‐64  employment  rate  

LFS  employment  rate  60-­‐64  year  old  women  

Note: counterfactual employment rates are estimated. See Cribb et al (2013) “Incentives, shocks or signals: labour supply effects of increasing the female state pension age in the UK”

Employment  and  self-­‐employment  rate  of  older   people  

-­‐4%  

-­‐6%  

-­‐8%  

-­‐10%  

4%  

2%  

0%  

-­‐2%   employment  rate  60-­‐74  male   employment  rate  60-­‐74  female   self-­‐employment  rate  60-­‐74  male   self-­‐employment  rate  60-­‐74  female  

Employment  status  of  16-­‐22-­‐year-­‐olds  

80%  

70%  

60%  

50%  

40%  

30%  

20%  

10%  

0%  

%  in  work   %  unemployed  

Source: LFS 2 nd

quarter every year

Employment  and  labour  market  par&cipa&on  

•   There  is  also  some  (weak)  evidence  that  par&cipa&on   amongst  older  people  has  increased  as  a  result  of  shocks  to   housing  or  financial  wealth  

§   But  probably  a  response  to  falling  expected  real  wages  too.  

Can  changes  in  the  composi&on  of  the  workforce   explain  the  fall  in  real  hourly  wages?  

•   Short  answer:  no  

–   unlike,  to  an  extent,  in  other  countries.  

•   As  in  previous  recessions,  the  composi&on  of  the  workforce  shiFed   towards  more  produc&ve  workers,    

–   hence  we  would  have  expected  the  average  real  wage  to  increase  

(other  things  being  equal).  

•   What  has  been  different  in  this  recession  is  that  the  returns  to  those   characteris&cs  have  fallen  substan&ally.  

•   This  is  true  even  amongst  workers  who  keep  their  jobs,  who  have   experienced  nominal  wage  freezes/real  wage  falls,  

–   May  have  been  facilitated  by  the  reduced  power  of  labour  market   ins&tu&ons  (e.g.  unions)  since  previous  recessions.  

Average real hourly wage by age group (RPI deflated)

18  

16  

14  

12  

10  

8  

6  

4  

2  

0  

1993   1994   1995   1996   1997   1998   1999   2000   2001   2002   2003   2004   2005   2006   2007   2008   2009   2010   2011   2012  

16-­‐17  

18-­‐25  

26-­‐35  

36-­‐45  

46-­‐55  

56-­‐64  

65+  

Average  real  hourly  wage  by  qualifica&on  among  young  people  

14.00  

12.00  

10.00  

8.00  

6.00  

4.00  

2.00  

0.00  

18-­‐21,  GCSEs  or  above  

18-­‐21,  no  GCSEs  or  equilvants  

22-­‐24,  degree  or  above  

22-­‐24,  GCSEs,  no  degrees  

22-­‐24,  no  GCSEs  

NEET  rate  among  young  people  

60%  

50%  

40%  

30%  

20%  

10%  

0%  

18-­‐21,  GCSEs  or  above  

18-­‐21,  no  GCSEs  or  equilvants  

22-­‐24,  degree  or  above  

22-­‐24,  GCSEs,  no  degrees  

22-­‐24,  no  GCSEs  

%change  to  real  hourly  wage  since  last  year,  by   period  

% facing nominal wage freeze in the coming year by current wage quintile

16%  

14%  

12%  

10%  

8%  

6%  

4%  

2%  

0%  

Lowest-­‐paid  20%   2nd  quin&le   3rd  quin&le   4th  quin&le  

Source:  New  Earnings  Survey  Panel  Dataset  1975-­‐2011.  There  are  20,000-­‐30,000  observa&ons  underlying  each  data  point.

Highest-­‐paid  20%  

More  nominal  pay  freezes  in  the  absence  of   collec&ve  agreement  since  2008  

3. Consumption

•   Expenditure  falls  have  been  deeper  than  in  previous  recessions.  

–   Note  that  the  start  of  the  fall  is  coincident  with  the  fall  in  GDP  (not   income).    

•   Unusually  expenditure  on  consumer  nondurables  has  fallen  most  

–   Especially  among  the  young  and  to  some  extent  among  the  middle   aged.  Less  for  the  old.  

–   Temporary  VAT  reduc&on?  

©  Ins&tute  for  Fiscal  Studies    

 

Non-­‐  and  semi-­‐durables  

110  

108  

106  

104  

102  

100  

98  

96  

94  

92  

90  

0   1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   16   17   18   19   20  

Quarters  since  beginning  of  recession  

1980  

1990  

2008  

©  Ins&tute  for  Fiscal  Studies    

 

Durables  

125  

120  

115  

110  

105  

100  

95  

90  

85  

80  

0   1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   16   17   18   19   20  

Quarters  since  beginning  of  recession  

1980  

1990  

2008  

©  Ins&tute  for  Fiscal  Studies    

 

Components  of  GDP  

15  

10  

5  

0  

-­‐5  

-­‐10  

-­‐15  

-­‐20  

©  Ins&tute  for  Fiscal  Studies    

 

Net  exports  

Govt.  purchases  

Consumer   durables  

Nondurable   consump&on  

Corporate   investment  

Propor&onate  Fall  in  Each  Component  

110  

105  

100  

95  

90  

85  

80  

75  

70  

65  

©  Ins&tute  for  Fiscal  Studies    

 

Govt.   purchases  

Consumer   durables  

Nondurable   consump&on  

Corporate   investment  

Consumption

•   Homeowners  have  made  the  largest  cuts.    

–   In  past  recessions  there  was  liile  difference  between  owners  and  renters.    

•   Saving  ra&os  are  lower  than  during  the  early  1980s  and  early  1990s  

–   but  haven  risen  drama&cally  since  2008  (and  pension  contribu&ons  higher).  

•   The  data  points  to  an  expecta&on  of  a  permanent  fall  in  living   standards,  

–   especially  among  the  young  and  middle-­‐aged.    

©  Ins&tute  for  Fiscal  Studies    

 

4. Summary and … Prospects …

•   What  has  driven  living  standards?    

•   Changes  in  the  labour  market  are  a  key  factor  behind  the   changes,    

–   especially  for  younger  families/singles  rela&ve  to  pensioners.  

•   Real  wages  and  employment  tell  much  of  the  story.  Benefit   changes  have  also  been  important  drivers.  

–   the  poor  employment  and  earnings  performance  of  young  adults   maps  into  big  falls  in  their  incomes  rela&ve  to  older  workers.    

•   The  con&nued  catch-­‐up  of  pensioners  rela&ve  to  working-­‐age   adults  is  in  large  part  due  to  the  sharp  falls  in  real  earnings  and   rela&vely  robust  benefit  rates.    

©  Ins&tute  for  Fiscal  Studies    

 

Simula&ons  up  to  2015–16  

2%

0%

-2%

-4%

-6%

2007–08 to 2011–12 2011–12 to 2015–16 2007–08 to 2015–16

-8%

10 20 30 40 50

Percentile point

60 70 80 90

Note:  Figure  taken  from  Brewer  et.  al.  (2013),  Fiscal  Studies,  Vol.  34,  No.  2,  June  2013,    Vol.  34,  No.  2,  pp.  179–201.  

Published  before  the  latest  HBAI  release.  The  2011–12  income  distribu&on  is    therefore  a  simula&on,  but  is  extremely   similar  to    the  actual  data.  

©  Ins&tute  for  Fiscal  Studies    

 

Employment shares of occupation groups

Note: the discontinuities in occupation classification in 2001 and 2011 have been addressed in the following way. For the conversion of SOC 1990 to SOC 2000, we look at individuals who were surveyed in 2000Q4 and 2001Q2 and stayed with the same employer and infer the transition matrix from this group. For the conversion of

SOC2010 to SOC 2000, we used the ONS two-way tabulation of the LFS 2007 Q1 sample by the major occupation groups under the two SOC systems.

 

©  Ins&tute  for  Fiscal  Studies    

 

(RPI deflated) Real wages by occupation group since 1993

Note: the low-skilled wage would end up around the 1993 level if we use CPI instead of RPI. Each log wage series is normalized to 0 in 1993.

©  Ins&tute  for  Fiscal  Studies    

 

Prospects - I

•   Younger  workers  and  families  are  ac&ng  as  if  they  expect  a  long-­‐run  fall   in  rela&ve  living  standards  

–   evidence  from  consump&on  and  saving.  

•   Real  wages,  produc&vity  and  capital  investment  have  slow  to  pick  up  

–   we  can  expect  the  paiern  of  lower  real  wages  to  con&nue,  but  with  fairly   buoyant  employment  due  to  increased  supply.    

•   Most   falls  in  real  earnings  have  happened  (but  low/no  real  growth)    

–   fiscal  contrac&on  implies  >£20  bn  year  of  benefit  cuts  by  end  of  this  parliament  

–   trends  by  age  maybe  more  durable,  e.g.  pensioner  benefits  protected  

•   The  number  of  rou&ne  jobs  near  the  middle  of  the  earnings  distribu&on   has  declined  steadily  &ll  2009  

–   more  jobs  are  now  professional  or  managerial.  In  the  late  90s  to  early  2000s,  wages   grew  fast  for  high  (and  mid-­‐skilled)  occupa&ons,  but  this  slowed  down  around  2003   and  real  wages  fell  since  2009.  

•   Suggests  longer  term  earnings  growth  will  mostly  come  from  high-­‐ skilled  occupa&ons,  with  some  at  the  very  boiom.  

Prospects - II

•   But  s&ll  much  to  do  in  focussing  on  older  workers  in  general,  on  return   to  work  for  parents/mothers,  and  on  entry  into  work.  

•   There  are  s&ll  some  poten&al  big  gains  here,  

–   for  example,  as  (higher  skilled)  women  age  in  the  workforce.  

•   Tax/welfare  reforms  to  enhance  earnings  (from   Mirrlees ):    

–   refocus  incen&ves  towards  transi&on  to  work,  return  to  work  for  lower   skilled  mothers  and  on  enhancing  incen&ves  among  older  workers.    

•   Produc&vity  is  s&ll  the  key,  

–   (financial)  capital  misalloca&on  and  poten&al  investment  returns.  

•   Human  capital  and  ‘on  the  job’  wage/produc&vity  complementarity  

–   note  the  rela&ve  importance  of  mismatch  of  entry  skills  in  the  recession.  

•   Produc&vity  and  wages  are  closely  related  but  note  recent  growth  in  the   wedge  between  labour  costs  and  hourly  wages,  

–   the  growing  importance  of  pensions  and  NI  in  the  UK,  

–   what  will  the  trends  in  this  wedge  look  like?    

Employer  contribu&ons  to  pension  funds  –  in  constant   prices  terms    

Source: Office for National Statistics

Notes: Data for Q4 2012 is not yet published so has been estimated based on Q4 2011 to Q3 2012 data

Prospects - II

•   But  s&ll  much  to  do  in  focussing  on  older  workers  in  general,  on  return   to  work  for  parents/mothers,  and  on  entry  into  work.  

•   There  are  s&ll  some  poten&al  big  gains  here,  

–   for  example,  as  (higher  skilled)  women  age  in  the  workforce.  

•   Tax/welfare  reforms  to  enhance  earnings  (from   Mirrlees ):    

–   refocus  incen&ves  towards  transi&on  to  work,  return  to  work  for  lower   skilled  mothers  and  on  enhancing  incen&ves  among  older  workers.    

•   Produc&vity  is  s&ll  the  key,  

–   (financial)  capital  misalloca&on  and  poten&al  investment  returns.  

•   Human  capital  and  ‘on  the  job’  wage/produc&vity  complementarity  

–   note  the  rela&ve  importance  of  mismatch  of  entry  skills  in  the  recession.  

•   Produc&vity  and  wages  are  closely  related  but  note  recent  growth  in  the   wedge  between  labour  costs  and  hourly  wages,  

–   the  growing  importance  of  pensions  and  NI  in  the  UK,  

–   what  will  the  trends  in  this  wedge  look  like?    

Employment  rate  by  highest  qualifica&ons  achieved,  16-­‐59  year  olds  

95%  

90%  

85%  

80%  

75%  

70%  

65%  

60%  

55%  

50%  

1992  1993  1994  1995  1996  1997  1998  1999  2000  2001  2002  2003  2004  2005  2006  2007  2008  2009  2010  2011  2012   degree  or  above   level  2  and  3   level  1  or  below  

Note: level 2 is GCSE grade C or above.

©  Ins&tute  for  Fiscal  Studies    

 

Par&cipa&on  rates  over  &me  

100.0%

90.0%

80.0%

70.0%

60.0%

50.0%

40.0%

30.0%

20.0%

10.0%

0.0%

23-64, male

23-64, female

65-84, male

65-84, female

Download