Yeah Economics!

Control Your Cash has long been an advocate of celebrating methamphetamine culture in all its forms

Control Your Cash has long been an advocate of celebrating meth culture in all its forms

 

The California TV industry has decided that it would rather do business anywhere but at home.

At one time, just about every show on the 4 major networks was filmed in California. Today just 40% of production takes place in California, down from 47% in 1997, and that percentage continues to drop as more states offer tax breaks to production companies.

45 states (and several countries) have some kind of film or TV production tax credit. Often this takes the form of a tax rebate, and sometimes the rebate is even transferable. Say a production company faces a $10,000 state tax bill and receives a production credit of $15,000. The production company can sell the remaining $5000 tax credit to a resident of that state. Of course, the buyer isn’t going to pay full price. The more tax credits on the market, the cheaper they’ll be. If the production company can get 80¢ on the dollar, it’ll receive $4000 and the buyer will save $1000 in taxes.

Is this corporate welfare or just good business? New Mexico state senator John Arthur Smith (D-Deming) thinks it’s the former:

I watched the Oscars and I have a difficult time with this, watching actresses wearing $35,000, $40,000 dresses and then we ask the taxpayers to help pay for it.

(People of Deming, your male state senator watches the Oscars and knows how to price women’s clothing.) In 2010-11, 39 movies and 3 TV series were filmed in New Mexico, including AMC’s Breaking Bad. Albuquerqueans, especially the business owners, might disagree with Senator Smith.

  • Over 7 years and 62 episodes, the production of Breaking Bad has contributed $70 million in economic activity exclusive of actor, writer and director salaries
  • The production has employed 120 people, all but 12 of them New Mexicans
  • 2 of the show’s stars (Bryan Cranston and Aaron Paul) have bought homes and lived at least part-time in area.
  • The city will use its newfound notoriety to lure tourists long after the show has gone off the air.

Massachusetts hosted 25 movies and 9 TV shows in 2010-2011. The state Department of Revenue studied the economic impact of its own production credits for 2006-08 and concluded:

  • Most tax credits went to non-residents
  • Most of the jobs created were part-time, lasting a few days to a few months
  • It cost about $88,000 in tax credits for every full-time equivalent job

Massachusetts’s tax incentives mostly take the form of straight cash payments, no or few strings attached. New Mexico tied its incentives to local investment. If you’re a production company, you can’t take full advantage of New Mexico’s incentives unless you build facilities in the state and/or hire New Mexicans.

This company that brokers tax credits for the film industry confirms that Massachusetts’s credits are more generous than New Mexico’s. That’s great news for production companies, not so much for taxpayers (nor for state residents who want to work in the film industry.)

New Mexico’s incentives include:

  • 25% rebates for any TV production company that shoots at least 6 episodes in the state and has a budget of at least $50,000 per episode. This percentage increases to 30 next year.
  • 30% rebates for feature films that use resident labor in a qualified production facility.
  • 25% rebates on all other direct production and post-production expenditures subject to New Mexico taxes. Movies must shoot at least 10 days in the state for budgets under $30 million, 15 days otherwise.

The state makes $50 million of taxpayer money available every year. Unused money remains in the fund for subsequent years.

Here are Massachusetts’s incentives:

  • 25% payroll tax credit (and sales tax exemption) on any project that spends more than $50,000 in state.
  • 25% tax credit on any project that spends most of its budget (or films most of its principal photography) in the state. This includes out-of-state purchases and equipment rentals.
  • No residency requirement.
  • The credits are transferable. If you can’t sell them, the state will buy them for 90¢ on the dollar.
  • Credits can be used for up to 5 tax years.

Did you catch that penultimate one? Why is the state in the business of buying back tax credits (at a premium to what the market would bear, no less?) Massachusetts wants to get companies to film in the state, without giving a thought to long-term goals like supporting ongoing production. The aforementioned study argued that the program was a failure, and cited incentive money being paid to non-residents as proof. Hard to imagine why, seeing as the program has no residency requirement. Two other things Massachusetts doesn’t have? Production studios and local talent.

If a state doesn’t use its tax incentives to create an environment that will bring production companies back, that state will just compete with every other state for a smaller piece. What would happen to the money if every state eliminated its production incentive program? Would taxes decrease, or would the money just be spent elsewhere?

Offering incentives without a plan is stupid. Throwing cash (other people’s, no less) around indiscriminately is no way to achieve results, largely because it makes no mention of results. Think about that the next time you give money to your kid. Or a charity. Or a street urchin.

Separate And Unequal

"I slept 35 minutes last night."

“I slept 35 minutes last night.”

In a recent Carnival of Wealth we ran a post from someone who wrote:

In an era when the 400 richest Americans account for the same amount of collective wealth as 62% of the nation’s entire population combined and the United States is the fourth most wealth-unequal country in the world, something is grievously wrong with the way income is earned, saved, and distributed.

Yes, every dollar that Dennis Washington earns is ripped from the mouth of a starving welfare baby. The author’s premise is ridiculous, but it resonates with people who still haven’t shaken off the infantile idea of fairness being a supreme attribute in any of its forms. If one person has more, and another has less, that in itself is wrong and subject to correction. Differences in effort, resourcefulness, and refraining from poor decision-making aren’t important. Only the final numbers are.

We can’t quote the author without tripping over the clunky phrase “fourth most wealth-unequal country”, and wonder if being the 195th most wealth-unequal country would be something worth striving for.

When the people at the bottom have a decent standard of living (and in no other country is it better to be poor than the United States), why is what the people at the top make important? Does Donald Trump’s conspicuous consumption – or even a Kardashian’s – impact your or anyone else’s ability to get ahead? Instead of comparing countries, which requires more data than is readily available, let’s compare two subsets of the population with vast differences in their respective income variances: on the one hand, commercial truck drivers and on the other, NBA players.

Here’s what commercial truck drivers make, more or less. We don’t have salary numbers for individuals, given that there are tens of thousands of them, but this is the best we can do:

truck driver salaries

The seasoned drivers make only 39% more than the rookies, and isn’t that a just and equitable scenario that all of society and by extension all of the world should try to emulate? That the rookies are making barely enough to live on is not our problem. In this example we have fairness, or something close to it.

Now, let’s look at what NBA players make. Here are the ten best-paid players in the league. Yes, 8 of them make more than LeBron:

NBA top salaries

And here are the ten lowest paid players, restricting ourselves to full-timers (guys who have been in the league all year, as opposed to being on 10-day contracts):

 NBA bottom salaries

They all make league minimum, a number mandated by the league’s collective bargaining agreement.

You see the stinking injustice here? Kobe Bryant makes 59 times what Khris Middleton makes, an obscene state of affairs that’s emblematic of an undeniably American phenomenon, capitalism planting its pivot foot on the throats of the downtrodden.

Khris Middleton makes half a million dollars a year, an amount that almost anyone reading this (and as a group, y’all are not exactly poor) would gladly exchange for her current salary. We don’t know for sure, but we’re also guessing that if you brought up the topic of income inequality to Khris Middleton, he’d either laugh at you or walk away. He’s a bench player who bounces to the D-League and back, while Kobe Bryant has a handful of championship rings and is one of the 8 greatest players who ever lived. The one can make tens of millions of dollars’ difference to his team’s bottom line, while the other is where he is largely due to roster requirements. Fans go out of their way to patronize the former, offering their money as part of the deal. Fans barely know the latter exists. No rational person thinks that this subgroup of the economy should have its workers making identical or nearly identical wages. And no one’s complaining, because the guys at the bottom are doing just fine.

But isn’t it far preferable to have an economy, or a segment of such, in which some people make $13 an hour and others make $18? We’re not qualified to answer: again, you should probably ask the people at the bottom.

Nothing in life is normally distributed. Not athletic ability, not higher-order intelligence, not a capacity for earning money. More importantly, some people enjoy making bad decisions. Look at the poorest of the poor wherever you live (you’ll find them on street corners, drinking MD 20/20 out of paper bags) and ask them if they ever smoked, enjoyed drugs, bought lottery tickets, got neck tattoos, flipped off the boss man, showed up to work late, made the minimum monthly payments on their credit cards, or had kids when they were in no condition to do so.

Now, if you can get past the security guards and high fences, ask the richest people in your town the same thing. Income inequality is a wonderful thing, within reason. (The kind practiced by Kim Jong-Un is a little over the top.) Forget the notion of wealth in our society being “distributed”, like pillows and sleeping bags at camp. Wealth is earned, squandered, built upon, and leveraged. It being “distributed” implies the existence of a Distributor, benevolent or otherwise, whose job it is to see that everyone gets an appropriate share. Which sounds tempting – you don’t have to do anything, just sit there and collect.

One of our favorite quotes about money is by Thomas Sowell. Paraphrasing, he said that if you could wave a magic wand and instantly double everyone’s net worth, some people would be against it because it would increase the gap between rich and poor.

Why We Need a $50-an-Hour Minimum Wage

And a shiny hat, to boot

And a shiny hat, to boot

 

It’s simple, really. In a progressive society, everyone needs a basic level of sustenance. A $9/hour minimum wage as proposed by the President, although a step in the right direction, means a mere $18,000 for someone working 40-hour weeks with 2 weeks’ vacation. That’s hardly enough to sustain any kind of lifestyle, especially for people with children. Especially for people with multiple children. $18,000 is a step up from the current $14,500 a full-time minimum wage earner would make, but it’s nowhere near enough.

Our proposal – $50/hour – guarantees the dishwashers and housekeepers of Our Great Nation at least $100,000 a year. Every man a king, right? Why should internists and litigators be the only ones to benefit from 6-digit incomes? A sharp, sudden jump in the minimum wage would finally bring the equality that most politicians only pay lip service to. $50/hour (and remember, that’s just a minimum. Employers are encouraged to pay more) is the difference between a society of wildly disparate incomes, and a society in which no one, no matter their education level or background, ever has to do without again. Furthermore, a 6-fold increase in the minimum wage will spur consumer spending and make the economy hum again. With more money in their pockets, the working classes will have more for outlays, getting the money circulating and creating greater prosperity for all. It’s just good business sense. Politicians of both parties need to reach a bipartisan consensus on this and pass meaningful reform, right away. No more half measures.

(We couldn’t expand this post to regular length and keep it fully satirical. Time to go earnest on you.)

Reality time. A wage isn’t just remuneration that an employer decides to pay you. It’s a function of your worth to said employer – how much you can bring in. Johnny Depp’s next endeavor is allegedly worth $90 million. If that’s true, will he receive such a windfall just for being that much more breathtakingly handsome and charismatic than your average minimum-wage worker? No, or the person writing these lines would be making at least as much. Johnny Depp commands that kind of money because the previous 5 movies in his current series have grossed $2.8 billion on a budget of barely a billion. For whatever reason, millions of people like to see him on screen. If those numbers are legitimate, the $90 million might even be on the stingy side.

The franchisee who runs the Burger King that you work at isn’t paying you $7.25 an hour to man the counter because he’s cheap. (He might be, but that’s beside the point.) He’s doing it because that’s all you’re worth. Granted, you’re not “bringing in” money in as direct a way as Johnny Depp is, but your position still has value. Consider the alternative; not having someone on the premises to take customers’ orders.

Say the $50/hour minimum wage was enacted. Then what? That franchisee would have to raise prices to the point that he could cover his employees’ new salaries yet continue to make something of a profit. Even if you think profits are evil, he might still need to recoup $1.2 million in startup costs. But no one’s going to pay $17.50 for a patty on a bun, meaning the franchisee would have to close up shop and lay off his entire staff, raising the unemployment rate that much more.

A $9/hour minimum wage differs from a $50/hour minimum wage only in degree, not in kind. Raise a job’s wage beyond whatever the market clearing price is, and at some point that job becomes no longer economical.

The pro-increase forces have managed to convince a gullible public (ah, but we repeat ourselves) that the average minimum-wage earner is an exhausted single mother with 5 kids, living in the projects, of darker complexion than your average U.S. senator, and just trying to make a go of it in a system that’s stacked against her. Multiply her by tens of millions, and that’s Obama’s Bush’s America. Welcome to dystopia.

It’s a load of crap. You know how many true minimum-wage jobs there are in this country?

1.7 million. Which means 99.3% of people in the workforce are making something more than minimum wage.

Furthermore, most of those 1.7 million are under the age of 25. And almost all of those are teenagers.

You turn 14, your parents stop handing you things, and you start earning your own money. It’s called growing up. And so at the onset of your work career, you make very little money. Why? Because you’re one step above useless, and you haven’t developed any skills. But it’s OK. You’re not supposed to have developed any skills, because you’re 14. Also, you’re not paying for room and board. If anything, we should be lowering the minimum wage. There are plenty of kids who’d be happy to have a little extra cash for swinging a mop and a bucket, but who can’t because prospective employers would rather hand the job off to an unpaid family member than hire someone at $7.25 an hour.