The Magical World Where McDonald’s Pays $15 an Hour? It’s Australia | The Atlantic

Jordan Weissmann compares wages paid to McDonalds workers in Australia and the US, raising four interesting points.

Firstly, McDonalds (or “Maccas” if we use its colloquial name in Australia) is profitable in both low-wage and high-wage countries:

The land down under is, of course, not the only high-wage country in the world where McDonald’s does lucrative business. The company actually earns more revenue out of Europe than it does from the United States. France, with its roughly $12.00 hourly minimum, has more than 1,200 locations. Australia has about 900.

They achieve this partly through higher prices, but also through adjusting their staff structure in Australia.

The country allows lower pay for teenagers, and the labor deal McDonald’s struck with its employees currently pays 16-year-olds roughly US$8-an-hour, not altogether different from what they’d make in the states. In an email, Greg Bamber, a professor at Australia’s Monash University who has studied labor relations in the country’s fast food industry, told me that as a result, McDonald’s relies heavily on young workers in Australia. It’s a specific quirk of the country’s wage system. But it goes to show that even in generally high-pay countries, restaurants try to save on labor where they can.

They also focus on increased productivity.

It stands to reason that in places like Europe and Australia, managers have found ways to get more mileage out of their staff as well. Or if not, they’ve at least managed to replace a few of them with computers. As Michael Schaefer, an analyst with Euromonitor International, told me, fast food franchises in Europe have been some of the earliest adopters of touchscreen kiosks that let customers order without a cashier. As always, the peril of making employees more expensive is that machines become cheaper in comparison.

That is one of the primary dangers of high minimum wages: automation is used to improve employee productivity and shrink the required workforce. Shrinking the national wage bill might seem like good business sense, but if we look at this on a macro scale, reduced incomes lead to reduced consumption and falling sales.

Finally, McDonald’s have attempted to add value to their product range, moving slightly more up-market in order to capture higher prices.

McDonald’s has also helped its bottom line abroad by experimenting with higher margin menu items while trying to court more affluent customers. Way back in 1993, for instance, Australia became home to the first McCafe coffee shops, which sell highly profitable espresso drinks. During the last decade, meanwhile, the company gave its European restaurants a designer make-over and began offering more localized menus meant to draw a higher spending crowd.

If we take McDonald’s as a microcosm of the entire economy, the trade-offs and benefits (or lack thereof) are evident. Funding wage hikes out of increased prices (for the same quality products) is futile. It adds no benefit: the increased wage is eroded by higher prices. Reduced wages for younger workers simply disadvantages older workers, excluding them from certain jobs. Increased productivity — higher sales per employee — on the other hand, can benefit the entire economy.

Improved training or increased automation may increase output, but run the risk of shrinking the jobs pool — unless new jobs created in training or manufacturing are sufficient to offset this. Product innovation, on the other hand, is an immediate win, raising sales while encouraging job growth in new support industries.

How do we encourage product innovation? Higher minimum wages is not the answer. Nor, on its own, is increased investment in research and education. What is needed is a focus on international competitiveness: reducing red tape, ensuring basic goods and services such as electricity, water, shipping and transport are competitively priced, lowering taxes and stabilizing exchange rates. That would encourage the establishment of new industry locally rather than exporting skills and know-how to foreign shores. We need a culture of innovation and entrepreneurship, rather than lip-service from politicians.

Read more at The Magical World Where McDonald's Pays $15 an Hour? It's Australia – Jordan Weissmann – The Atlantic.

Henry Thornton | The recession we did not need to have

Henry Thornton expresses his opinion on the grim state of the Australian economy:

The Reserve Bank is widely expected to cut interest rates today. The economy is facing such a grim future that one can support such an outcome. But no-one, not even the Reserve Bank, is facing the main problem facing Australia, which is double-digit cost disequilibrium – a severe lack of international competitiveness.

Just like Treasury’s failure to be ahead of the curve in forecasting, the Reserve Bank’s apparent failure to understand our most important economic problem is bad news for all Australians….

Read more at Henry Thornton – The recession we did not need to have.

Hat tip to Houses & Holes at Macrobusiness.com.au.

China exports

Shipping rates for container vessels remain at depressed levels, close to the lows of 2009, according to the The Harper Petersen Index from ship brokers Harper Petersen & Co. This reflects the depressed level of global trade in manufactured goods. Major exporters like China are the most severely affected.

Harper Petersen Index

How urban Chinese workers helped cause the great recession | Quartz

Hillary Rosner describes how the inflow of savings from China contributed to the US sub-prime crisis:

“The foreign reserve holdings of U.S. Dollars,” the researchers write, “which had been at less than 11% of U.S. GDP prior to 2000, grew rapidly after 2002; in fact they almost doubled over the 5-year period from 2002 to 2007.”

Read more at How urban Chinese workers helped cause the great recession – Quartz.

EconoMonitor » Beijing’s New Leaders Are Right to Hold Back

Michael Pettis argues that China cannot stimulate its economy out of trouble:

There are still bulls out there who insist that China is out of the woods and making a strong recovery, for example former Deputy Governor of the Reserve Bank of Australia, Stephen Grenville, who argues in his article strangely titled China doomsayers run out of arguments:

“The missing element from the low growth narrative is that unemployment would rise, provoking a stimulatory policy response. China would extend the transition and put up with low-return investment recall that when unemployment was the issue, Keynes was prepared to put people to work digging holes and filling them in rather than have unemployment rise sharply. To be convincing, the low-growth scenario needs to explain why this policy response will not be effective.”

It seems to me that the reason why simply “provoking a stimulatory policy response” won’t help China has been explained many times, even recently by former China bulls. Of course more stimulus will indeed cause GDP growth to pick up, as Grenville notes, but it will do so by exacerbating the gap between the growth in debt and the growth in debt-servicing capacity. Because too much debt and a huge amount of overvalued assets is precisely the problem facing China, it is hard to believe that spending more borrowed money on increasing already excessive capacity can possibly be a useful resolution of slower Chinese growth.

Read more at EconoMonitor : EconoMonitor » Beijing’s New Leaders Are Right to Hold Back.

Finally, Bank Regulators Have Had Enough | ProPublica

Jesse Eisinger observes US bank reactions to efforts to raise their minimum capital requirements. Many argue that the new rules will harm their competiveness.

Jamie Dimon, the chief executive of JPMorgan, raised the ominous specter that global rules are out of “harmonization” and that United States banks are now held to a higher standard.

“We have one part of the world at two times what the other part of the world is talking about,” he said. “And I don’t think there’s any industry out there that would be comfortable with something like that in a long run.”

To rebut that, I bring in a banking expert: Jamie Dimon. This side of Mr. Dimon’s mouth has repeatedly boasted about what a competitive advantage JPMorgan’s “fortress balance sheet” is, how the bank was a port in the 2008 storm…….

By raising capital standards and installing tougher derivatives rules, regulators are helping banks that are too foolish (or rather, the top executives who are too narrowly self-interested in increasing their own compensation in the short term) to recognize their own interests.

Increasing bank capital requirements would lower their perceived risk and decrease their cost of capital, giving them an advantage over international rivals with less stringent standards.

Read more at Finally, Bank Regulators Have Had Enough – ProPublica.

Canadian housing bubble looks ripe for popping | Toronto Star

Adam Peterson writes the Canadian housing bubble is headed for a “slow-motion” crash:

My gravest concern is that Canada is fast approaching a 5:1 home-price-to-income ratio, a benchmark achieved by the U.S. at the peak in 2006. Since the correction, the U.S. ratio now hovers at approximately 3:1.

To compound the problem, household debt in Canada has breached 150 per cent of income and continues in the wrong direction; households are not cushioned against a blow.

Australian household debt is also hovering around 150% of disposable income.

Australian household debt to disposable income

While the price-to-income ratio varies between 4 and more than 6 depending on whether you use national averages or median data.
Australian house price-to-income ratio

Read more at Canadian housing bubble looks ripe for popping | Toronto Star.

US banks face tougher capital requirements

Yalman Onaran and Jesse Hamilton at Bloomberg report on a new joint proposal by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., Federal Reserve and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency:

The biggest U.S. banks, after years of building equity, may continue hoarding profits instead of boosting dividends as they face stricter capital rules than foreign competitors.

The eight largest firms, including JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) and Morgan Stanley (MS), would need to retain capital equal to at least 5 percent of assets, while their banking units would have to hold a minimum of 6 percent, U.S. regulators proposed yesterday. The international equivalent, ignoring the riskiness of assets, is 3 percent. The banks have until 2018 to fully comply.

The U.S. plan goes beyond rules approved by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision to prevent a repeat of the 2008 crisis, which almost destroyed the financial system. The changes would make lenders fund more assets with capital that can absorb losses instead of using borrowed money. Bankers say this could trigger asset sales and hurt their ability to lend, hamstringing the nation’s economic recovery.

While the authors term the new regulations “harsh” on bankers and likely to freeze bank lending, existing lax capital requirements give bankers a free ride at the expense of the taxpayer. Their claims are baseless:

  • existing bank leverage is way too high for a stable financial system;
  • US banks are flush with funds, holding more than $1.8 trillion in excess reserves on deposit with the Fed and $2.6 trillion invested in Treasuries and quasi-government mortgage-backed securities, so talk of a lending freeze is farcical;
  • banks can function just as well with equity funding as with deposit funding;
  • higher capital ratios will make it cheaper for banks to raise additional capital as lower leverage will reduce the risk premium.

So why are bankers squealing so loudly? In a nutshell: bonuses. Higher capital requirements and no free ride at taxpayers’ expense would mean that shareholders claim a bigger slice of the pie, with less left over for management bonuses.

For a detailed rebuttal of bankers’ claims see Anat Admati and Martin Hellwig.

The big four Australian banks should take note. They currently maintain between 4.1% (CBA) and 4.5% (WBC) of capital against lending exposure. Raising the ratio to 6.0% would require 33% to 50% new capital.

Read more at U.S. Banks Seen Freezing Payouts Under Harsh Leverage Rule – Bloomberg.

Basel committee willing to rethink complex bank rules | FT.com

Brooke Masters reports:

The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision said in a discussion paper released on Monday that it shares the concern of critics who believe the main measure of bank safety – the core tier one capital ratio – is too complicated and makes it difficult to compare banks.

Its own research shows banks are using wildly different models to calculate the risk-weighted assets that make up the denominator of the ratio, resulting in some institutions holding 40 per cent less capital against the same kinds of banking assets as their peers.

Read more at Basel committee willing to rethink complex bank rules – FT.com.