LABOR REPORT ON THE STATE OF FLORIDA

September 2, 2002 (Labor Day)

by Bruce Nissen

Center for Labor Research and Studies

Florida International University

Miami, Florida 33199

305-348-2616

nissenb@fiu.edu

This report is available on the web at http://www.fiu.edu/~clrs . Click on "publications", then click on the 2002 Labor Report on the State of Florida.

I. Florida Economy Uncertain and Stagnant

On Labor Day 2002, Florida's economy is experiencing some trouble. The unemployment rate was 5.1% (seasonally adjusted) in June of 2002, up from the year before but still below the national average of 5.9%. Total non-agricultural employment for June was virtually unchanged from a year earlier, again doing slightly better than the national average. The events of Sept. 11, 2001 hit Florida's tourism industry especially hard, although there has been some rebound.

II. Florida incomes

Incomes of Florida residents have been rising, although not quite as rapidly as for the nation as a whole. 2001 Florida per capita income was $28,493, 94.1% of the U.S. average. This represents a 9.2% increase in real (inflation adjusted) income over 1991, which is less rapid growth than for the nation as a whole. Florida per capita income is still above average for the nation's southeast region, but it is losing ground on this measure also.

Median income for a family of four in Florida was $55,351 in 2000 (the latest year for which statistics are available), or 88.9% of the U.S. average. This placed Florida 37^th of the 50 states, down from 35^th the year before.

III. Wages in Florida

For working people in Florida, the trend in wages is more important than trends in income. This is because income figures also include non-wage forms of payment such as returns from investments and pensions. Looking at wages, Florida appears slightly worse than it does in income terms. In the year 2000 (the latest year for which data are available), the Florida average yearly wage was $30,549, only 86.5% of the national average.

Similarly, the median hourly wage for all workers paid by the hour in the state in 2001 was $9.64/hour, or 94.8% of the U.S. average. This is also lower than the median hourly wage for the states of the South Atlantic Region, which was $10.02/hr. Adjusted for inflation, Florida median hourly rates in 2001 exceeded 1989 levels ( the peak year of the last business cycle) by only 5.4%. In constant 2001 dollars they changed from $9.15/hour to $9.64/hour in that twelve year period.

IV. Low Income Workers, Inequality, and Poverty

Florida has a large concentration of workers earning very low wages. As of 2001, 3.2% of the state's workers earned less than the national minimum wage ($5.15/hour), and 3.7% earned either the minimum wage or less. This is much higher than the national averages (2.2% and 3.1%) and somewhat higher than the regional averages (2.7% and 3.2%).

The number of Florida workers earning less than $8.00 per hour (well below the poverty level for a family of four) was also high. Twenty nine and a half percent (29.5%) of Florida workers were at this level of the "working poor" -- higher than either the national or regional averages.

An April 2002 study of Florida found that inequality grew from the late-1970s to the late-1990s, but had remained relatively unchanged from the late 1980s on. As of the late 1990s, Florida had greater income inequality between the richest fifth and middle fifth of its population than 40 of the 50 states, and greater inequality between the richest fifth and poorest fifth than 32 other states.

Despite these low wages, Florida has very recently been moving itself out of the "high poverty" category. In 1999 and previous years, the state had a higher poverty rate than the U.S. as a whole. But in 1999-2000 (the latest two year dates for which information is available), Florida's average poverty level was 11.5% of the population, identical to the national average. In the year 2000 Florida actually moved below the national average for poverty: 10.6% compared to a national rate of 11.3%. If this drop in the poverty should hold up in subsequent years, it would be a most welcome development for our state.

V. Workplace Conditions and Government Worker Protections

Income is not the only measure of worker well-being. The way employees are treated in the workplace and government policies which protect workers are also important. On this score, Florida rates poorly. The state is one of only seven in the nation that has no minimum wage for workers not covered by the national minimum wage. Florida's unemployment laws are written so restrictively that it has among the lowest percentage of unemployed qualifying for benefits in the nation. The state ranks low in the number of worker protection statutes.

Health insurance is important to all workers and their families. In 2000 (latest year for which data are available), 17.3% of Florida residents had no coverage; only seven states had a higher non-coverage rate. Florida's private health insurance coverage is also low: ninth worst of all states in the nation.

Unions are perhaps the primary mechanism for U.S. workers to raise their living and working standards. Therefore, the condition of unions within a state is another indicator of worker well-being. For all workers in 2001, Florida's unionization rate was 6.6% of eligible workers, ranking the state 4^3rd out of the 50 states. In the private sector, the rate was 3.5%, 48^th in the nation. Floridia public sector workers were 26.6% unionized, closer to the national average of 37.4%. State government policy is generally hostile to unions - a "right-to-work" provision in Florida's constitution ensures that workers covered by a union contract need not pay their union dues.

Florida is traditionally considered a "low tax" state, but this is not an accurate reflection of reality. In 2002 Florida's total tax burden on its citizens was 32.2%, making it the 15^th highest in the nation. Because Florida has no income tax (which is deductible on one's federal tax forms), its tax structure collects less money than average, yet imposes a higher tax burden than average. This is because state income taxes are deductible on one's federal tax return, but Florida lacks this deduction. Thus Florida is, overall, a "high tax" state - it just doesn't get most of those taxes, which go to the federal government. Furthermore, working people and those in the lower income brackets pay a disproportionate percentage of the taxes that are collected, because the structure is highly regressive (meaning the wealthy pay less as a share of their income than lower income taxpayers). Several studies have found the state's taxes to be among the most regressive in the nation.

Florida's public policies are much less favorable than those of most states with regard to workers. This is part of a longer term history in the state, where "cheap land, low taxes, and low wages" have been used to sell the state to investors.

VI. How Florida's Counties are Faring

This report gives data on all 67 of Florida's counties, on a variety of measures: employment, unemployment, wages, and poverty. The reader can compare counties with the state as a whole, the nation, and each other.

VII. How Florida's Metropolitan Areas are Faring

This report also gives similar data on Florida's Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs), allowing the reader to compare all 20 MSAs on a number of indices of worker well-being.

VIII. Public Policy: What Might the State Do About Substandard Conditions?

Through a variety of calculations, this study shows that the dependence of the Florida economy on tourism makes it overly reliant on industries that pay below average wages. Compared to a "normal" state, we have an excess of jobs in hotel/lodging, retail trade, and amusement and recreation. All of these pay wages substantially below the state average, and they have large numbers of workers earning less than $7 an hour.

To address this problem, this report recommends three new measures beyond what is currently being attempted. First, the state could provide low income workers with an Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). (An EITC is a tax rebate, or a check if no taxes or less taxes than the size of the rebate are owed, to low income wage earners). The federal government EITC is considered the most effective federal program to lift families and children out of poverty. Even though it has no state income tax, Florida could provide a supplemental EITC check equal to 50% of federal one to Florida resident federal income tax filers.

Second, the state could enact a state minimum wage covering all workers, including those escaping coverage under the national minimum wage (agricultural workers, restaurant workers, workers in very small establishments, etc.). If the minimum were set at $6.00 per hour, many low wage workers would benefit directly with extremely minimal disemployment effects.

A third legislative measure recommended is a state "living wage" law requiring the state to set a "public example" by legislating that its own employees and the employees of its service contractors be paid above the poverty level for a family of four, and that they be provided health insurance or its monetary equivalent.

IX. Conclusion

Florida's economy is unstable as of Labor Day 2002. Unemployment is still below the national level, and the state is faring better than some others. But employment growth is very sluggish, and tourism has not fully recovered from the events of September 11, 2001. Real per capita income has been growing slightly, albeit less rapidly than for the nation as a whole.

Florida's workers are faring worse than the economy as a whole. Florida is a low income and (even more so) a low wage state, with a disproportionate number and percentage of low wage jobs. On a variety of non-wage issues, from minimum wage policy, unemployment compensation policy, health insurance coverage, unionization, tax policy, and statutory protections of workers, Florida is also inferior to national norms.

Florida's public policies could address all of these issues, but this report's recommendations address only the low wage issue. Florida could (1) enact an Earned Income Tax Credit for low wage workers, (2) enact a statewide minimum wage covering all workers in the state, and (3) enact a state living wage law to cover state workers and workers for state contractors. All three would have a beneficial impact on the state and its workers. The state's current political climate is hostile to at least two and possibly all three of these suggestions, however. Yet the problem of low wages will persist and probably worsen unless active measures are taken. The state could do a lot better by its working people and especially its least favored laborers, but may lack the political will to do so.

I. Florida Economy Experiencing Trouble

On Labor Day 2002, Florida's economy is showing signs of stagnation and uncertainty about the future. The June 2002 unemployment rate (seasonally adjusted) was 5.1%, an increase of a half percentage point over a year earlier. This rate was below the national average of 5.9%. Large gains in service jobs were partially offset by losses in tourist-related industries (down 6%) and amusement and recreation (down 3.4%) (July 19, 2002 FL Employment and Unemployment press releases, FL Agency for Workforce Innovation).

Total non-agricultural employment in the state was virtually unchanged from a year earlier, at 7,163,200. A decline of 2/10 of 1% in jobs was still better than national figures, where non-agricultural employment was down 1% over the twelve months from June 2001 to June 2002. (July 19, 2002 FL Employment and Unemployment press releases, FL Agency for Workforce Innovation).

The events of September 11, 2001 hit the tourist industry hard, impacting on the Florida economy, which is heavily dependent on this sector. There has been a degree of rebound, but the effect still lingers. The Federal Reserve Board noted in late July that economic activity in Florida and its neighboring states was "sluggish" (Federal Reserve Board - Sixth District - Atlanta, "The Beige Book", July 31, 2002).

Despite the sluggish growth, Florida's unemployment rate remains below that of the nation - a situation that has been true since 1995. Thus one would expect that workers in the state would be faring reasonably well. Fairly low unemployment rates traditionally mean better wages and conditions for workers.

II. Incomes in Florida

Per capita income levels in Florida have been growing. In 2001 (the latest year for which statistics are available), per capita income in Florida was $28,493 (preliminary estimate), almost a 42% increase over the 1991 level. (These figures are not adjusted for inflation; if we do adjust for inflation and compute the real increase in purchasing power, the increase for the entire decade 1991-2001 is only 9.2%, or less than 1% per year). Florida's 2001 per capita income is 94.1% of the U.S. average ($30,271) for that year (website: http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/regional/data.htm ). Even though state per capita income was below the U.S. average, 25 other states had lower averages, placing Florida 25^th out of all 50 states on this measure.

Florida's per capita income was gaining on the U.S. average each decade until the 1990s. In that decade it fell backward and failed to regain its ground in 2001, as shown in Table 1.

Source: website: http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/regional/data.htm (*Note that 2001 figures are preliminary estimates)

And, as noted above, Florida failed to regain ground in 2001, when it's per capita income ($28,493) remained slightly over 94% of the U.S. average ($30,271).

While Florida did less well on per capita income in the 1990s than the nation as a whole, it finally did raise real incomes in the final years of that decade. By the end of the decade, Florida per capita incomes were 7.6% higher in 2000 than in 1990. This is an extremely poor showing, given the strong and uninterrupted economic growth for that decade, but it is better performance than was evident in the first half of the decade, when incomes actually dropped.

While it is slightly below the national average, the Florida per capita personal income is higher than the average for the region of the country to which it belongs (the Southeast region, comprising twelve states: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia). This region has become the poorest in the nation, and yet Florida's per capita income advantage over the region is decreasing each decade. A further decrease occurred in 2001. Table 2 shows the progression of Florida's per capita income, compared to its regional neighbors:

Source: Website http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/regional/data.htm (*Note that 2001 figures are preliminary estimates)

Median income for a Florida family of four (meaning income where half earn more and half earn less) was $55,351 in 2000, the latest year for which statistics are available. (Website: http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/4person.html) This is 88.9% of the national average ($62,228), which places the state 37^nd out of the nation's 50 states, dropping from 35 ^th the year before and 32^nd the year before that. The state's recent deterioration on this measure, relative to the nation and the region, is even more marked than is its relative decline in per capital income.

Of the 12 states in the Southeast Atlantic region seven had lower family of four median incomes (Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee, and West Virginia). Four had a higher one: Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia. Thus, Florida is slightly above average (5^th out of 12) in the lowest waged region of the country, and below average for the country as a whole.

In the decade 1990-2000, Florida's median 4-person family income slipped some in the mid- 1990s (1991-1996), and once again fell in 2000 after regaining some ground. Whether the backsliding in 2000 was a temporary aberration or part of a longer trend remains to be seen as more recent figures come out. Table 3 shows the relevant figures for the eleven years of 1990 through 2000.

Source: Website http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/4person.html

III. Wages in Florida

For working people in Florida, the trends in wages and salaries are more important than trends in income. Simple income figures include retirement, investment, and other non-wage forms of payment, thereby obscuring the actual conditions of those working for a living. This is especially true in Florida, because of the disproportionate share of the state's population composed of wealthy retirees living off pensions and investment income (dividends, interest, and rents). Therefore income figures tend to overstate well being compared to the living standards of working individuals and families.

The degree to which per capita income figures distort the wage picture should be apparent from the state's rankings in the amount of per capita income it receives in dividends, interest, rent, and retirement income. In 2000 the state was second in the nation in per capita dividend income ($1,949 per capita vs. a national average of $1,344). It was third in the nation in per capita income from combined dividends, interest and rent ($7,005 vs. a national average of $5,389). And it was eighth highest in the nation in per capita retirement (and other) income ($3,840 vs. a national average of $3,343). ( http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/regional/data.htm)

Turning to wages and salaries, Florid tends to look comparatively worse than it does in income terms. In the year 2000, the Florida annual average pay was $30,549 (Website: ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/atlanta/aapse.txt). This is only 86.5% of the national average, well below the state's 94.1% ratio of Florida per capita income compared to the national average.

In median hourly wage for workers paid by the hour, Florida climbs back into the mid-90s percentile compared to the U.S. as a whole. In 2001 (the latest year for which data are available), it was $9.64/hour, 94.8% of the national figure of $10.17/hour. Florida was also below the average for the South Atlantic region, which was $10.02/hour. (The South Atlantic region, which is not identical to the Southeast Region used by the Census Bureau in earlier figures, is used by the Bureau of Labor Statistics for comparisons. It is composed of: Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia). Detailed comparison with individual states in this region is impossible because most regional states are not large enough to produce samples big enough for statistically reliable results.

Compared to the peak year of the last business cycle, 1989, median hourly wages in Florida for workers paid by the hour took until 1999 to catch up to and surpass their previous levels in real terms (after numbers are adjusted for inflation). Converting all wage rates to year 2001 dollars, Table 4 shows the wage changes from 1989-2001 for Florida, the South Atlantic Region, and the United States:

Hourly wage rates in constant 2001 dollars for workers paid by the hour, Florida, South Atlantic Region, and the United States, 1989-2001

Source: Calculations from U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, unpublished data from the Current Population Survey, Table A-21, relevant years. Consumer Price Index figures were used to adjust wages to 2001 dollars.

As is apparent from Table 4, Florida shared wage trends with the South Atlantic Region and the United States as a whole in the 1990s: real wages fell through 1997 or 1998, only catching up to previous wage levels in 1999. Given the rapid expansion and growing wealth of the decade, this is an unparalleled poor showing for hourly workers. Virtually all of the wealth created in that decade went to sectors other than hourly workers.

IV. Low-income Workers and Inequality

One of the major problems for Florida workers is the state's extreme inequality of wage levels. A disproportionate share of the state's workers earn very low wages. As of 2001 3.2% of the state's workers earned less than the national minimum wage ($5.15/hour), and 3.7% earned at or below the minimum wage. This is much worse than either the national or regional averages on both scores, as shown in Table 5.

Percentage of workers earning below the minimum wage , or at or below the minimum wage, Florida compared to the South Atlantic Region and the U.S. as a whole, 2001

STATE, REGION % BELOW MIN. WAGE % AT OR BELOW MIN. WAGE

Source: calculated from unpublished data in the Bureau of Labor Statistics CPS Table A-21

Workers can earn less than the national minimum wage because certain categories of workers (e.g., agricultural workers, waiters and waitresses, workers in extremely small businesses, etc.) are exempted from the minimum wage. Earning less than the minimum wage meant that someone working full time for a complete year would earn less than $10,700.

If we add to these sub-minimum wage workers the other low wage workers earning less than $8.00 per hour, fully 29.5% of Florida workers in 2001 were at this level of the "working poor." Again, this is worse than the national and regional averages, as shown in Table 6.

Percentage of workers earning less than $8.00 per hour in Florida compared to the South Atlantic

STATE, REGION PERCENTAGE EARNING $7.99/HR OR LESS

Source: calculated from unpublished data in the Bureau of Labor Statistics CPS Table A-21

The almost 30% of Florida workers who are earning less than $8.00 per hour are earning less than $16,620 a year, even if they work full time year round. The official U.S. poverty level for a family of four in 2001 was $17,761 per year, more than $1,100 higher than the income of these workers. An April 2002 study by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities found that inequality in the state had increased from the late 1970s to the late 1990s, but had remained essentially unchanged from the late 1980s to the late 1990s. The state's poorest 20% of families saw their incomes increase in the late 1970s to late 1990s period at less than half the rate of increase for the top 20%. As of the late 1990s, Florida had greater income inequality between the richest fifth and middle fifth than 40 of the 50 states, and greater inequality between the richest fifth and poorest fifth than 32 other states (Website: http://www.cbpp.org/4-23-02sfp-states.htm).

Despite these low wages, Florida has very recently been moving itself out of the "high poverty" category. In 1999 and previous years, the state had a higher poverty rate than the U.S. as a whole. Frequently the data were averaged over a two or three year period by the U.S. Census Bureau, to make for more reliable statistics. In 1999-2000 (the latest two year dates for which information is available), Florida's average poverty level was 11.5% of the population. This was identical to the national average, and Florida was tied with North Dakota in having the 19^th - 20^th highest poverty rate of the 50 states. On this measure Florida fared better than nine of the twelve states in the Southeast region in that two year period. Figures are given in Table 7, from lowest poverty to highest poverty states..

Source: Website http://census.gov/hhes/poverty/poverty00/tables00.html

By the year 2000, Florida had actually moved to a lower poverty rate than that for the U.S.

as a whole. In that year, the federal poverty rate was 11.3%, while it was down to 10.6% in Florida ( http://ferret.bls.census.gov/macro/032001/pov/new25_001.htm ). The figure for this one year is less reliable (i.e., the possible "sampling error" is much larger because of the smaller numbers sampled). Nevertheless, if this drop in the poverty rate should hold up in subsequent years, it would be a most welcome development for our state.

All of the above statistics are conventional data obtained from U.S. government agencies or the Florida workforce website. In the year 2000 the Census Bureau conducted a "Supplementary Survey" throughout the year which also provides data concerning economic well being in the state. The survey's results show Florida to be worse off than above figures would indicate. (Differences in numbers come from differences in survey design and data collection). The percentage of people living in poverty in 2000 was found to be 13.4%, well above the 11.5% for 1999-2000 given in Table 7 above. This was the 16^th highest state rate in the nation. Per capita income was found to be $21,175, well below the $27,764 given for that year in Table 2. Whatever the sources of the discrepancies (and they are rather large), all of the data show Florida to be a relatively low income state, although not one of the very worst in the nation. (For a table presenting the results of the Supplementary Survey, go to the website: http://factfinder.census.gov and click on the link to "Decennial Supplementary Surveys".)

On Labor Day 2002 Florida's working people are not doing too well economically, although the recent drop in poverty is very welcome. Yet, by most measures, the state is below national standards of economic well-being for its working population.

V. Workplace Conditions and Government Worker Protections

Income is not the only measure of worker well-being. Also important are the way employees are treated in the workplace and government policies which protect workers. Therefore in this section we rate the state of Florida on a number of other dimensions. For many of these the material facts have not changed appreciably since last year's Labor Report; in those cases we merely repeat earlier findings, while in other cases we update the figures or facts.

Minimum Wage. One measure of a state's public policy toward workers is the level at which it sets the state minimum wage, the wage required in the state for those escaping coverage under the federal minimum wage law. Here Florida ranks dead last in the nation: together with six other states, it has no minimum wage law whatsoever. Employers in federally exempt industries like agriculture, or in very small workplaces, are legally free to set wages as low as one cent per hour or less.

Unemployment compensation. Another important measure is how well a state treats its unemployed. Florida's unemployment compensation laws are written very restrictively, preventing most unemployed from being eligible to collect benefits. A comparison of the June 2002 number of unemployed in the state with the number collecting unemployment benefits during the week June 15-June 22, 2002 shows that only 30.4% of the unemployed in Florida are receiving benefits. This is well below the national average, since most states do not have such a restrictive law. Only nine states had a lower percentage of unemployed receiving unemployment compensation (two-- Louisiana and Virginia in the Southeast Region), while Mississippi tied with Florida for the 10-11th lowest on this score. (Statistics used for these calculations can be found on the following two websites: http://www.ows.doleta.gov/ and http://stats.bls.gov/news.release/laus.t04.htm ). The average coverage among all fifty states is approximately 40% of all unemployed, almost one third higher than the Florida rate. Once a worker does qualify, Florida gives smaller unemployment benefits than in 33 of the fifty states. In June 2002 Florida's average unemployment benefit was $225.57/week, below the $258.49 U.S. average (Website: http://www.ows.doleta.gov/unemploy/claimssum.asp ).

Permanent Disability. Florida's maximum weekly benefit for total disability is very close to the average for all states: $571 (21^st of the 50 states).

(Website: http://www.dol.gov/esa/regs/statutes/owcp/stwclaw/tables-html/table-7.htm )

Statutory Protections of Workers. Various other state protections of workers and their rights are possible. Subjects include anti-discrimination, drug testing, family leave, anti-AIDS discrimination, sexual harassment, right-to-work, time off to vote, minimum wage, pay for overtime, equal pay, maximum hours, right-to-know, whistle blower protection, and anti-smoking. While a measure of such laws is difficult to quantify, the small number of such laws in Florida shows that on such important protective legislation the state is clearly inferior to national norms.

Health Insurance Coverage. One of the most basic needs of workers and their families is health insurance coverage. Therefore, the percentage of a state's residents with such coverage is a basic measure of their well-being. Florida fares very poorly by this measure. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, in 2000 (the latest year for which data are available), 17.3% of those residing in Florida had no health insurance coverage of any kind, the eighth highest non-coverage rate among the 50 states. This is a deterioration in health care coverage since 1998, although it improves on 1999 figures. Table 8 shows coverage for the years 1998 through 2000.

Source: Website http://www.census.gov/hhes/hlthins/hlthin00/hi00td.html

If we turn to private health insurance coverage, the state ranks equally poorly. In 1999, 33.3% of Florida's residents lacked private health insurance coverage; only eight states had a lower percentage (http://www.census.gov/hhes/hlthins/historic/hihistt4.html).

Unionization. Unions are perhaps the primary mechanism for U.S. workers to raise their living and working standards. On average, union members earn between 20-30% more than non-union workers. They also exert greater influence over their working conditions, and they have contractual guarantees against arbitrary or discriminatory treatment. Therefore the condition of unions within a state is another indicator of worker well-being. In this regard, states can be measured in two ways: the size and strength of unions, and public policies toward unions which either encourage or inhibit their existence. On both fronts, Florida fares very poorly comparatively.

For all Florida workers, the unionization rate in the year 2001 was 6.6% of eligible workers, less than half of the U.S. rate of 13.5%. This ranks Florida 43^rd out of the 50 states. In the private sector, union membership was 3.5% of eligible workers, slightly over one third of the U.S. rate of 9.0% and ranking the state 48^th out of 50. For private manufacturing workers, the state union membership rate was 3.7%, approximately one fourth of the U.S. rate of 14.6%, and placing the state 49^th out of 50. (Barry Hirsch and David Macpherson, Union Membership and Earnings Data Book, Table 4a, 2002 edition, p. 28)

Florida's year 2001 public sector unionization rates are much higher than those in the private sector. Twenty six and six tenths percent (26.6%) of its public sector workers are union members, compared to a U.S. average of 37.4%. Clearly, public sector workers in Florida have larger and therefore stronger unions than do those in the private sector (Hirsch and Macpherson, Union Membership and Earnings Data Book, Table 5a, 2002 edition, pp. 30, 31).

Compared to 1991, Florida's 2001 unionization rates fell. For the workforce as a whole, unionization dropped from 1991 to 2001 from 8.7% to 6.6%; for private sector workers from 4.2% to 3.5%; for private manufacturing workers from 6.6% to 3.7%. For public sector workers the rate dropped much less, from 30.3% to 26.6% (Hirsch and Macpherson, Union Membership and Earnings Data Book, Tables 5a and 5c, 2002 edition, pp. 31, 113).

The state government's public policies are not friendly to unions. Florida is one of only two states with a ban on negotiated requirements of union membership for employees in unionized establishments (also known as a "right-to-work" provision) built into the state constitution. Twenty- two states have such provisions, but most are merely state laws, not constitutional requirements which are much harder to change.

"Right-to-work" provisions of this nature hurt unions by allowing workers covered by a union contract to not pay their union dues, i.e., be "free riders" accepting the benefits of union coverage without paying for it. Almost a quarter (23.3%) of workers in Florida in the year 2001 covered by a union contract were "free riders." (This means that union coverage in Florida was 8.6% even though union membership was only 6.6%). Unions are hurt financially and are unable to represent members (and non-members) as effectively when one fifth of those they represent do not pay their dues, as is the case in Florida.

Tax Burden. Florida is traditionally considered a "low tax" state, but this is not an accurate reflection of reality. In 2002 Florida's total tax burden on its citizens was 32.2%, making it the 15^th highest in the nation (Website: http://www.taxfoundation.org/statelocal02.html ). This is true even though the state collects less money per capital than 41 other states. How can this be? Florida's total tax burden must also include federal taxes, and by refusing to have a state income tax, Florida disadvantages itself. It simultaneously collects less money than average, yet imposes a higher tax burden than average. This is because state income taxes are deductible on one's federal tax return, but Florida lacks this deduction. Thus Florida is, overall, a "high tax" state - it just doesn't get most of those taxes, which go to the federal government.

Furthermore, working people and those in the lower income brackets pay a disproportionate percentage of the taxes that are collected. Florida has one of the most regressive tax structures in the nation. ("Regressive" means lower income people pay a higher percentage of their income for state and local taxes than do their wealthier counterparts.) A 1996 study by Citizens for Tax Justice found that in 1995 low-income Floridians (bottom 20%) paid 3.9 times as high a percentage of their income as did the very highest income (top 1%) residents. And the middle income 20% paid 2.1 times as high a rate as the highest income. Thus, the tax burden on low and middle income Florida workers is even higher than it is for the population in general. The tax burden is not distributed equitably among the wealthier and poorer segments of the population. On this measure, Florida is at the extreme fringe among U.S. states.

Thus, we find that Florida's public policies toward workers and the workplace conditions in the state are, on average, inferior to those of the country as a whole. From minimum wage to unemployment compensation, health insurance coverage to union rights and protections, statutory protection of workers' rights to distribution of the tax burden, Florida has rather consistently been among the very least worker-friendly states in the nation.

In the past, conscious strategies employed to attract businesses to the state have resulted in low-wages and substandard conditions for workers. Some political leaders and economic development officials have viewed (and view) Florida's low-wages as a positive feature of the state. An article in the January 11, 1998 issue of The Florida Times-Union in Jacksonville notes this:

Florida has always been known for its low-wages, said John Haley, a vice president of business recruitment at Jacksonville's Chamber of Commerce. For years, these low-wages were used as a carrot to attract potential employers to Florida, he said.

"What Florida had done for many years was sell our poverty," he said. "We sold cheap labor, cheap land and no income tax."

While low pay attracted business to Florida, it also filled out its employment base with low-paying jobs.

Some economic development efforts in more recent years are focused on attracting higher wage jobs. But the historical legacy has a continuing impact.

VI. How Have Florida's Counties Fared?

As in other large states, employment opportunities and earnings in Florida vary greatly across geographical areas and labor markets. To provide a more detailed picture of how workers fared during the current economic expansion throughout Florida, this report examines trends in the employment, unemployment, and earnings for Florida's 67 counties.

Job creation is a vital part of all economic expansions, providing employment for large portions of job seekers. Florida's employment growth from 1995 to 2001 was rapid, but it slowed down in 2001-2002. Table 9 shows employment changes for the 67 counties, listing the counties in alphabetical order. The next to the last column ranks the counties in the order in which employment grew on a percentage basis. The 28 numbered in bold grew at a faster rate than Florida's seven year growth rate of 13.5 percent, while 39 had slower growth rates. Fourteen of these thirty nine actually had negative growth rates. Twenty three of the thirty nine slow growth counties grew at less than half the state rate (.i.e., 6.7% or less) and thirteen of the twenty eight fast growth counties grew at over one and one half times the state's pace (i.e., over 20.25%).

June Employment, 1995 and 2002, plus percentage changes and rankings, Florida and its counties

Source: Calculated from figures on website: http://lmi.floridajobs.org/laus/LAUS.HTM. Note that June 2002 figures are preliminary.

Table 10 shows the June unemployment rates (not seasonally adjusted) for Florida and its counties (in alphabetical order) for 1995, 2001, and 2002, as well as the percentage change between the two earlier years and 2002. In the last two columns, numbers for counties that did better than the state as a whole (i.e., lowered unemployment more) are printed in bold. As is apparent, thirty six of the state's sixty seven counties did not lower their unemployment rates as much as the state as a whole during 1995-2002, while thirty one did better. In the past year (last column), forty one did better than the state, twenty six worse.

June unemployment rates (not seasonally adjusted) for Florida and its counties, various years

Source: Data from the Florida Department of Labor and Employment Security, LAUS files. Note that June 2002 figures are preliminary.

The reader is cautioned that the figures given above are for the month of June only, and thus may differ a bit from long term unemployment rates. (In addition, June 2002 figures are only preliminary). They should be used only as general indicators of comparative unemployment, not precise longer term rates for counties or the state. Nevertheless, the data do show that counties exhibited considerable variation from the state average in unemployment trends. Individual comparisons of counties can be easily done from the above table.

Despite the employment expansion throughout most of Florida, wages in most counties stayed far below the national average. In 2000--the most recent date for which county-level wage information is available-- the average wage for Florida was $30,226, which was 87.2% that of the U.S. Average earnings for most counties were considerably below this, however, as shown in the last two columns of table 11 below. In the fourth and fifth columns the county's wage and state ranking is given in bold if the county had average wages above those of the state. Only nine of the sixty seven counties did.

The final column show's the county's average wage as a percentage of the average wage in the United States as a whole. As noted, all but nine have a figure even lower than the state's 87.2%. It should also be noted that even the county with the highest wage (Palm Beach County) did not quite manage to achieve the U.S. average wage.

The most populous counties (Palm Beach, Miami-Dade, Duval, Broward, Hillsborough, Orange, etc.) had the highest average wages in the state. Florida's general low wage problem is most acute in the more rural and semi-rural parts of the state. Some of the largest metropolitan areas, while not in good shape, were better than the state's average.

Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, U. S. Department of commerce, "Average Wage Per Job, for Counties and Metropolitan Areas, Full- and Part-Time by Place of Work" , on a web site at: http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/regional/reis/ . Hard copy data for 1989 available directly from Bureau of Economic Analysis, Washington, D.C.

The reader can note the change in ranking of individual county wages relative to those of the state as a whole since the peak of the last business cycle, 1989. To do so, compare the number in parenthesis in the second column (first one with numbers) with the number in the fifth column (next to last). Many counties were relatively unchanged, but some underwent extreme change like Gulf County's plunge from being 10th to number 38, or Sumter's rapid rise from #51 to #26. Perhaps most dismal is the performance of DeSoto and Hendry Counties, which dropped from being tied at 38-39th in the state to the dead last (67) and next-to-last (66) positions. Seventeen counties moved up or down 10 or more ranks, indicating substantial wage changes relative to the state as a whole.

Table 12 gives the 1999 poverty rates for Florida and all its counties (from the 2000 Census), as well as their relative ranking (lowest poverty to highest) within the state. (Those counties with "better" numbers (i.e., with lower poverty levels) than the state are in bold).

Percentage of people in poverty, Florida and its counties, 1999; relative ranking of the counties

Source: Website http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/2000census/poppvstat00.html

As Table 12 shows, 28 counties had lower poverty rates than the state average, while 39 had higher rates. Ten had poverty rates at or less than 75% of the state rate (9.3% or lower), while 14 had very high rates at one and a half times the state rate (19.3%) or higher.

An evaluation of the county wage and poverty tables shows that a high average wage does not always translate into the lowest poverty rates, although there tends to be a correlation. Only one of the top 10 average wage counties appeared in the top 10 counties with the lowest poverty rates (Seminole County - 9^th best in wages, and 2^nd best in low poverty). And only five of the top 10 wage counties were in the top third of counties (top 22) in low poverty rates (Palm Beach - first in wages and 15^th in low poverty; Brevard - fifth in wages and 11^th in low poverty; Pinellas - eight in wages and 16^th in low poverty; Seminiole - ninth in wages and 2^nd in low poverty; and Collier - tenth in wages and 19-20th in low poverty). Other large counties with high average wages (Miami-Dade, Broward, Duval, Hillsborough, and Orange) still have considerable inequalities due to uneven distribution of wealth. An extreme example is Miami-Dade County, which has the second highest average wages in the state, yet ties for 50-51 out of the 67 counties for low levels of poverty. It is simultaneously a "high (average) wage" and "high poverty" county.

A few counties are doing terribly on both measures. The most extreme examples are De Soto (67^th out of 67 in wages, and 64^th worst in poverty), Hendry (66^th worst in wages and 65^th worst in poverty), Madison (64^th worst in wages and 63^rd worst in poverty), and Hardee (59^th worst in wages and 66^th worst in poverty). By utilizing the tables, the reader can compare all the counties on a wide variety of measures.

Because the most recent county-level wage data are for the years 1999 and 2000, they are not current enough to give us an entirely accurate picture of the present (2002). Hopefully more current data would present a better picture than we have here, but any good news for Florida's counties will probably fall short of that for the country as a whole because the ratio of Florida's average wage to that for the U.S. fell from 89% in 1997 to 87.2% in 2000, and one would expect that many county figures would deteriorate accordingly. Similarly, the 1989-to-1999 trends revealed above indicate that for much of the period and for many counties wages have been "playing catch-up"-edging back to their pre-recessionary levels--rather than rising to new heights as has been typical of past expansions. Updated figures are needed to determine changes by county for the last two years.

VII. How Have Florida's Metropolitan Areas Fared?

Statistics are collected for 20 metropolitan areas in Florida, known as Metropolitan Statistical

Areas (MSAs). For each of these 20 areas, this report first presents data on civilian employment growth (or shrinkage) from June 2001 to June 2002, growth (or shrinkage) of unemployment numbers, and the unemployment rate as of June 2002. Following that, we present wage data, comparing the data to the statewide average.

Table 13 shows the growth in civilian employment and civilian unemployment for each of the state's 20 MSAs from June 2001 to June 2002 (the latest period for which figures are available), and compares those figures to statewide growth figures. (Numbers for MSAs doing better than the state are in bold.) It also shows growth in unemployment numbers for the same period and the unemployment rate as of June 2002 in the last column.

Change in civilian employment and unemployment June 2001-June 2002, Florida and its MSAs; June 2002 unemployment rate (not seasonally adjusted) for Florida and its MSAs

Source: State of Florida LAUS files, downloaded from the web site: http://llmi.floridajobs.org/laus/LAUS.HTM. Note that June 2002 figures are preliminary.

The first numbered column of Table 13 allows the reader to determine how fast employment is growing in each MSA, and to compare those growth rates to each other. Column 2 compares the growth rates to statewide growth rates in employment. On these measures eleven of the MSAs grew more rapidly than the state, one grew at the same rate, and eight grew less rapidly in the past year. Naples and Punta Gorda had the highest employment growth rates, while five MSAs (Daytona Beach, Melbourne, Ocala, Orlando, and Tampa-St. Pete) actually contracted in employment.

The third numbered column shows the percentage change in unemployed from June 2001 to one year later. These percentages will be much more volatile than employment growth percentages, because the initial numbers are much smaller. Nevertheless, the percentage change does show whether the MSA was able to create jobs rapidly enough to absorb growth in the labor force, or if it is falling behind.

The final column indicates the unemployment rate, one of the more important indicators of distress or well being for the existing labor force. Thirteen of the twenty MSAs have lower unemployment rates than the state as a whole, with two ( Ft. Walton Beach and Gainesville) having a very low rate of three percent or less. At the opposite extreme, Ft. Pierce/Port St. Lucie (7.3%), and Miami (7.5%) show unemployment rates well above the state average.

Finally, Table 14 presents data on what is perhaps the single most important indicator of well being for the workforce: yearly wages. The table compares the year 1997 (the earliest year for which data are published for MSAs) and the annualized wages for the fourth quarter of 2001 (the latest period for which data are available), and shows percentage changes over that roughly four year period. State data are also included for comparative purposes. The wages and percentages for those MSAs that had higher wages or that increased wages at a faster pace than the state average are given in bold.

Annual Wages for Florida and its MSAs, 1997 and 4^th Quarter 2001, and % change during that period

Source: Florida Department of Labor and Employment Security website, ES-202 data. Percentage calculations by the author.

Table 14 shows that nine of the 20 MSA experienced more rapid wage growth than the state as a whole, while eleven had less rapid growth. West Palm Beach-Boca Raton and Ft. Lauderdale were the best performers on this measure, and all of their numbers are in bold in the above chart. Both were better paid MSAs to begin with, and they have further increased their fortunate wage status within the state. At the other extreme, seven MSAs (Ft. Pierce-Port St. Lucie, Ft. Walton Beach, Gainesville, Ocala, Panama City, Pensacola, and Punta Gorda) began with a wage below the state average, and their performance from 1997 to the end of 2001 put them even further behind.

By utilizing Tables 12 and 13, the reader can evaluate and compare Florida's MSAs on a variety of measures. The majority of MSAs show a mixed record. For example, only Ft. Pierce-Port St. Lucie rates badly on both wages and unemployment levels. Most others measure comparatively well or poorly on one or the other, but not both. Probably the wage levels and the unemployment levels are the most important measures to use in measuring worker welfare.

VIII. Public Policy: What Might the State Do About Substandard Conditions?

Because the state of Florida has below average wages and conditions for many of its workers, policymakers would do well to consider ways to improve the lot of Florida workers, particularly those with the lowest wages. While many ideas could be proposed and explored, the remainder of this section will consider the problem of how to reduce income inequality and raise the wages of those workers with the lowest wage.

A variety of measures are already being attempted with varying degrees of success and failure; these initiatives will not be further analyzed here. Such measures include attempts to attract more high wage jobs and industries to the state, and educational and training initiatives to improve the skills of Florida workers. These measures are positive attempts that should be continued. However, they have not proven sufficient to remedy the problem, leaving many full time Florida workers and families toiling in full time jobs in poverty or near poverty.

One way to analyze the problem is to look at the state's low-wage industries. The state of Florida is heavily oriented toward tourism and its many spin-off industries, most of which appear to pay low wages. Are they really low-wage? Average Florida wages in tourist-sectors were examined for the year 2000. (Data available from the website: http://lmi.floridajobs.org/es202/es202.htm). This examination showed that Hotel and Lodging jobs paid average wages well below the state's average wage ($19,687, or 35.6% below the state's average). The same was true for Retail trade ($18,563, or 39.3% below the state's average). And Amusement and Recreation jobs, also important to Florida's tourism economy, also paid somewhat below the state's average ($25,427, or 16.8% below the state's average).

To the extent it is available, national data confirm that the industries referenced above are indeed low-wage industries. Federal data for hotel/lodging was not readily available broken out from larger aggregate figures, but it is available for entertainment and recreation services. Retail trade is aggregated with wholesale trade, making for higher wages than would otherwise be the case. For the year 2001, almost one third of workers in wholesale/retail and entertainment/recreation earned less than $7.00 per hour, or less than $14,560 per year even if one worked full time year round. And between 13% and 14.5% of these workers earned less than $6.00 per hour, or less than $12,480 for full time work year round. Table 15 shows the figures.

Source: Unpublished BLS data, Table A-9 (Hourly earnings of employed wage and salary workers paid hourly rates by class of worker, major industry, and sex, 2001 annual averages). Data can be obtained from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Dept. of Labor, Washington, D.C.

Given that these are low wage industries, is Florida more dependent on them for employment than is normal for the country as a whole? Superficial impressions that this is so are confirmed by calculations from federal data. Federal data for the year 2000 (available in Table 596 of the 2001 Statistical Abstract of the United States) indicate that, were Florida a "normal" state, it would have 82,761 less hotel and lodging workers (a little over 75,000 instead of the 158,000 it has). It would also have 208,072 less retail workers (about 1.17 million instead of the 1.38 million it has). Finally, it would have 21,936 less amusement and recreation workers (about 139,000 instead of the actual 157,000). That means that the state has 312,769 more workers in these sectors than one would normally expect. (An alternative methodology, using the 2000 Census, arrives at approximately the same numbers for the year 1999. Calculations from a profile of Florida and the nation show that the state had an excess of 304,880 jobs over a "normal" state in the "retail trade" and "arts, entertainment, recreation, accommodation and food services" industries. See following website for the raw data used to calculate these numbers: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/ .) In a state with a "normal" economy, those workers would be working in other, higher paying, industries. Florida's dependence on tourism brings a surplus of low-wage jobs. The 312,769 extra workers in these low wage industries represent 4.4% of the Florida labor force, displaced from higher wage industries into the low-wage ones. If spin-off jobs lost in aggregate figures were included, the tourism "drag" on the state's wage structure may affect 10% or more of the workforce.

How can the state's public policies deal with this fact? No matter how much the state attempts to attract other types of business, it will certainly remain primarily oriented toward tourism and related personal services and retail industries for the foreseeable future.

Locked in to certain low wage industries, what can the state do? This report recommends three measures beyond what is currently being attempted. First, the state could provide low income workers with an Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). An EITC is simply a tax rebate, or a check if no taxes or less taxes than the size of the rebate are owed, to low income wage earners. The federal government EITC is considered the most effective federal program to lift families and children out of poverty. The federal EITC reaches a maximum benefit of $4,000 for families with two or more children. The state could simply provide a supplemental EITC equal to 50% of federal one to each federal income tax provider. This could be done even though Florida does not have an income tax. This tax "credit" would simply take the form of checks to the low income earners and families. (For more information on the EITC, see the policy brief entitled "Earned Income Tax Credits" produced by the National Center for Children in Poverty, available at their web site.)

This proposed measure has two major advantages. First, it is sharply focused on working poverty, and hence is effective in reaching those most in need of additional income. Second, it enjoys wide support across the political spectrum. Conservatives and business interests like it because it does not put the income maintenance burden on employers, but rather on the general taxpayer. Liberals and advocates for the poor like it because it does an effective job of relieving poverty. Its biggest drawback is that it can help facilitate some employers' super-exploitation of low wage workers by making it possible for them to survive on exceedingly low wages, but on balance it still appears to be a very beneficial program. Florida's lawmakers should consider creation of a state EITC, pegged to 50% of the taxpayer's federal EITC.

A second solution which could accompany the first is likely to be more controversial. This is a state minimum wage, written to cover all workers, including those escaping coverage under the national minimum wage (agricultural workers, restaurant workers, workers in very small establishments, etc.). This would create a wage floor, boosting the wages of all low-wage workers in the state because even those making slightly above the state minimum wage would probably benefit from pay increases to prevent complete wage compression of differently qualified workers.

A suggested level to set the state minimum wage would be $6.00 per hour. As shown in Table 14, a sizable percentage of workers in important low wage sectors of the Florida economy would win pay increases, either by being brought up to the new minimum, or through a "ripple" effect giving likely increases to those under $7.00 per hour also. And yet $6.00 per hour is a very low figure - so low that the danger of pricing significant numbers of unskilled workers "out of the market" is very minimal.

Were such a state minimum wage to be enacted, Florida's comparative showing nationally in terms of wage inequality, low wages, and working poverty would improve. Opponents of such a measure argue that a minimum wage increases unemployment, but the best empirical research on state minimum wage increases shows that such effects, at the wage levels being discussed, are very minimal or even non-existent. (See David Card and Alan Krueger, Myth and Measurement: The New Economics of the Minimum Wage. [Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1995])

The obstacle to carrying out simple measures to alleviate low-wage status is overwhelmingly political, not technical. The many employers paying sub-poverty level wages in the state would certainly oppose a state minimum wage, and such a proposal is not even being contemplated. The political influence of these employers and industries is substantial within the state, and it would take widespread public awareness and organized political pressure to overcome such resistance. Yet, as demonstrated by passage of a "living wage" ordinance in Miami-Dade County and the city of Miami Beach (and current proposals to do the same in South Miami, Coral Gables, Miami, Broward County, Gainesville and Alachua County, Orlando, Jacksonville, and Tampa), lawmakers do respond when the issue is highlighted and public pressure is brought to bear.

Living Wage ordinances that have been enacted in Florida set a "public example" by requiring the city or county to have its own employees and the employees of its service contractors paid above the poverty level for a family of four, plus health care coverage or its monetary equivalent. The state of Florida could set a public example by passing such a law applying to its own employees and those of state service contractors. An even bolder step would be to pass a state minimum wage covering all workers in the state. These three measure in tandem: state EITC, state minimum wage law, and a state living wage law, would address a pressing state problem.

IX. Conclusion

Florida's economy is unstable as of Labor Day 2002. Unemployment is still below the national level, and the state is faring better than some others. But employment growth is very sluggish, and tourism has not fully recovered from the events of September 11, 2001. Real per capita income has been growing slightly, albeit less rapidly than for the nation as a whole.

Florida's workers are faring worse than the economy as a whole. Florida is a low income and (even more so) a low wage state. It has a disproportionate number and percentage of low wage jobs. On a variety of non-wage issues, from minimum wage policy, unemployment compensation policy, health insurance coverage, unionization, tax policy, and statutory protections of workers, Florida is also inferior to national norms.

Florida's public policies could address all of these issues, but this report's recommendations address only the low wage issue. Florida could (1) enact an Earned Income Tax Credit for low wage workers, (2) enact a statewide minimum wage covering all workers in the state, and (3) enact a state living wage law to cover state workers and workers for state contractors. All three would have a beneficial impact on the state and its workers. The state's current political climate is hostile to at least two and possibly all three of these suggestions, however. Yet the problem of low wages will persist and probably worsen unless active measures are taken. The state could do a lot better by its working people and especially its least favored laborers, but may lack the political will to do so.