« The gendered impact of eliminating mandatory retirement | Main | Conservatism on Canadian campuses »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Anything in there that would control for the effects of pay equity?

How big is the coefficient on union status? I *think* it's true that public sector workers are more unionised than private sector? And I can't articulate this clearly, but: if I heard that the public private differential were explained by e.g. age and education, I might say that's a legitimate differential and not a problem; but if I heard that it were due to a differential in the degree of unionisation, I would say that's a problem, and it's one of the mechanisms behind that public/private differential.

Nick, if we restrict the sample to unionized workers only, we still get a substantial difference between public and private sector workers - see notes below.

The regression analysis above includes controls for age, education, etc. The public/private wage differential remains (though it gets quite a bit smaller) if one controls for occupation.

Jim - good guess. I ran the analysis and did the kernel densities for men and women separately. The public/private differential is much larger for women than for men.

I suppose there is a tenure effect as well with public workers often being older and more experienced which helps keep income up while private workers often lose income with forced changes.

And what if the problem was that private sector employees were earning too little?

How did age enter into the regression equation? As a factor (what were the levels?) or as a continuous variable?

Were you able to extract levels of government from the LFS PUMF? Although it's probably true that the vast majority of Ontario public sector workers are provincial/municipal.

mpledger - the Labour Force Survey PUMF has a 12-category age variable, so for the most part we're talking about 5-year age intervals. I just stuck it in as a series of categorical variables - so 11 dummy variables for all of the different age categories. I'm not interested in estimating an age-earnings profile, so a series of categorical variables is just fine for soaking up any age-related variation.

Stephen - no, though one could make some guesses by looking at occupation and CMA. All of the federal workers in Ottawa are included in the public sector numbers here. So perhaps conclusion of the post is somewhat misleading.

Jacques Rene - "And what if the problem was that private sector employees were earning too little?"

I largely agree with you that the problem is that private sector employees are earning too little. The size of the peak around the minimum wage is really striking.

I would love to believe political parties that court and win the low-wage private sector vote will then try to improve conditions for low wage private sector workers. But sadly I think it's much more likely that at least one political party will try play the politics of envy: bringing public sector wages down closer to private sector ones, rather than private up to public.

One possible conclusion from this discussion is that the Ontario Liberal government should have raised minimum wages much earlier in their mandate, and more gradually.

Can Frances or Jacques provide the same type of data in terms of Quebec private sector workers vs Quebec public sector workers for comparison?

Tim, your wish is my command! Please see the added pictures at the end of the post. Click for full-sized images

Interesting how the right hand tail of the public sector wage distribution is longer in Ontario. I don't think this can just be the federal government, I'm thinking it has to be universities, especially U of T, and hospitals as well.

One thing to keep in mind with Quebec private sector wages is that several big industries like Aluminum have no effective competition in the rest of North America. So while they might have a "captive" Francophone workforce they also have a captive customer bases.

Also along these lines in addition to Aluminum in Quebec there are also bunch of large plants in QC that do things like Zinc and Titanium refining that many Canadians have never heard of. One of the things that is starting to come about with the aluminum tariff fight in the US is that Quebec in particular has an almost absolute advantage in Aluminum production and the effect of putting tariffs on Aluminum will only discourage the use of aluminum generally in sectors where it is expanding.

Another thing too I forgot is non wage health benefits in Quebec are considered taxable income for QC Income Tax but are tax free federally and in Ontario provincial PIT.

Also on a Quebec focus I noticed the new Ontario PC leader criticized Quebec for "bailing out" Bombardier but then said that both the Ontario and Federal Governments should have given more tax breaks to a Proctor and Gamble plant closing in Ontario despite the fact Proctor and Gamble was paying it's workers much lower wages than Bombardier. I remember Jacques once commented years ago that the Ontario business community had chosen a "low tech low wage" industrial strategy while Quebec had choosen a high tech high wage strategy. Perhaps we are starting to see evidence of that in these numbers.

Below is the thread from 2012 where Jacques brought up the idea of a low tech low wage Ontario model.


I'm sort of curious what we think it means when we say that "private sector employees are earning too little", relative to what? Relative to a sector where employees and employer have monopoly power vis-a-vis their respective customers, and the employer has the ability to compel consumers to pay for goods and services (the public sector). Do we think its feasible to replicate the economics of the Ontario public sector in the private sector?

The counterargument, that public sector employees are paid too much, relative to the private sector at least has a credible counter-factual - base private sector compensation on market wages - and practical policy paths to achieve that goal (contracting out, requiring labour arbitrators to respect hard budget constraints, competitive suppliers (school choice), etc.)

Also, I think it's unhelpful to characterize challenging public sector compensation as "the politics of envy", rather I think the right way to think of it is maximizing the bundle of public services we can provide for a given cost - that we treat public services the same way we treat every other good and service we consume. All else being equal, arbitrary increases in public sector compensation (that is to say, compensation above the market rate necessary to attract a given level of talent - perhaps driven by union monopoly power, perhaps driven by the desire to buy off powerful constituencies ahead of an election), either mean you pay more for the same services or, for a given level of tax revenue, that you're going to be getting fewer/worse public services. IF you believe that the role of the public service is to provide services to the public, rather than to provide well-paying jobs to public servants, then that's the right way of thinking about it (to the extent well-paying jobs are necessarily incidental to the provision of public services, great, but they shouldn't be an objective on their own).

Bob - "relative to what?"one answer: relative to a situation where there is no monopsony power in the labour market.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

Search this site

  • Google

Blog powered by Typepad