Connect with us

Europe

Death of a myth: Wage hike does not lead to inflation

Published

on

When Germany’s largest labour union, IG Metall, agreed to a 5.2 per cent wage rise last November, monetary policymakers breathed a great sigh of relief. As reported in Financial Times, this deal finally eased central banks’ inconvenient wage-price spiral fears.

The fear that wage increases will lead to price increases (and hence inflation) is quite widespread. We see that not only the Germans but also the British live with the same concern. Bank of England President Andrew Bailey says the wage bargain needs to be “restrained” or things will get out of hand. Jason Furman, who was the Director of the National Economic Council under Barack Obama, is also clear: Increasing wages also increases prices. According to Furman, this is “basic micro and common sense.”

European Central Bank President Christine Lagarde said they would look at the increase in wages to see if they would continue to raise interest rates in Europe. Last May, Lagarde rejected bank employees’ desire to link wage increases to consumer price increases and wrote that this was “not acceptable and desirable”.

Klaas Knot, president of the Bank of the Netherlands, who has been skeptical about wage increases at the level of inflation, said they should be on high alert for any “feedback loop” to wage and price increases, but added that current wage developments do not provide clear evidence that they are entering a wage-price spiral in the eurozone.

Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell has made the most explicit statement. In explaining why they’re raising interest rates; Powell makes it clear that they want to reduce demand and lower wages. Powell thinks they can do all this without slowing the economy and putting it in recession. However, clearly, interest rate hike aims to reduce the bargaining power of the working class and suppress wages by increasing unemployment.

What is the wage-price spiral?

The technical wage-price spiral recipe: at least three out of four consecutive quarters have a wage-price spiral if both consumer prices and nominal wages increase. To give a more concise definition, price increase triggers the wage increase, and wage increase causes the capital owner to increase the prices, and so on.

The debt between Thomas Weston, a leader of the carpenter’s union, and Karl Marx at the International Working Men’s Association in 1865 is the historical example of this issue. Just like the central banks argue today, Weston said that capitalists reflected the increase in wages to increase in prices to protect their profits; increasing prices would reduce the purchasing power of workers and thus keep real wages in place. That is, Watson concluded that a struggle or bargain for wage increases was useless.

Marx’s answer to this is summarized in the manuscript we know as Value, Price, Profit. Marx presents three arguments against Weston: First, wage increases come to the fore not out of the blue, but usually as a reaction to rising prices. Second, wages don’t cause inflation, but multiple factors influence it: The size of production, the productive forces of labor, the value of money, fluctuations in market prices, and the different phases of industrial cycles. So, for example, under the condition that wages remain the same, a change in the amount of money in the market (or the value of money) can trigger inflation. Or, again, a change in labor efficiency (i.e., productivity) has a direct impact on commodity prices, provided wages remain the same.

Moreover, according to Marx, it is true that a general rise in wage levels reduces overall profit rates, but this does not directly affect the prices of commodities. Capitalists and their ideologists object to the increase in wages, not because prices will increase, but because profits will decrease. The physical limit here is to provide the means of livelihood required for the employee working today to work tomorrow. However, Marx says that in some examples, the wage received by the workers can be pushed below the minimum subsistence. Such a reduce in labor costs is compensated by charity on national scope or laws on supporting the poor. Hence, the question of how to detect wages and profits is answered dynamically, not statically, and the answer is determined by the opposing classes’ struggles and balances of power.

It will happen again: The claim that workers’ “excessive” demands for wages will lead to inflation is an assumption raised by the capitalist and his ideologists, who know that their profits will decrease. Now, it is time talk about the cracks on this front.

IMF’s confession 

IMF economists are finding it very difficult to find the evidence they have been looking for from history for a wage-price spiral. A recently published article examines wage-price spirals in the last 60 years of advanced economies.

The conclusion reached by IMF economists is that wage-price spirals are difficult to find in recent historical records, at least when they are defined as a continuous increase in prices and wages. Moreover, the IMF has even more difficulty in finding the wage-price spiral in other historical periods when real wages has fallen like today. What happens is the nominal wage increases that only partially replace the real wage loss.

The examples found by the economists showing fall in real wages and tight labour market as experienced today, often prioritize a period of falling inflation and rising nominal wages. Thus, as economists describe it as a “surprise,” sustained wage and price increases in only a small part of the example are being rolled over to the next period. As a result, the IMF finds that the rise in nominal wages cannot necessarily be taken as a sign that a wage-price spiral period has begun.

The International Labour Organisation (ILO) also confirms this situation. In the first half of 2022, global monthly wages declined by 0.9 per cent in real terms. When wages in developed countries are separated from wages in developing countries, the ILO report shows that real wages in developed G20 countries decreased by 2.2 per cent, while in developing countries they increased by only 0.8 per cent. Looking at the United States and Canada, it is understood that real wages decreased by 3.2 per cent in the first half of this year.

The OECD report complements this statement. The report, which includes third-quarter data, suggests real wages decline in 31 of 32 major countries in the third quarter of 2022 compared to the same period the previous year.

President and CEO of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, Mary C. Daly also has had to admit that one of the most fundamental elements of the wage-price spiral is that the rising wage phenomenon has not emerged with inflation.

The ILO says that inflation is not caused by wage increases, but by the Ukrainian war and the global energy crisis.

Sources of inflation

Paul Donovan, the chief economist of UBS, one of the world’s largest asset managers, reminds that real wages are falling globally, pointing out that the Fed’s wage-price spiral thesis is not correct.

According to Donovan, the main source of today’s inflation is the excessive increase in profits. If inflation comes from profit rather than labor, says Donovan, central banks should look for other ways alternative to shrinking demand based on increasing unemployment.

A graphic published by the Economy Policy Institute last April provides the picture. Unit labour cost constituted 61.8 per cent of the increase in unit prices in non-financial companies between 1979-2019. Between the fourth quarter of 2021 and the second quarter of 2022, this rate decreased to 7.9 per cent. The main factor driving the increase in unit prices is profit with 53.9 percent. It is composed of non-work input prices with 38.3 percent.

So, what else is among the sources of inflation? The decrease in supply chains and labor productivity during the COVID period and the inadequate supply afterwards is a reason. Zero COVID policies in China and the subsequent Russia-Ukraine war also has caused disruptions in global supply chains and cost increases. Sanctions against Russia have also led to an exorbitant rise in global energy prices.

Moreover, in Britain, for example, service providers that distribute to retail energy companies and are often owned by large hedge funds and private equity companies can make profits of up to 40 per cent. These companies, known as the “Big Six,” have almost completely monopolized energy supplies. 99 per cent of domestic and small business customers depend on the Big Six. When the huge profits of international energy monopolies such as BP, Shell, Exxon, Chevron, Total is added, the picture is completed. The UK energy distribution companies, which have been privatized since the 1980s, work for profit and households suffer for it. The figure says it all: The Big Six distributed a £23 billion dividend to shareholders. That’s almost six times the tax the Six have been paying over the last decade.

On the other hand, excessive profit rates in 2021 are expected to decrease with the rise in interest rates. It is certain that there will be a slowdown in the profits and therefore investments driven by the increases in energy and raw material prices last year. The downward trend in large tech companies that made huge profits during the pandemic period, layoffs, and the difficulty in accessing finance also indicate that recession is likely in advanced economies next year.

Moreover, since the source of inflation is not “excessive demand” but weak supply, central banks have nothing to do with it. In addition to the disruption of supply chains, the Ukrainian war, and anti-Russian sanctions, decrease in profitability, declining labour productivity and investment appetite do not seem to match supply with demand. While recruitment in the United States is still in full swing, the lack of pace in GDP growth suggests that the problem of labour productivity in developed countries remains. The emergence of a sustained and downward demand shock in the world system therefore seems preordained.

Europe

China’s critical mineral restrictions challenge EU defence expansion plans

Published

on

The European Union’s plans to expand its defence capabilities are being hindered by China’s export controls and sales restrictions on critical raw materials.

In response, EU leaders are urging member states to accelerate efforts to diversify supply chains.

According to Nikkei Asia, the European Commission announced last week that it would propose new legislation requiring companies across the bloc to broaden their supplier base in an effort to address economic imbalances, although it did not explicitly name China.

The war in Ukraine and growing uncertainty over Washington’s security guarantees have pushed European governments to increase military spending and defence production.

At the same time, according to a report published in May by Joris Teer, a policy analyst at the European Union Institute for Security Studies (EUISS), China accounts for at least 70% of global mining or refining activity in 17 of the 34 materials classified as critical by the EU. Eight of those 34 materials are currently subject to Chinese export controls.

“China is undermining Europe’s rearmament efforts,” Teer wrote. “Simply by activating this tool, China has already increased its leverage and demonstrated both the capability and willingness to restrict supply whenever it chooses.”

The Aerospace, Security and Defence Industries Association of Europe also warned that geopolitical developments and intensifying global competition for critical raw materials are further underscoring the need to strengthen European supply chains.

The organisation represents more than 4,000 companies, including Britain’s BAE Systems, France’s Thales and Germany’s Rheinmetall.

European defence manufacturers are pursuing a range of strategies, including vertical integration, recycling, diversification and stockpiling.

Rheinmetall told Nikkei Asia that it has “no dependencies” and is “well prepared” regarding critical minerals.

A company spokesperson said: “Rheinmetall has stockpiled key raw materials sufficient for several years. We have also implemented IT systems that allow us to centrally monitor and precisely manage raw material consumption across the entire group.”

Analysts, however, caution that stockpiling alone will not be sufficient. Maria Shagina, a researcher at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, said: “Stockpiling serves as an important buffer against sudden disruptions, but on its own it is unlikely to mitigate structural damage over the long term.”

Shagina added that replacing the volume and diversity of critical minerals controlled by Beijing with alternative sources would take years.

In 2024, the EU enacted the European Critical Raw Materials Act, aimed at rebuilding domestic supply chains for such minerals.

The legislation sets 2030 targets for domestic extraction, processing and recycling while limiting dependence on any single third-country supplier to 65%.

A €3 billion ($3.5 billion) fund was established last year to accelerate strategic projects.

Nevertheless, the European Court of Auditors has noted that the 2030 targets are not legally binding and that the EU remains far from achieving them.

Industry groups argue that policy inconsistencies could further slow progress.

The Cobalt Institute, which represents a sector vital to jet engines, advanced batteries and defence alloys, warned that proposed EU chemicals regulations risk undermining the industry.

“Europe has one foot in and one foot out,” said Michael Blakeney, head of government and public affairs at the London-based institute. “It says the right things, but its actions are inconsistent.”

Europe’s efforts are unfolding alongside a more aggressive US strategy to secure critical mineral supply chains.

Shagina said:

“The US is investing more capital to secure and expand capacity, taking greater financial risks and, in some cases, acquiring equity stakes. Europe, by contrast, is generally more cautious, which places it at a relative disadvantage in the competition for critical minerals.”

In April, the EU signed an agreement with the United States to coordinate supplies of critical minerals. Although some member states initially resisted over concerns that the deal could weaken the bloc’s strategic autonomy, they authorised the Commission in early June to join the US-led “Pax Silica” initiative, which coordinates investment and export-control policies.

Teer urged Europe to use ongoing US-EU-Japan negotiations as the nucleus of a broader coalition aimed at making critical mineral production outside China financially viable through state support, minimum-price mechanisms and supply rules.

“Particularly important are countries that either produce raw materials or possess significant mineral deposits, such as Malaysia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Brazil and Indonesia, as well as countries like India with large pools of skilled labour,” he said.

Teer also argued that the EU should activate its Anti-Coercion Instrument, which allows the bloc to impose tariffs and restrictions in response to economic pressure on countries outside the union, in order to deter China from introducing further restrictions.

A European Commission spokesperson said the bloc had “long been aware of the risks associated with the EU’s dependence on critical raw materials.”

“The objective is clear: to anticipate disruptions early and reduce the EU’s vulnerabilities while strengthening our industrial and defence capacities,” the spokesperson said.

Continue Reading

Europe

Four European countries move to make citizenship harder to obtain

Published

on

European countries are increasingly tightening their citizenship rules. Most recently, the Norwegian government has drafted legislation that would raise the minimum residency requirement for citizenship from three years to seven.

The proposed amendments to the citizenship law were presented by the Ministry of Labour and Social Inclusion.

Under the draft legislation, stateless individuals born in Norway, as well as those who arrived in the country as children, would be required to reside in Norway for at least five years before becoming eligible for citizenship.

The government also plans to increase residency requirements for foreign nationals who are married to or cohabiting with Norwegian citizens.

Language requirements are set to become more demanding as well. The proposal would raise the required level of spoken Norwegian proficiency from A2 to B1. The new rules would apply to applicants aged between 18 and 67.

Commenting on the changes, Minister of Labour and Social Inclusion Kjersti Stenseng said: “Obtaining and holding Norwegian citizenship should be a privilege.”

The government argues that simplifying administrative procedures while simultaneously tightening eligibility criteria will help reduce the country’s large backlog of pending applications and shorten processing times.

Norway is the latest European country to announce revisions to its citizenship rules.

In Finland, the minimum residency requirement for citizenship was increased from five years to eight years on October 1, 2024.

The country also plans to introduce a mandatory citizenship test for applicants aged between 18 and 64 from the beginning of 2027.

Finnish Interior Minister Mari Rantanen said: “The introduction of a citizenship test is the final component of a comprehensive reform aimed at making citizenship requirements more stringent.”

Sweden has also approved a similar reform. Beginning in June 2026, the standard residency requirement for citizenship will increase from five years to eight years. Authorities are also introducing a financial self-sufficiency requirement for applicants and expanding the scope of security screenings.

Explaining the rationale behind the changes, Migration Minister Johan Forssell said: “It was possible to become a citizen after living in the country for five years without knowing a single word of Swedish, learning anything about Swedish society, or even having one’s own source of income.”

The most far-reaching changes have been implemented in Portugal. Portuguese President Antonio Jose Seguro has signed legislation raising the minimum residency requirement for citizenship from five years to 10 years.

For citizens of the European Union and the Community of Portuguese Language Countries, the requirement has been set at seven years.

The residency period will now be calculated from the date a residence permit is granted rather than from the date a citizenship application is submitted. The new rules will also affect the children of immigrants.

Previously, children could obtain citizenship one year after birth if their parents held residence permits. Under the new rules, at least one parent must have legally resided in the country for a minimum of five years.

The law also introduces a mandatory examination covering Portuguese history, culture, values and social structures.

Migration policies are tightening across the European Union as well. On June 17, the European Parliament approved legislation allowing irregular migrants whose asylum applications have been rejected but who cannot be returned to their countries of origin to be deported to third countries.

The new EU rules permit the establishment of migrant detention centres outside the bloc’s borders. African countries are reportedly among the options being discussed for such facilities.

Continue Reading

Europe

SpaceX warns EU satellite spectrum plan could disrupt connectivity in Ukraine

Published

on

SpaceX has sharply criticised a European Union plan to restrict access to satellite spectrum, arguing that the proposal risks degrading connectivity in Ukraine and disrupting emergency communications services.

In a document shared with European officials and reviewed by the Financial Times, SpaceX warned:

“This proposal significantly increases the likelihood that Europeans will be deprived of direct-to-device satellite services, or that new European operations will create global interference issues, including for emergency services such as those operating in Ukraine.”

In a proposal unveiled in May, the EU recommended reserving part of the spectrum band used for direct satellite-to-smartphone connectivity for European operators, thereby limiting the frequencies available to US and Chinese providers.

The 2 GHz frequency band in question is currently used by two US companies, Viasat and EchoStar.

SpaceX argued that the EU plan prioritises “an operator’s country of establishment over economic, technical and regulatory realities.”

When the proposal was announced, EU technology chief Henna Virkkunen defended the move, saying the bloc wanted to “increase European capacity in this sector.” She added that other parts of the frequency band would remain open to international operators, arguing that prioritising European providers was justified.

Other participants involved in discussions over the proposal said some EU officials were specifically seeking to limit Elon Musk’s Starlink satellite network.

Europe’s initiative follows a warning from Washington. In March, the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) cautioned that it could take retaliatory measures if the EU chose to favour European satellite operators over alternatives such as Starlink.

At the time, FCC Chairman Brendan Carr told the Financial Times: “Some of the discussions in Europe regarding satellite sovereignty concern us. If Europe decides to move down that path, then, as you know, we will have to consider reciprocal measures.”

The European Commission’s proposal has not yet entered formal negotiations with EU member states or the European Parliament.

A source close to SpaceX said the company remained hopeful of influencing the outcome of the process, given concerns raised by both businesses and several European governments.

Continue Reading

MOST READ

Turkey