Wage Hike Meets Support and Opposition From Employers

Opponents say small business could suffer and cut benefits, such as employer contributions to retirement plans, as a result of a $15 minimum wage.

Raising the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour would increase financial security for low-wage workers, but some argue it would also have a negative effect on businesses, including small employers. 

President Joe Biden included the Raise the Wage Act, a measure to expand the federal minimum wage from $7.25 an hour to $15 an hour incrementally by 2025, in his recently proposed $1.9 trillion stimulus package. While the proposal received support from those who said it would provide a livable income for the lowest paid workers and would result in better financial security—especially during the COVID-19 pandemic—others contend that businesses will likely have to make cuts to compensate for higher wages.

Get more!  Sign up for PLANSPONSOR newsletters.

“Labor costs are one of the highest costs to all businesses—it could be up to 70% of mutual business costs if you include wages, benefits, payrolls and other taxes,” says Deirdre Macbeth, content director, regulatory, at WorldatWork, an association for human resources (HR) management professionals. “So, naturally, if you have an increase in your wages, that’s going to greatly impact your operating expenses for the organization.”

While some larger employers, including Target, Costco and Walmart, have pledged to pay their workers $15 an hour, opponents of the wage hike say small businesses are unlikely to be able to absorb the costs and could cut benefits or increase the prices of goods and services. The opponents add that this could create a domino effect: An increase in prices might result in fewer clients and decreased sales if a business is not competitive, so employers might choose to decrease their workers’ hours.

Voluntary benefits, such as retirement plan contributions, would likely be the first to go if businesses are looking to cut costs, Macbeth notes. “Retirement plans are naturally an area where employers—whether big or small—will look to reduce benefits when they have to, due to other financial circumstances, because they are not a mandatory benefit, so it isn’t legally required,” she says.

In such a scenario, employers would likely reduce or eliminate their match for a period of time to help offset additional expenses, Macbeth adds.

Lynn Dudley, senior vice president of global retirement and compensation policy at American Benefits Council, says employers should not have to choose between paying their workers a livable wage or cutting costs. She wants the federal government to provide incentives or assistance programs for smaller employers struggling with pay hikes.

Currently, employers that want to keep a retirement plan benefit can enroll in pooled employer plans (PEPs), a new type of plan that groups employers together to broaden retirement plan coverage while reducing benefit costs. The Saver’s Credit, also known as the Retirement Savings Contributions Credit, can also help eligible workers and taxpayers offset the cost of saving for retirement when their employers cannot do so, Dudley adds.

“There are a lot of actions that can be done,” she says. “If workers are more financially secure, they produce better work and, ultimately, the country does better too.”

Paying workers more would also automatically increase their contributions to one future savings vehicle—Social Security. In a new analysis, Michael Reich, a UC Berkeley professor of economics and co-chair of the Center on Wage and Employment Dynamics at the Institute for Research on Labor and Employment (IRLE), noted that there are benefits to a wage hike, including more tax money going to Social Security. According to his analysis, the Social Security Trust fund would see $12.2 billion per year in savings, as some older workers would delay retirement.

Macbeth agrees that more money going to Social Security provides an indirect benefit to retirement security for eligible recipients. However, while a higher minimum wage would give workers more income in their paychecks, it’s unlikely to be enough for them to be able to contribute money to other vehicles, such as an emergency savings account.

In a time when COVID-19 has left many works lacking financial security, the means to save is crucial, she says. “The reality is that workers who earn a minimum wage are struggling to make ends meet,” Macbeth adds. “They would likely use the extra income to cover their ordinary monthly expenses.”

Besides by increasing compensation, employers can boost their employees’ engagement by matching their contributions to a benefits program and adding financial wellness education. Dudley also says child care credits, access to retirement savings programs and adjusting Social Security projections are good additions to a financial well-being program. Offering such benefits eases the path for workers to save for the near- and long-term goals, she notes. 

“No one is going to deny that the ultimate goal is to get people more financially secured,” she says.

Portfolio Investment Mix Made a Difference in January DB Plan Funded Status

Companies that measure defined benefit plan funded status also point out that legislation has been introduced that would provide more relief for plan sponsors.

The aggregate funded ratio for U.S. corporate pension plans increased by an estimated 1.7 percentage points month-over-month in January to end the month at 88.5%, according to Wilshire Consulting. The aggregate figures represent an estimate of the combined assets and liabilities of corporate pension plans sponsored by S&P 500 companies with a duration in line with the FTSE Pension Liability Index – Short.

Wilshire notes that the monthly change in funding resulted from a 3.5 percentage point decrease in liability values partially offset by a 1.6 percentage point decrease in asset values. The aggregate funded ratio is estimated to have increased by 3.6 percentage points over the trailing 12 months.

Get more!  Sign up for PLANSPONSOR newsletters.

So far this year, the aggregate funded ratio for U.S. pension plans in the S&P 500 has increased from 91.5% to 91.8%, according to the Aon Pension Risk Tracker. The funded status deficit decreased by $11 billion, which was driven by liability declines of $43 billion, partially offset by asset decreases of $32 billion year-to-date.

The average funded ratio of corporate pension plans improved in January from 86.4% to 87.9%, according to Northern Trust Asset Management (NTAM). Slightly negative returns in equities were more than offset by the increase in discount rates, which led to higher funded ratio. Global equity market returns were down approximately 0.4% during the month. The average discount rate increased from 2.1% to 2.32% during the month, leading to lower liabilities.

Legal & General Investment Management (LGIM) America’s January Pension Solutions’ Monitor estimates that pension funding ratios increased approximately 1.5 percentage points throughout January, with the impact primarily due to higher Treasury yields driving liability values lower. Although plan assets with a traditional 60/40 asset allocation decreased slightly, they did not fall as much as liabilities.

River and Mercantile says that what’s included in a defined benefit (DB) plan’s investment portfolio mattered in January. Its “US pension briefing – January 2021” report says, “Equities experienced a quiet month relative to the last few. Fixed income investments were generally down, corresponding to the increase in interest rates. Pension plan returns for the month will depend largely on the plan’s equity makeup, with minimal to negative returns expected for most plans. Combining interest rate and investment market movements, most pension plans will see their funded status improve for the month, but only modestly.”

Plans with modest to significant fixed income investments had a relatively flat funded status for the month, as plan liabilities and assets decreased slightly together, River and Mercantile says. Plans with more significant equity holdings generally saw a funded status improvement, but it was driven mainly by decreasing liabilities rather than by equity returns.

“While equities were a mixed bag, interest rates were the driving force behind funded status movements in January with discount rates increasing upward of 0.20%,” says Michael Clark, managing director and consulting actuary with River and Mercantile.

In January, the funded status of a typical corporate pension plan rose as increasing discount rates overrode a small pullback in equity markets, NEPC notes in its January 2021 Pension Monitor. Reiterating that an investment portfolio’s makeup matters, NEPC says total-return plans outpaced liability-driven investing (LDI)-focused plans that hedge interest rate risk. While spreads remained largely flat for the month, the Treasury curve steepened, reducing estimated liabilities. Based on NEPC’s hypothetical open- and frozen-pension plans, the funded status of the total-return plan increased by 2.3%, while the LDI-focused plan saw an increase of 0.2%.

Both Clark and Brian Donohue, a partner at October Three Consulting, note that the Emergency Pension Plan Relief Act of 2021 (EPPRA), introduced by House Representative Richard Neal, D-Massachusetts, would provide some funding relief for single-employer DB plans. “Under current law, liabilities will increase substantially for 2021to 2023. Plans that have only made required contributions in the past can expect significant increases in required contributions over the next couple years,” Donohue says. “The progress of this legislation will be crucial to pension decisionmaking in the months ahead.”

According to October Three’s January 2021 Pension Finance Update, higher interest rates gave pension finance a boost in January. Both model plans it tracks gained ground last month, with Plan A improving 2%, while the more conservative Plan B gained less than 1%. Plan A is a traditional plan (duration 12 at 5.5%) with a 60/40 asset allocation, while Plan B is a largely retired plan (duration 9 at 5.5%) with a 20/80 allocation and a greater emphasis on corporate and long-duration bonds.

«