Beat the Press is Dean Baker's commentary on economic reporting. He is a Senior Economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR). To never miss a post, subscribe to a weekly email roundup of Beat the Press.

Please also consider supporting the blog on Patreon.

Follow on Twitter Like on Facebook Subscribe by E-mail RSS Feed

That what readers of Andrew Sorkin's column on management bonuses at Coca-Cola will be asking. Sorkin cites analysis from money manager David Winters showing that Coca-Cola has set aside $24 billion as bonuses for senior management in recent years. The 2013 set asides alone came to an average of more than $2 million for each eligible person.

Richard M. Daley is a director of Coca-Cola. As a director it is his job to make sure that management does not rip off shareholders by paying themselves excessive salaries. He was paid almost $180,000 last year for his work as a director. People may be asking now what exactly he did for this money.

Add a comment

This was one of the main points of a column that Andy Puzder, the CEO of Hardee's parent company CKE Restaurants, made in a WSJ column today. The column was complaining over President Obama's decision to raise the salary floor where overtime rules in the Fair Labor Standards Act (FSLA) may not apply. The current floor is $24,000 a year. Anyone getting lower pay than this is automatically covered by the FSLA overtime provisions.

Puzder is concerned that many of his branch managers will be covered by the FSLA overtime rules under the new floor that Obama will set. He tells readers that his managers start at around $36,000 a year and as high as $65,000, with an average around $45,000.

If the minimum wage had kept pace with economy-wide productivity growth since 1968 it would be over $17 an hour today. This means that, at $18 an hour, Hardee's entry level pay for the people it calls managers would be just slightly above a productivity adjusted minimum wage. And this calculation assumes that it managers put in just 40 hours a week. If they typically put in more hours than they would likely be earning less than 1968 minimum wage, adjusted for productivity growth. 

Add a comment

Washington Post columnist Marc Theissen speculates on why Paul Ryan's critics are so unhappy with his recent writings and speeches on poverty:

"Why are Democrats so threatened by a Republican congressman trying to find new ways to help the poor and vulnerable? Wouldn’t it be better if there were two parties competing to find the best ways to alleviate poverty?"

Maybe part of the reason is that Ryan didn't actually present any new ideas. Everything in his bag of tricks is at least two decades old and in many cases much older. Furthermore, much of his analysis was based on misrepresentations of research on poverty.

Is it really surprising that people who are concerned about addressing the plight of the poor are upset when an ambitious politician seems to deliberately misrepresent decades of research by serious scholars in order to push his political agenda? The fact that these misrepresentations get large amounts of media attention, when the actual research is largely ignored, is a further cause for anger.

Add a comment

The NYT had a good column on the government's efforts to prevent people from buying lower cost drugs from foreign countries. The column makes the point that the Food and Drug Administration has misleadingly tried to claim that the issue with foreign drugs is one of safety when it really is just pharmaceutical industry profits. If people know that they can buy drugs for prices that are often less than one fifth the price in the United States, they will be unlikely to buy the drugs in the United States.

The government has therefore tried to prevent lower cost drugs from entering the country. It also uses trade agreements like the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership to raise drug prices in other countries. This both increases industry profits overseas and removes a potential source of low cost drugs.

Low cost drugs do undermine the usefulness of patent protection as a way to finance research and development, just as black markets in blue jeans undermined central planning in the Soviet Union. Ordinarily economists look to mechanisms that are consistent with markets rather than ones that depend on stifling markets. For some reason economists have shown little interest in any of the alternatives to patents, such as public funding through entities like the NIH, as ways to finance prescription drug research. Since these alternatives could bring patent protected drug prices down by 80-90 percent, they would offer enormous economic gains, in addition to the obvious benefits to public health.  

Add a comment

The Washington Post had a major piece that discussed the ethics of efforts to use public pressure to force drug companies to make expensive drugs available to patients at affordable prices. Remarkably it never discussed the role of patent monopolies.

In the case that was the immediate focus of the article, a young boy who was suffering from cancer and seemed likely to benefit from a drug that was still in the experimental stage, it does not appear that patent protection was a major factor. However in many cases patients will face exorbitant prices for a life-saving drug that they may not be able to afford because the drug is subject to patent protection.

In such cases it is the patent that creates the moral dilemma raised in this article. If the drug were sold at its free market price it would likely be affordable to most patients. This is one of the perversities of patent financed drug research. While drugs can be expensive to develop, they are generally cheap to manufacture. It would be desirable for drugs to be sold at their free market price if some alternative mechanism (e.g. NIH funding) could be used to finance their development.

It would have been useful if this piece had discussed the way in which the mechanism we use to finance drug research can lead to the sort of ethical dilemmas it discusses. In this context it is probably worth mentioning that the Washington Post gets considerable revenue from drug company advertising.

Note: Typos corrected, thanks Robert Salzberg.

Add a comment

In his column "when the scientist is also a philosopher," Greg Mankiw tells us about his preference for not having the government interfere in consensual exchanges between individuals. He warns readers that economists who advocate such interventions also have a political philosophy about achieving certain outcomes (i.e. less inequality).

The wisdom of not interfering with consensual exchanges implies that is possible to have exchanges in which the government has not already played a huge role in setting the terms of the exchange. This is clearly not true.

For example, the number of jobs is very directly determined by government policy. We would have millions more jobs in the economy today if the government had not decided to run a high unemployment policy by reducing the size of the budget deficit. One can argue for the merits of deficit reduction, but this was a political choice where a lower deficit number was judged to be more important than letting millions of people have jobs.

In the same vein, we could have pursued policies to get the trade deficit closer to balance. If we had emphasized reducing the value of the dollar in our negotiations with trading partners, instead of things like patent protection for prescription drugs, copyright protection for Microsoft and Hollywood, and access to financial markets for Goldman Sachs, we would also have millions more people employed.

Furthermore, we could have structured trade agreements to put our doctors and lawyers in direct competition with their counterparts in the developing world (who would train to our standards) then globalization would not have been a factor increasing inequality. Instead it would have brought down the wages of the most highly skilled workers, while producing huge economic gains by lowering the cost of health care and other services. This would also have improved the bargaining situation of most of the workforce at the expense of business.

Mankiw is misleading readers by implying that we have the option to have consensual exchanges that are not shaped in very large ways by the government. (This is the topic of my free book, The End of Loser Liberalism: Making Markets Progressive.) In the last three decades, most of that shaping has been done to redistribute income upward.

Add a comment

The Post gives us its latest concern about the housing market, telling us that higher interest rates will cause people to stay in their current homes where they have locked in low mortgage rates for long periods of time.

"The higher rates, soaring home prices and a tight inventory have kept potential buyers on the sidelines, hurting the sales of previously owned homes and undermining the recovery of the housing market, a huge contributor to economic growth."

The problem with this line is that the housing market has recovered pretty much all we should expect. In the mid-1990s, before the bubble began to dominate the market, existing home sales averaged about 3.5 million annually. If we adjust upward by 20 percent for population growth, we should expect existing home sales of around 4.2 million.

In fact, they have been running at around 4.8 million, considerably above trend levels. This is partially offset by lower than trend sales of new homes (this is due to the fact that unusually high vacancy rates are still discouraging new construction). However this piece is focused on explaining a weakness in the housing market that does not exist.

The piece also misrepresents the scenario we would face if interest rates rise further, implying that this will directly make housing less affordable. It ignores the fact that higher interest rates will likely lead to lower house prices. This will not completely offset the impact of higher interest rates on monthly housing costs, but the almost inevitable drop in house prices will alleviate the impact on higher interest rates. It is bizarre that the piece never mentioned this fact.

Add a comment

There are many ideologues who have their own set of truths, who refuse to listen to any evidence that points in a different direction. However George Will is in a class all by himself. He refuses to pay attention to the evidence that he himself puts forward.

Exhibit A is a classic Will rant at the left for being unwilling to consider the cultural factors that affect poverty. The hero of this piece is Daniel Patrick Moynihan:

"In March 1965, Moynihan, then 37 and assistant secretary of labor, wrote that 'the center of the tangle of pathology' in inner cities — this was five months before the Watts riots — was the fact that 23.6 percent of black children were born to single women, compared with just 3.07 percent of white children."

Will then goes on to tell readers:

"Forty-nine years later, 41 percent of all American children are born out of wedlock; almost half of all first births are to unmarried women, as are 54 percent and 72 percent of all Hispanic and black births, respectively."

If we follow Will's link we find that 29 percent of non-Hispanic white children are born out of wedlock today.That's considerably higher than the 23.6 percent of black children born out of wedlock in 1965 that Moynihan thought was the explanation for their poverty. Yet the poverty rate for white children today is less than 10 percent. It was over 40 percent for African American children in the mid-1960s.

If black children in 1965 had a poverty rate that is more than four times the poverty rate for white children in 2012, despite their lower rate of births to unmarried mothers, this would seem pretty solid evidence that being born to an unmarried mother is not the main factor in determining child poverty.

The far more important factor is the earnings potential for the children's parent(s). This is determined by the factors that Will discourages us from considering, such as macroeconomic policy, trade policy, policies toward labor organizing, and other policy choices that will determine the health of the labor market facing parents of young children. Of course their access to health care and quality child care will also be important factors determining the children's well-being which are picked up in the Census Bureau's supplemental poverty measure. 

And it is easy to show that government policy has made poverty worse on this score. The fall in employment rates following the 2001 recession was associated with a rise in poverty. The much sharper fall in employment rates following the 2008 recession was associated with an even larger rise in poverty. The decision of Congress to run high unemployment budgets (i.e. lower deficits) also will predictably result in a higher poverty rate for children.

There is a different and trivially true point that perhaps Will is trying to make in his column. Children with two loving committed parents will fare better in life on average than children who only have one parent.

Many liberals don't find this very useful from a policy perspective because they don't think the government is very good at creating and preserving good marriages. However we do know how to run economic policies that will reduce the unemployment rate.

Add a comment

The campaign to install Larry Summers instead of Janet Yellen as Fed chair was chock full of sexist innuendo as pundits speculated as to whether Yellen had the gravitas to hold down the job. The Washington Post's editorial on Yellen's first press conference showed that such attitudes continue in elite Washington circles.

The headline complained:

"In Fed media event, Yellen isn't able to control the message."

The piece itself told readers:

"Mr. Bernanke’s successor, Janet Yellen, met with reporters Wednesday and, bluntly, it didn’t go all that smoothly. Responding to a question, Ms. Yellen hinted that the Fed might start raising interest rates above zero “around six months” after phasing out the current bond-buying stimulus program; bond markets quickly sold off, which was almost certainly not what Ms. Yellen intended. Ms. Yellen also assured investors that there was no great significance to the Fed’s decision, announced Wednesday, to back off its previous plan to raise rates after unemployment hit 6.5 percent. But markets looked past her words to other Fed officials’ own interest-rate forecasts and drew contrary conclusions."

If you missed the earthquake in bond markets that was the basis for the Post's editorial you can be forgiven. The economy will probably miss it too. The linked article reports that yield on two-year Treasury notes climbed 7 basis points to 0.42 percent. This is a lot in percentage terms, but its economic impact is close to zero. The yield on ten-year Treasury bonds, which has far more impact on the economy, was little changed. It is still under 2.8 percent and has remained in pretty much the same range for the last month and a half, down from just over 3.0 percent in December.

In other words, if Yellen misspoke there was little obvious consequence. By contrast, her predecessor Ben Bernanke did spark a sharp rise in long-term interest rates with his famous taper talk last June. Partly as a result of this talk, the yield on ten-year bonds rose by more than one percentage point over a two-month period. While this rise in long-term rates did not appear to be his intention, it appears to have taken the air out of an incipient bubble in the housing market. In that sense, it may have been a remarkably good move, even if it was an unintended outcome.

Anyhow, it is striking that the WaPo didn't see the need to rebuke Bernanke for what appeared to major unintended consequences from a press conference, while Yellen does draw its wrath for a possibly mistake that will have virtually no economic impact.

Add a comment

How can we stop the country's leading newspaper from repeating nonsense? To paraphrase a former president, "there they go again." A front page article on the Obama administration's efforts to sign up young people before the deadline told readers:

"And there is concern that the administration still needs a larger proportion of 18- to 34-year-olds, the young and presumably healthy people whom insurance companies need as customers in order to keep premiums reasonable for everyone."

The simple fact, as shown in this analysis by the Kaiser family Foundation, is that the potential age skewing of enrollment matters little for the cost of the program. Younger people are on average healthier than older people, but they also pay much less in premiums. The difference in premiums doesn't fully capture the difference in costs, but the gap between premiums and average cost has relatively little impact on the finances of the program. It matters much more if there is a skewing by health condition.

Most older people are also healthy. A substantial portion of people in the oldest age bracket (55-64) will have few or no claims on their insurer. Since these healthy older people pay three times as much on average for insurance as young people it matters much more whether they sign up for the exchanges than healthy young people. 

Add a comment