Beat the Press is Dean Baker's commentary on economic reporting. Dean Baker is co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR).
The NYT devoted an article to Amazon's plans for building out its warehouse network and managed to completely avoid any reference to Amazon's efforts to avoid having to collect sales tax. For years, Amazon pursued a strategy of trying not to maintain a physical presence in states so that it could argue that it did not have to collect sales tax. This effectively gave Amazon an enormous taxpayer subsidy at the expense of conventional retailers.
Jeff Bezos has effectively been handed millions of years worth of food stamps by government regulations that allowed him to avoid collecting sales tax. The savings from not having to collect sales tax almost certainly exceeds Amazon's cumulative profits since it was founded.Add a comment
It really is shameful how so many people, who certainly should know better, argue that automation is the factor depressing the wages of large segments of the workforce and that education (i.e. blame the ignorant workers) is the solution. President Obama takes center stage in this picture since he said almost exactly this in his farewell address earlier in the week. This misconception is repeated in a Claire Cain Miller's NYT column today. Just about every part of the story is wrong.
Starting with the basic story of automation replacing workers, we have a simple way of measuring this process, it's called "productivity growth." And contrary to what the automation folks tell you, productivity growth has actually been very slow lately.
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics.
The figure above shows average annual rates of productivity growth for five year periods, going back to 1952. As can be seen, the pace of automation (productivity growth) has actually been quite slow in recent years. It is also projected by the Congressional Budget Office and most other forecasters to remain slow for the foreseeable future, so the prospect of mass displacement of jobs by automation runs completely counter to what we have been seeing in the labor market.Add a comment
An NYT article on Robert Lighthizer, Donald Trump's pick to be trade representative, left out some important background information. It notes that Lighthizer wants to reduce the size of the U.S. trade deficit with China. It then told readers that this could lead to major conflicts with China:
"Exports are important for China. It consistently sells $4 worth of goods to the United States for each $1 of imports. That mismatch has produced a bilateral trade surplus for China equal to about 3 percent of the country’s entire economy, creating tens of millions of jobs.
"The benefits to China from that surplus have been increasing rapidly in the past few years."
It is worth noting that China has actually sharply reduced its trade surplus in prior years. According to the I.M.F. it peaked at 9.9 percent of GDP in 2007. It then declined sharply to just 1.8 percent of GDP in 2011. It has since edged slightly higher, but it is still less than 3.0 percent of GDP.
Ordinarily, we would expect that a fast growing developing country like China would be running a trade deficit, as capital flows into the country to take advantage of higher returns. This has not happened in China's case as the government has offset inflows of private capital by buying up trillions of dollars of foreign assets. It now holds more than $3 trillion in reserves in addition to another $1.5 trillion in foreign assets in the form of sovereign wealth funds.
Reportedly China has recently been trying to raise the value of its currency. This would suggest an obvious path of agreement between the U.S. and China under which the two countries could act jointly to raise the value of China's currency against the dollar, thereby putting downward pressure on the trade deficit.
The piece also notes Lighthizer's advocacy of the efforts of the Reagan administration to pressure Japanese manufacturers to "voluntarily" limit their exports to the United States. It would have been worth mentioning that these restrictions on exports led the Japanese manufacturers to begin to set up factories in the United States. Today, most of the cars that Japanese auto companies sell in the United States are assembled here, although they still do include a substantial amount of foreign content.
This piece seriously misrepresents a proposal for corporate tax reform advocated by Republicans in Congress as a route to tax imports. In fact, the tax has been developed by economists who are very much conventional free traders. The purpose is to simplify the tax code and eliminate the enormous waste associated with the gaming of our current system. The treatment of imports and exports is intended to make the tax symmetric with the treatment of value-added taxes in many U.S. trading partners. It is not intended as a protectionist measure to reduce the trade deficit.Add a comment
As the protectionist supporters of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) desperately try to regroup, it's entertaining to see how they think that China-bashing is their best hope for success. (Yes, supporters of the TPP are protectionist. A major thrust of the deal is to impose longer and stronger patent and copyright and related protections on the member countries. These are by definition forms of protectionism, even if economists and reporters tend to like them.)
Anyhow, we got an example of the China bashing of a TPP supporter in a Washington Post column by Fareed Zakaria, in which he warned readers that China would be the main beneficiary from a decision by Donald Trump not to pursue the TPP as president. The economists at the Peterson Institute for International Economics are also among those making the argument for the TPP as an obstacle to China's growing political strength in the region. Many of these same people argued vociferously for allowing China to enter the WTO in 2000 without imposing conditions like respect for human rights or labor rights, which may have fundamentally altered China's path of political development. It is striking that they now think the U.S. public should now be concerned about the growing power of a country with little respect for these rights.Add a comment
Reporters always complain about not having enough space to give the full story, which makes it a mystery as to why they so frequently add the word "free" to references to trade policy. We got an example of this wasteful wordiness in a NYT article on Donald Trump's decision to ignore nepotism and conflict-of-interest rules and appoint his son-in-law Jared Kushner as a top adviser.
The piece told readers that Kushner, along with other responsibilities, would work on "matters involving free trade." The use of "free" in this context is misleading since much of the U.S. trade agenda is about increasing protectionism in the form of longer and stronger patent, copyright, and related protections. These protections are equivalent to tariffs of many thousand percent in the economic distortions they produce. They are 180 degrees at odds with free trade. There also has been little, if any, effort to remove protectionists barriers that benefit highly paid professionals, such as the ban on foreign doctors who have not completed a U.S. residency program.
For these reasons, it is inaccurate to include the word "free" in reference to U.S. trade policy. It is difficult to see why the NYT and other news outlets feel the need to do it.Add a comment
One positive item that is on the agenda of the Republican Congress is an overhaul of the corporate tax code. The basic plan is to hugely simplify the tax in a way that would eliminate almost all deductions, most importantly the deduction for interest payments.
I am big fan of this change because the tax shelter industry is both an enormous source of waste in the economy and major generator of inequality. In particular, the private equity (PE) industry is largely about tax arbitrage, with much of the profits in the sector due to the fact that PE companies can radically reduce the liability of the companies they buy. This allows them to make a fortune when they resell them to the public, typically within a few years after they buy them. (See the book by my colleague Eileen Appelbaum and Rose Batt, Private Equity at Work: When Wall Street Manages Main Street.)
PE is the source of many of the biggest incomes in the country. Think of folks like Mitt Romney and Peter Peterson. PE partners often make tens of millions of dollars a year, and paychecks in excess of a hundred million are not uncommon. Eliminating this sort of tax arbitrage, as the Republican tax reform would do, would get rid of this source of waste generated enormous inequality.
For some reason, this part of the story has barely been mentioned. Ironically, the issue that has been highlighted is the treatment of imports and exports. While the tax is not directly a value-added tax like the ones in place in European countries, it has many features of a value-added tax. (A value-added tax is essentially a sales tax.) The proposed tax can be thought of as a hybrid between a value-added tax and an income tax.
Anyhow, the proposal would treat the tax in the same way that countries treat a value-added tax. It is applied to all imported items and refunded on exported items. Some proponents of the tax argue that this tax treatment is one of the great advantages of the tax since it would promote U.S. exports. The econ theorist types dismiss the argument by saying that changes in currency values, specifically a rise in the value of the dollar, would offset any gains in the competitiveness of U.S. goods and services from the tax.
Color me as skeptical on the full offset argument, but ironically the prospect of a full offset is being put forward as an argument against the tax. Neil Irwin makes the case in his column in the NYT this morning.Add a comment
Politico badly misled readers this morning in an article that said Trump "can't simply divest from his businesses." The article cited a number of experts who explained how difficult and complicated it would be for Trump to sell off his various businesses, many of which have complex ownership arrangements, along with debts and other legal obligations.
While selling Trump's business enterprises in short order would be complicated, as I explained shortly after the election, this is not what is necessary for Donald Trump to avoid conflicts of interest. The key to the process I outline in that piece is that Trump arrange to get independent teams of auditors to provide assessments of the property. I suggested he go with the middle assessment provided by three teams of auditors. This would limit the likelihood of a major error in the assessment.
Trump would then buy an insurance policy that would guarantee him the estimate from this middle audit. The enterprises would then be turned over to an executor who would run and offload the businesses with the goal of maximizing the value. When the businesses are sold off the proceeds would be placed in a blind trust. If the cumulative value from the sales exceeds the estimate, then the proceeds go to a charity of Trump's choosing, but not under his control. If the proceeds from the sales are less than the value of the estimate he collects on the insurance policy.
This is a process that should be fair to Donald Trump and can be done quickly. It eliminates his conflicts of interest as soon he buys the insurance policy. Trump should have been going in this direction the day after the election, in which case he surely would have an insurance policy in force by now. However, if he were to take steps to come clean now, he should still be able to end his conflicts in the first weeks of his presidency.Add a comment
December's employment report showed that the average hourly wage has risen by 2.9 percent over the last year. This was widely reported as evidence that wage growth was accelerating. While the pace of wage growth may have picked up somewhat in recent months, it is not necessarily the case that the pace of compensation growth has risen to the same extent.
In recent years, the pace of benefit growth has been trailing the rate of wage growth, as employers cut back on the amount they pay for their workers' health insurance. As a result, at least through the third quarter of the 2016 (4th quarter data are not yet available), the acceleration in compensation growth was less noticeable than the acceleration recently reported in wage growth. The year-over-year increase for the third quarter was 2.4 percent. This is up by roughly a percentage point from the lows hit in 2009, but down from 2.6 percent year-over-year pace in the fourth quarter of 2014.
Neil Irwin gave a reasonable assessment of the Obama administration's record on job creation and wage growth, but there is one item that could use clarification. He notes the decline in prime-age male labor force participation, but then dismisses it as part of a long-term trend.
There are two points here that are worth noting. The participation rate of prime-age women had been rising prior to the recessions in 2001 and 2008–09. In both cases it was projected to continue to rise. Economists are happy to now say that the lower current rate is simply due to more prime-age women choosing not to work, but it is not obvious to me that economists today are better able to determine the underlying rate of labor force participation for prime-age women than economists working in 2000 or 2006. In other words, I don't buy that the drop in women's labor force participation is not the result of weak demand.
The other point is that labor force participation is actually an imperfect measure since the decision of someone to look for work, and therefore be classified as part of the labor force, depends in part on the generosity of unemployment insurance (UI) benefits. (To qualify for benefits you have to say you are looking for work.) As requirements for UI have gotten stricter more people give up looking for work and drop out of the labor force.
If we look at prime-age employment rates (EPOP) we get a measure that is not sensitive to this problem. So, while Irwin tells us:
"The proportion of men 25 to 54 who are part of the labor force has fallen by 1.4 percentage points during the last eight years.
"What is less widely understood, though, is that this shift isn’t some new phenomenon of the Obama era. That same measure fell by 1.7 percentage points during the eight years of George W. Bush’s presidency. Even during the boom years of the Clinton administration, it fell by 0.9 percentage points."
If we look at EPOPs we got a somewhat different picture, most notably during the Clinton years. From January 1993 to January of 2001 the EPOP for prime-age men rose by 2.1 percentage points. Even if we take the more reasonable peak to peak comparison we see little evidence of a downward trend with a peak in February of 1990 of 90.1 percent compared to a peak in January of 1999 of 89.7 percent. In other words, if we look at EPOPs, there is not much evidence of a downward trend in EPOPs in the decade prior to the 2001 recession.
The point is important since there are many people in policy positions who want to say that the current level of unemployment and employment rates is the best we can do and that the Fed should jack up rates to prevent the labor market from tightening further. (The same was true when the unemployment rate fell below 6.0 percent in 1995.)
If in fact there are still millions of people who would work if they saw jobs available, then we are needlessly depriving them of employment. Furthermore, by weakening the labor market, the Fed would be preventing tens of millions of workers from having sufficient bargaining power to secure rate increases and make up the ground loss in the recession.Add a comment
I see from the Twitterverse that this NYT column by Robert Leonard, on why rural voters don't like Democrats, touched some nerves. The main complaint stems from Leonard's comment that rural voters see themselves as subsidizing the big cities:
"In this view, blue counties are where most of our tax dollars are spent, and that’s where all of our laws are written and passed. To rural Americans, sometimes it seems our taxes mostly go to making city residents live better. We recognize that the truth is more complex, particularly when it comes to social programs, but it’s the perception that matters — certainly to the way most people vote."
The gist of the angry Twitter comments was effectively "who cares about the hicks' perceptions, the reality is that the tax subsidies go the other way."
Well, this might a good teaching moment. Only the ignorati would focus exclusively on tax and spending flows. As everyone who has read the good book (Rigged — it's free) knows, the government directs income flows in a wide variety of ways that go beyond normal tax and spending flows.Add a comment
Yet again the Washington Post tries to tell readers that trade has not been a major factor in the loss of manufacturing jobs in this century. It concluded an interesting piece on Ford's decision to cancel plans for a plant in Mexico by telling readers:
"The president-elect has argued that trade policy has quashed American livelihoods, encouraging businesses to seek cheaper labor in other countries. He has criticized Ford, General Motors and Carrier on Twitter for shuttling work south of the border.
"A study last year from the Center for Business and Economic Research at Ball State University, a school in the manufacturing heartland, tells a different story. Co-author Michael Hicks, an economics professor, found that advances in technology caused far more job loss. That’s because automation has enabled factories to produce more goods with fewer people."
Actually, automation is not new. It's called "productivity growth" and has been going on for centuries, often much faster than it is today. As we can see, manufacturing employment remained roughly even, with cyclical ups and downs, from 1970 to 2000. It then plunged as the trade deficit exploded to almost 6.0 percent of GDP in 2005 and 2006 ($1.1 trillion in today's economy).
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics.
The basic story is that manufacturing employment was declining as a share of total employment through this whole period and undoubtedly would have continued to do so regardless of what happened with trade. However, the sharp plunge in employment that we saw in the years 2000 to 2007 (pre-crash) was due to the trade deficit.
It is remarkable that the Washington Post feels so much need to deny this simple fact. It is in the same vein as its refusal to correct its 2007 editorial claiming that NAFTA had led Mexico's GDP to quadruple between 1987 and 2007. The actual number is 83 percent according to I.M.F data. A serious newspaper would correct such an egregious error.Add a comment
This fact was implicit in a NYT piece that discussed the extent to which U.S. medical schools are expanding enrollments. The piece notes that the number of doctors in the United States is limited by the requirement that they complete a U.S. residency program. It doesn't give any indication that this protectionist restriction might be removed or weakened in the years ahead.
As a result of this protectionism, U.S. doctors earn on average more than twice as much as their counterparts in Germany, France, and other wealthy countries. This costs the country close to $100 billion a year in higher health care costs. Because of the political power of doctors, there is little public debate over this protectionism and news outlets like the NYT rarely even mention it.Add a comment
Yes, I know Peter Peterson is a major source of employment in Washington and that the Washington Post editors and many pundits would have to look for substantive issues to talk about if they couldn't whine about the debt, but really it is time for these folks to grow up. The immediate provocation here is Steven Rattner's NYT column giving "2016 in Charts."
Most of the charts are actually quite interesting and useful, but then he ends the piece with a tirade about the prospects for the national debt under a Trump administration. Rattner warns:
"These huge tax giveaways — along with Mr. Trump’s promises to increase infrastructure spending and not touch Social Security and Medicare — would blow up the deficit and add $4 trillion to the national debt over the next 10 years over and above current projections."
Just to be clear, there is no reason to be giving more money to Donald Trump's billionaire friends as he proposes, but the argument is not that it will "blow up" the deficit and add to the debt. The argument is that this money could be much better used educating our children, improving our infrastructure, and making health care affordable, among other things.
The debt stuff is just silliness that we really need to get over. The problem of an actually excessive debt would show itself in high interest rates and high inflation rates. Have you checked those measures lately? Long-term interest rates are still way below their levels from the late 1990s when the government was running surpluses. And inflation remains persistently below the Fed's 2.0 percent target and in recent months has edged downward. (And, for those keeping score at home, the government's ratio of interest payments to GDP is near a post-World War II low.)
Furthermore, the whole focus on the debt encourages sloppy thinking that has no place in serious policy discussions. The government makes obligations for us all the time that don't take the form of explicit debt. Donald Trump wants to have private companies spend a trillion dollars building infrastructure that they will then recoup in tolls. How do these tolls differ from taxes? So we would be doing bad things to our kids if we financed infrastructure with debt, but then taxed to repay the bonds, but if private companies charge the same amount (most likely much more) in tolls, everything is cool?
To take a much more important example, grants of patent and copyright monopolies are ways in which the government finances innovation and creative work. We pay $430 billion a year for prescription drugs that would likely cost around $60 billion in a free market without patents and related protection. (Yes, you can read more in my [free] book, Rigged.) If the government imposed a tax of $370 billion a year on drugs being sold in a free market the deficit hawks would be yelling and screaming about high taxes, but when we give drug companies a legal monopoly so that they can add this amount to the price of drugs it's no big deal?
Okay, this is just silliness. We need discussions of the economy that are serious. When people scream about debt and deficits they are not being serious. The national debt is not a real measure of anything and folks should know that even if the "experts" don't.Add a comment
Folks undoubtedly heard about Donald Trump's boast about getting Ford to keep jobs in the U.S. rather than investing in a new plant in Mexico. The decision seems to have more to do with Ford's product mix than anything that Trump did with his boast and bully strategy, but whatever. We're getting used to a guy that would take credit for the sun rising and gives us jobs that you can count on your fingers. (To be clear, I think it would be great if Donald Trump pushes policies that bring (or save) good-paying manufacturing jobs to the United States, but we're interested in policies that affect millions of jobs, not press shows with hundreds of jobs.)
Anyhow, one aspect of these Ford jobs that has not gotten sufficient attention is that the only reason they exist is because of President Obama's policy on combating global warming. As the NYT article points out, the plant in Michigan where production is being increased produces hybrid and electric cars. These cars were given subsidies as part of President Obama's efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions. This was part of Obama's strategy to combat global warming.
As folks may recall, Donald Trump has said that global warming is a hoax invented by the Chinese. It turns out that President Obama's response to this hoax is responsible for creating the jobs that Trump claims to have saved.Add a comment
Alright, that is not entirely fair, but when the NYT told readers that Germany's unemployment rate is 6.0 percent it seriously misled readers. The issue is that this figure refers to Germany's unemployment rate as calculated by Germany's government. This measure counts workers who are employed part-time, but want full-time jobs, as being unemployed. By contrast, the standard measure of the unemployment rate in the United States counts these workers as being employed.
This would be reasonable if the German government measure was the only one available, but it isn't. The OECD calculates a harmonized unemployment rate that is essentially the same as the unemployment rate generally used for the United States. By this measure Germany's unemployment rate is just 4.0 percent.
The NYT can be partially forgiven since this was a Reuters story that it made available on its web site. (I don't know if it ran in the print edition.) Still, it would not be hard to add a sentence either explaining the difference or alternatively including the OECD measure.
In this same vein, and it's a new year, let me also harp on the practice of printing other country's growth rates as quarterly figures. While the rate of GDP growth is always expressed as an annual rate in the United States, most other countries express their growth as a quarterly rate. Typically this raises the U.S. growth rate by a factor of four. For example, a 0.5 percent quarterly growth rate translates into a 2.0 percent annual rate. (To be precise, the growth rate should be taken to the fourth power. For low growth rates this will typically be the same as multiplying by four.)
Anyhow, articles often appear in the NYT and elsewhere that just print the growth rate as a quarterly rate, frequently without even pointing out that it is a quarterly rate. This gives readers an inaccurate impression of the growth rate in other countries.
It really should not be too much to expect a newspaper to convert the growth rates to annualized rates. After all, the reporters are more likely to have the time to do this than the readers. And, this is supposed to be about providing information to readers, right?Add a comment
The NYT had an editorial arguing that major corporations are helping Donald Trump lie about job creation in order to get favors from his administration. The main example is the Japanese investment firm Soft Bank, which allowed Trump to get away with taking credit for investment decisions which had been announced in October, before Donald Trump was elected. It argues that Soft Bank is hoping that Trump will allow a merger between its Sprint subsidiary and T-Mobile. This merger had been opposed by the Obama administration because it would reduce competition in the cell phone industry. It would likely also result in the loss of a substantial number of jobs.
It is worth noting that such phony claims of job creation can only be effective for Trump if the media allow it. If the headline of the news stories was something to the effect of "Trump again makes phony job claim," with the article carefully explaining that Trump had nothing to with creating any jobs, it is likely that Trump would give up on the tactic. Of course this would require the media to engage in objective reporting even if it ends up being very critical of a particular politician.Add a comment
Gretchen Morgenson had an interesting piece on the New York Teamsters pension fund, which appears likely to impose a substantial benefit cut on current and future retirees as a result of a large funding shortfall. While there are many causes for the shortfall, most importantly a declining number of active workers contributing to the fund, the situation has been made worse by the high fees paid to private equity companies.
It appears that the fund invested heavily in private equity in recent years in the hope of raising its returns. The investments have not generally paid off, with private equity funds doing no better than comparable market indexes. However, the pensions had to pay much more in fees to the private equity fund managers than they would have paid had they invested in a stock index. It is probably worth mentioning that many of the most highly paid people in the country are private equity fund managers.Add a comment
Breaking the taxi industry cartel's and promoting Uber has been somewhat of a cause célèbre among economists in recent years. Any card carrying economist can give you the two minute tirade on the evils of the taxi cartel and the benefits of Uber. (I can too, but the argument should be for modernized regulation, not Uber gets to do whatever it wants because it's Uber, see pieces here, here, and here.)
What is striking is that the enthusiasm for the virtues of competition seems to disappear when we switch the topic from the taxi cartel to the doctors' cartel. Doctors actually have been far more effective than taxi companies in limiting competition. Doctors largely get to set standards of care, which not surprisingly requires twice as high a percentage of highly paid specialists as in other wealthy countries. They also restrict the number of doctors with a wonderfully protectionist rule that prohibits doctors from practicing in the United States unless they have completed a U.S. residency program. This means that even well-established doctors in places like Germany, France, and Canada would face arrest if they attempted to practice medicine in the United States.
As a result of this cartel, doctors in the U.S. earn on average more than $250,000 a year, putting the average doctor not far below the one percent threshold, even assuming no other family income. This is roughly twice the pay as the average doctor earns in other wealthy countries.
It is striking that the doctors' cartel gets so much less attention from economists than the taxi cartel. After all, we spend close to $250 billion a year on doctors compared to $6 billion a year on taxis. I could suggest that the lack of interest is due to the fact that many economists have parents, siblings and/or children who are doctors, but I wouldn't be that rude.
Anyhow, there are measures that can be taken at both the national and state level to break the cartel if economists ever take an interest in free trade. At the national level the obvious step would be to establish an international certification system so that doctors trained in other countries could establish their competency and then practice in the United States just like a doctor born and trained here. (Save the whine. We can establish a system whereby we repatriate money to developing countries for the doctors they train who then practice in the United States. As it stands, they get zero money for the doctors that leave the country, so this system would almost certainly be a net improvement for them. Yes, this is discussed in Rigged.)
Since protectionists dominate trade policy (I mean up until now, not just since the election of Donald Trump), we can also look to measures at the state level. It seems that several states are considering policies that would allow doctors who do not complete a residency program to practice under the supervision of another doctor. This is a great first step as is expanding the scope of practice for nurse practitioners and other less highly paid health care professionals.
Developments in technology should allow health care professionals with much less training than doctors to make diagnoses as accurately or more accurately than the best doctors. The same is true with robotics, which is likely to eventually outperform even the best surgeons. These technologies will offer both huge savings and better care, if we don't allow the doctors' cartel to maintain its lock on the practice of medicine.Add a comment
It is really amazing how the political and economic establishment types feel the need to deny that trade can actually have a negative impact on manufacturing jobs and total employment in their arguments against Donald Trump's trade policies. George Will gave us a great lesson in this silliness in his column today.
Among the highlights were the claim that the loss of manufacturing jobs in the years after 2000 had little to do with the explosion of the trade deficit to almost 6 percent of GDP ($1.1 trillion in today's economy), but rather was almost all due to productivity. There are two points about this one that should immediately lead numerate types to tear up the column.
First, we always have productivity growth, that was not something that just happened in the decade of the 2000s. In spite of productivity growth, manufacturing employment changed little from 1973 to 1997, when our trade deficit first began to explode following the East Asian financial crisis and the surge in the value of the dollar. While manufacturing was declining as a share of total employment, the level remained roughly even (with cyclical ups and downs) at 17.5 million. Employment then plunged to around 12 million as the trade deficit soared. Productivity growth was not the new part of the story, the trade deficit was. (Susan Houseman has done excellent research showing that manufacturing productivity growth in the 2000s was almost entirely in the information technology sector, which means it will not explain a loss of jobs in sectors like steel and furniture.)
The other troubling item to numerate readers of Will's column is the implicit claim that if we had been producing an additional 6 percentage points of GDP worth of manufactured goods in the U.S. (e.g. another $1.1 trillion of manufacturing goods annually in today's economy) it wouldn't require any new workers. That sounds really cool. After all, it takes more than 12 million workers to produce the current $1.7 trillion in manufacturing output in the United States, so Will apparently thinks we can increase this output by 60 percent without hiring any new workers? That would be quite a surge in productivity growth, something our slow growing economy could badly use. Sounds like a great argument for protectionist measures if anyone really believed it.Add a comment
Neil Irwin used an Upshot column to address the issue of whether Donald Trump can acheive the 4.0 percent annual growth rate he has promised over the next decade. He argues that insofar as it is possible it is likely to involve two items that Trump voters may not like: job displacing innovations and increased immigration. While Irwin is right in identifying these two factors in promoting growth, there are few additional points to add to his discussion.
In the case of job displacing innovation, Irwin points to the prospect of self-driving trucks destroying up to 1.7 million long-haul trucking jobs over the next decade. Irwin notes that these jobs pay an average of $42,500 a year to workers who generally do not have a college education. (Many truck drivers do earn considerably more than this amount, especially if they are in a union.)
While the spread of self-driving trucks is likely to cost a substantial number of jobs, the savings should in principle allow other workers to be paid more. For example, the remaining workers involved in loading and offloading trucks (who might be supervising robots), should be a position to get higher pay. This was the pattern among longshoreman, as pay increased as fewer workers were needed for the job. If there are strong unions and/or a tight labor market, this can be the outcome.
The tight labor market issue brings up a second point. The Federal Reserve Board has been actively working to limit the number of jobs. This was the purpose of its rate hike earlier this month. The point was to slow demand growth in the economy and thereby reduce the rate of job creation. The rationale for this move was the fear of inflation.
Whether or not the Fed is right to fear inflation, there is a simple point here that everyone should understand. The Fed is deliberately acting to limit the number of jobs in the economy. It is more than a bit bizarre that we have people worried that automation will destroy large numbers of jobs who are fine with the Fed raising interest rates to destroy jobs. If we think there are too few jobs in the economy, then we should be very upset that the Fed, an arm of the government, is trying to keep people from getting jobs.Add a comment
Don't worry, I'm not advocating mass murder; I want to put to death a silly myth about Obamacare that keeps getting spread by people who should know better. The basic story is that Obamacare is dependent on getting large numbers of young and healthy people into the system. The premiums these people pay will help to cover the costs incurred by older and less healthy people.
The latest repetition of this myth appears in a NYT editorial urging Republicans not to destroy the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The piece notes the sharp increases in premiums last year and then told readers:
"Still, the cost of insurance, deductibles and co-payments is too high for many people, especially middle-class families that earn too much to qualify for subsidies. But the solution is not to take away the benefits of the law but to strengthen it. Costs could be lowered if more young and healthy people were encouraged to sign up to spread costs over a larger pool of people."
This comment wrongly implies that the problem of the system is that not enough young people have signed up. This is not true, the age distribution of enrollees has little impact on the cost of the program. While the distribution of premiums works slightly against the young, it is not enough to have a substantial impact on the finances of the system.
The Kaiser Family Foundation showed that even an extreme age skewing of enrollees would raise costs by less than 2.0 percent. It matters much more whether there is a skewing based on health conditions.
To see this point, think of the premium people pay as a tax. Under the ACA, people in the oldest age bracket (ages 55 to 64) pay premiums that are three times as large as people in the youngest age bracket (ages 18 to 34). This means that each older person pays three times as much into the system as a younger enrollee. This would mean, other things equal, we should value getting an older enrollee into the exchanges three times as much as a younger enrollee.Add a comment