Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
It might have been worth making this point in an article on President Obama’s budget proposal that tells readers of his plan to cut Social Security by reducing the annual cost of living adjustment. It would have been worth putting this proposal in some context, since many readers may not understand its consequences.
President Obama’s proposal would reduce benefits by 0.3 percent for each year after a worker retires. After ten years benefits would be cut by 3.0 percent, after twenty years 6.0 percent, and after 30 years 9.0 percent. Over a twenty year retirement, the average cut would be 3.0 percent.
This cut would be a bigger hit to the typical retiree’s income than President Obama’s tax increases at the end of 2012 were to the typical person affected. A couple earning $500,000 a year would pay an additional 4.6 percentage points on income above $450,000. This would amount to $2,300 a year (4.6 percent of $50,000). That is less than 0.5 percent of their pre-tax income and around a 0.6 percent reduction in their after-tax income.
By comparison, Social Security is about 70 percent of the income of a typical retiree. Since President Obama’s proposal would lead to a 3 percent cut in Social Security benefits, it would reduce the income of the typical retiree by more than 2.0 percent, more than three times the size of the hit from the tax increase to the wealthy.
Source: Author’s Calculations.
It might have been worth making this point in an article on President Obama’s budget proposal that tells readers of his plan to cut Social Security by reducing the annual cost of living adjustment. It would have been worth putting this proposal in some context, since many readers may not understand its consequences.
President Obama’s proposal would reduce benefits by 0.3 percent for each year after a worker retires. After ten years benefits would be cut by 3.0 percent, after twenty years 6.0 percent, and after 30 years 9.0 percent. Over a twenty year retirement, the average cut would be 3.0 percent.
This cut would be a bigger hit to the typical retiree’s income than President Obama’s tax increases at the end of 2012 were to the typical person affected. A couple earning $500,000 a year would pay an additional 4.6 percentage points on income above $450,000. This would amount to $2,300 a year (4.6 percent of $50,000). That is less than 0.5 percent of their pre-tax income and around a 0.6 percent reduction in their after-tax income.
By comparison, Social Security is about 70 percent of the income of a typical retiree. Since President Obama’s proposal would lead to a 3 percent cut in Social Security benefits, it would reduce the income of the typical retiree by more than 2.0 percent, more than three times the size of the hit from the tax increase to the wealthy.
Source: Author’s Calculations.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
In a piece on the new initiative by Japan’s central bank to raise its inflation rate to 2.0 percent, the Washington Post told readers:
“The risks are known but impossible to quantify: of inflation remaining tame until it roars out of control, or of asset bubbles creeping into unexpected parts of the economy as investors take advantage of cheap money worldwide to make ever-riskier bets.”
While central banks, like the bank of Japan and the Fed, have displayed an enormous lack of competence in recognizing and countering asset bubbles, there are no known instances of inflation remaining tame until it “roars out control,” apart from countries victimized by war or natural disaster. This horror story seems to be entirely an invention of the Post (or its unnamed sources).
In all the standard models inflation is a process that builds up gradually over time once an economy is hitting capacity constraints. Economies do not just jump from being severely depressed to having soaring inflation. For this reason, serious people would view this prospect with roughly the same concern as an attack from outer space.
It is also worth noting that this piece places an excessive emphasis on deflation. Japan has occasionally seen modest deflation (a drop in annual prices of less than 1.0 percent annually) over the last two decades. There is no particular importance to having deflation as compared to an inflation rate that is too low.
The issue here is that it would be desirable to have a lower real interest rate given the weakness of Japan’s economy. (The real interest rate is the nominal interest rate minus the inflation rate.) Since the nominal interest rate can never go below zero, the only way to lower the real interest rate is to push inflation higher.
For this reason, deflation is harmful, but only in the same sense that a lower inflation rate is harmful. A decline in the rate of inflation from 0.5 percent to -0.5 percent is no worse than a drop in the inflation rate from 1.5 percent to 0.5 percent. There is no magic about crossing the zero line. It is unfortunate that the Post and other news outlets have fostered so much confusion on this issue.
In a piece on the new initiative by Japan’s central bank to raise its inflation rate to 2.0 percent, the Washington Post told readers:
“The risks are known but impossible to quantify: of inflation remaining tame until it roars out of control, or of asset bubbles creeping into unexpected parts of the economy as investors take advantage of cheap money worldwide to make ever-riskier bets.”
While central banks, like the bank of Japan and the Fed, have displayed an enormous lack of competence in recognizing and countering asset bubbles, there are no known instances of inflation remaining tame until it “roars out control,” apart from countries victimized by war or natural disaster. This horror story seems to be entirely an invention of the Post (or its unnamed sources).
In all the standard models inflation is a process that builds up gradually over time once an economy is hitting capacity constraints. Economies do not just jump from being severely depressed to having soaring inflation. For this reason, serious people would view this prospect with roughly the same concern as an attack from outer space.
It is also worth noting that this piece places an excessive emphasis on deflation. Japan has occasionally seen modest deflation (a drop in annual prices of less than 1.0 percent annually) over the last two decades. There is no particular importance to having deflation as compared to an inflation rate that is too low.
The issue here is that it would be desirable to have a lower real interest rate given the weakness of Japan’s economy. (The real interest rate is the nominal interest rate minus the inflation rate.) Since the nominal interest rate can never go below zero, the only way to lower the real interest rate is to push inflation higher.
For this reason, deflation is harmful, but only in the same sense that a lower inflation rate is harmful. A decline in the rate of inflation from 0.5 percent to -0.5 percent is no worse than a drop in the inflation rate from 1.5 percent to 0.5 percent. There is no magic about crossing the zero line. It is unfortunate that the Post and other news outlets have fostered so much confusion on this issue.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
I hate to be partisan here (seriously — I criticize the Obama administration all the time), but this map showing declines (blue) in mortality rates for women and increases (red) looks a lot like voting patterns. There is a lot of red across the south and Republican Midwest. The blue tends to show up in Democratically dominated states like California and New York and to be most highly concentrated in the Democratic parts of Democratic or mixed states, such as the Chicago metro area in Illinois or the Detroit metro area in Michigan.
Of course there are many factors that determine life expectancy and some of them will not be easily affected by state policies, especially in the short-term. But the relationship shown in the map is striking. Needless to say, if the color pattern were reversed we would be hearing this as the lead news story for the next century.
I hate to be partisan here (seriously — I criticize the Obama administration all the time), but this map showing declines (blue) in mortality rates for women and increases (red) looks a lot like voting patterns. There is a lot of red across the south and Republican Midwest. The blue tends to show up in Democratically dominated states like California and New York and to be most highly concentrated in the Democratic parts of Democratic or mixed states, such as the Chicago metro area in Illinois or the Detroit metro area in Michigan.
Of course there are many factors that determine life expectancy and some of them will not be easily affected by state policies, especially in the short-term. But the relationship shown in the map is striking. Needless to say, if the color pattern were reversed we would be hearing this as the lead news story for the next century.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
Can it be a requirement that major budget pieces include at least two sentences on the budget’s impact on growth and jobs. This may not be important to balance budget worshippers, but this does matter to the people who have to work for a living.
Can it be a requirement that major budget pieces include at least two sentences on the budget’s impact on growth and jobs. This may not be important to balance budget worshippers, but this does matter to the people who have to work for a living.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
The New York Times ran a front page piece warning readers that the cost of treating dementia is “soaring.” The piece tells readers of the findings of a new study by the Rand Corporation that shows the cost of dementia doubling by 2040 from its 2010 level.
Are you scared? Are you shaking in your boots? Thinking about pulling the plug on these costly old-timers?
Well our friend, Mr. Arithmetic, reminds us that the Congressional Budget Office projects that the size of the economy is projected to roughly double over this period. This means that the Rand study’s finding implies that dementia will impose pretty much the same burden on the economy in 2040 as it does today.
This story follows a common practice among the Washington elite. They continually highlight and exaggerate costs associated with an aging population. Of course as a practical matter there is little that we can do about these costs, although we can redistribute the burden. The implicit and explicit intent behind much of this discussion is that the elderly and their children should bear more of these costs, as opposed to the government.
Keeping the costs of an aging population front and center in public debate obstructs discussion of the massive upward redistribution of income over the last three decades. This upward redistribution has shifted roughly ten percentage points of GDP ($1.6 trillion annually) to the richest one percent of the population at the expense of the rest of the population. The impact of this upward redistribution on the living standards of the bulk of the population dwarfs the impact of any taxes that might be associated with caring for an aging population through Social Security, Medicare, and other government programs.
If issues were treated in proportion to their importance to the public we would be seeing daily pieces on proposals for breaking up the big banks, taxing financial speculation, ending patent monopolies for prescription drugs, free trade in health care services and other measures that would reverse the upward redistribution of income over the last three decades. However, importance to the public is apparently not a major criterion for determining news coverage. Hence we get misleading front page pieces in the NYT on the cost of dementia.
The New York Times ran a front page piece warning readers that the cost of treating dementia is “soaring.” The piece tells readers of the findings of a new study by the Rand Corporation that shows the cost of dementia doubling by 2040 from its 2010 level.
Are you scared? Are you shaking in your boots? Thinking about pulling the plug on these costly old-timers?
Well our friend, Mr. Arithmetic, reminds us that the Congressional Budget Office projects that the size of the economy is projected to roughly double over this period. This means that the Rand study’s finding implies that dementia will impose pretty much the same burden on the economy in 2040 as it does today.
This story follows a common practice among the Washington elite. They continually highlight and exaggerate costs associated with an aging population. Of course as a practical matter there is little that we can do about these costs, although we can redistribute the burden. The implicit and explicit intent behind much of this discussion is that the elderly and their children should bear more of these costs, as opposed to the government.
Keeping the costs of an aging population front and center in public debate obstructs discussion of the massive upward redistribution of income over the last three decades. This upward redistribution has shifted roughly ten percentage points of GDP ($1.6 trillion annually) to the richest one percent of the population at the expense of the rest of the population. The impact of this upward redistribution on the living standards of the bulk of the population dwarfs the impact of any taxes that might be associated with caring for an aging population through Social Security, Medicare, and other government programs.
If issues were treated in proportion to their importance to the public we would be seeing daily pieces on proposals for breaking up the big banks, taxing financial speculation, ending patent monopolies for prescription drugs, free trade in health care services and other measures that would reverse the upward redistribution of income over the last three decades. However, importance to the public is apparently not a major criterion for determining news coverage. Hence we get misleading front page pieces in the NYT on the cost of dementia.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
The New York Times ran a piece with a headline complaining “public misconception of government benefits makes trimming them harder.” The piece goes on to explain that the cost of the Medicare benefits received by a typical beneficiary vastly exceeds the taxes they will have paid into the system using standard discount rates. The piece tells readers that most readers do not recognize this fact, so they get upset at the idea of cutting benefits.
The desire expressed in the piece to cut Medicare benefits indicates a misconception by the NYT and the experts cited on the nature of Medicare costs. The United States pays more than twice as much per person for its health care as the average for other wealthy countries. If it paid the same amount as Germany, Canada, or any other wealthy country with comparable health care outcomes, most or all of the gap between taxes and benefits would disappear.
This enormous gap in expenditures is not associated with better care, it is the result of the fact that doctors, hospitals, medical equipment suppliers and other providers get paid far more in the United States than in other countries. In effect, the NYT and the experts cited in the piece want to see Medicare beneficiaries accept lower quality care because we pay too much to doctors and other providers.
It is likely that most people would find their policy prescription somewhat perverse. It is hard to see why Medicare beneficiaries should feel guilty because the specialists who treat them can make $500,000-$600,000 a year. The more obvious response would be to force doctors and other providers to accept compensation that is more in line with world standards. (We could also give beneficiaries the option to buy into lower cost systems in other countries and split the savings.)
Of course the route of cutting payments to providers would mean confronting powerful interest groups. Many policy experts are reluctant to pursue this path.
The New York Times ran a piece with a headline complaining “public misconception of government benefits makes trimming them harder.” The piece goes on to explain that the cost of the Medicare benefits received by a typical beneficiary vastly exceeds the taxes they will have paid into the system using standard discount rates. The piece tells readers that most readers do not recognize this fact, so they get upset at the idea of cutting benefits.
The desire expressed in the piece to cut Medicare benefits indicates a misconception by the NYT and the experts cited on the nature of Medicare costs. The United States pays more than twice as much per person for its health care as the average for other wealthy countries. If it paid the same amount as Germany, Canada, or any other wealthy country with comparable health care outcomes, most or all of the gap between taxes and benefits would disappear.
This enormous gap in expenditures is not associated with better care, it is the result of the fact that doctors, hospitals, medical equipment suppliers and other providers get paid far more in the United States than in other countries. In effect, the NYT and the experts cited in the piece want to see Medicare beneficiaries accept lower quality care because we pay too much to doctors and other providers.
It is likely that most people would find their policy prescription somewhat perverse. It is hard to see why Medicare beneficiaries should feel guilty because the specialists who treat them can make $500,000-$600,000 a year. The more obvious response would be to force doctors and other providers to accept compensation that is more in line with world standards. (We could also give beneficiaries the option to buy into lower cost systems in other countries and split the savings.)
Of course the route of cutting payments to providers would mean confronting powerful interest groups. Many policy experts are reluctant to pursue this path.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
It’s always fun when major news outlets look at the same economic situation and come up with directly opposite conclusions. Hence we had the Washington Post telling readers,
“European industry flocks to U.S. to take advantage of cheaper gas,”
on the same day that the NYT had a piece headlined,
“Rumors of a cheap-energy jobs boom remain just that.”
When it comes to data, the NYT clearly wins the case. The Post piece has people whining about high gas prices in Europe, but little evidence of jobs actually coming to the United States. The NYT piece makes the obvious point that in most industries gas prices are a small share of total costs. Even in the most energy intensive industries labor is almost certain to be a higher share of total costs than natural gas.
Furthermore, the drop in gas prices in the U.S. is likely to be reflected elsewhere. This means that third countries that have cheaper labor, like Mexico, are also likely to have comparable natural gas prices.
In fact, the large differences in prices between the United States and Europe that are the central feature of the Post article are not likely to persist since the United States is likely to export surplus gas to Europe. The Post notes the likely impact of exports on U.S. natural gas prices, but it doesn’t acknowledge their likely impact on prices in Europe. While the Post may have missed this tendency towards equalizing prices through trade, manufacturers that are considering moving their operations almost certainly are aware of this likely outcome.
It’s always fun when major news outlets look at the same economic situation and come up with directly opposite conclusions. Hence we had the Washington Post telling readers,
“European industry flocks to U.S. to take advantage of cheaper gas,”
on the same day that the NYT had a piece headlined,
“Rumors of a cheap-energy jobs boom remain just that.”
When it comes to data, the NYT clearly wins the case. The Post piece has people whining about high gas prices in Europe, but little evidence of jobs actually coming to the United States. The NYT piece makes the obvious point that in most industries gas prices are a small share of total costs. Even in the most energy intensive industries labor is almost certain to be a higher share of total costs than natural gas.
Furthermore, the drop in gas prices in the U.S. is likely to be reflected elsewhere. This means that third countries that have cheaper labor, like Mexico, are also likely to have comparable natural gas prices.
In fact, the large differences in prices between the United States and Europe that are the central feature of the Post article are not likely to persist since the United States is likely to export surplus gas to Europe. The Post notes the likely impact of exports on U.S. natural gas prices, but it doesn’t acknowledge their likely impact on prices in Europe. While the Post may have missed this tendency towards equalizing prices through trade, manufacturers that are considering moving their operations almost certainly are aware of this likely outcome.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
