The Post headlined an article on the release of existing homes sales data for February, “housing report disappoints as existing home sales dip in February.” It’s not clear why anyone would have been disappointed. The 4.59 million annual sales rate reported for February was below the 4.63 million rate now reported for January, but above the 4.57 million rate that had been reported before the revision.
Also, these monthly numbers are highly erratic. The difference between January and February numbers are well within any reasonable margin of error. The same is the case with the monthly price data. The fact that median price for February 2012 was 0.3 percent higher than the median price for February 2011 is virtually meaningless as this can easily be reversed with next month’s numbers, and in fact will be unless prices jump by 2 percent.
The Post headlined an article on the release of existing homes sales data for February, “housing report disappoints as existing home sales dip in February.” It’s not clear why anyone would have been disappointed. The 4.59 million annual sales rate reported for February was below the 4.63 million rate now reported for January, but above the 4.57 million rate that had been reported before the revision.
Also, these monthly numbers are highly erratic. The difference between January and February numbers are well within any reasonable margin of error. The same is the case with the monthly price data. The fact that median price for February 2012 was 0.3 percent higher than the median price for February 2011 is virtually meaningless as this can easily be reversed with next month’s numbers, and in fact will be unless prices jump by 2 percent.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
An NYT Economix blognote discussed a new paper by two economists (James Stock and Mark Watson) that purports to give us the bad news that we are likely to see a permanent slowdown in growth. Stock and Watson attribute this slowdown to a slower rate of growth of the labor force.
Before anyone gets too upset about the prospect of slower growth, it is worth reflecting for a moment on the different possible causes of slower growth. There are essentially four:
1) slower productivity growth;
2) higher unemployment or underemployment (involuntary);
3) slower population growth;
4) reduced labor force participation or hours worked.
The first two of these causes of slower growth are unambiguously bad. If productivity growth slows, then we are seeing less improvement in living standard for each hour we work. That is definitely bad news. However, nothing in the Stock and Watson paper suggests that productivity growth has slowed or will anytime soon.
I’ll come back to reason 2, but let’s look at reason 3 and 4 for a moment. Reason 3 is clearly true. Our population growth is slowing, as people are having fewer kids than they did in the 40s, 50s, and 60s. This means that we will have slower overall growth. However this could be associated with faster per capita growth. Each worker will now have more capital to work with, which could mean that they are more productive. Fewer people also means that there will be less strain on the infrastructure and the environment. In other words, if this is the reason why growth is slowing, there is no obvious cause for concern.
Reason 4 is a similar story but from a slightly different angle. Suppose people choose to retire early, take longer vacations, or have shorter workweeks. All of these practices would lead to slower growth, but it is hard to see anything negative in this picture. If people decide that they would rather work 10 percent less and have 10 percent less income, there is no reason that economists or anyone else should be upset. This also has the same benefits for the infrastructure and environment as the slower population growth noted above.
In short, if growth is expected to slow for reasons 3 and 4, as Stock and Watson argue in their paper, there is no obvious reason for anyone to be concerned. This is certainly not bad news. In fact it is arguable it is good news given the problem of global warming and other environmental concerns.
Finally, we have reason number 2, where growth slows because workers can’t get work. This is undeniably bad news, especially in a country like the United States where the support system for the unemployed is minimal. In fact, contrary to Stock and Watson, this is the main reason that growth has slowed since the downturn in 2007. There have been sharp declines in the overall employment to population ratio, but this drop has been concentrated among younger workers. These are not people who we could plausibly believe had opted to drop out of the workforce voluntarily.
The good part of the story is that we know how to restore growth to its former trend in this case: spend more money to create demand. Unfortunately, the politics are such that we are not likely to see this happen anytime soon.
An NYT Economix blognote discussed a new paper by two economists (James Stock and Mark Watson) that purports to give us the bad news that we are likely to see a permanent slowdown in growth. Stock and Watson attribute this slowdown to a slower rate of growth of the labor force.
Before anyone gets too upset about the prospect of slower growth, it is worth reflecting for a moment on the different possible causes of slower growth. There are essentially four:
1) slower productivity growth;
2) higher unemployment or underemployment (involuntary);
3) slower population growth;
4) reduced labor force participation or hours worked.
The first two of these causes of slower growth are unambiguously bad. If productivity growth slows, then we are seeing less improvement in living standard for each hour we work. That is definitely bad news. However, nothing in the Stock and Watson paper suggests that productivity growth has slowed or will anytime soon.
I’ll come back to reason 2, but let’s look at reason 3 and 4 for a moment. Reason 3 is clearly true. Our population growth is slowing, as people are having fewer kids than they did in the 40s, 50s, and 60s. This means that we will have slower overall growth. However this could be associated with faster per capita growth. Each worker will now have more capital to work with, which could mean that they are more productive. Fewer people also means that there will be less strain on the infrastructure and the environment. In other words, if this is the reason why growth is slowing, there is no obvious cause for concern.
Reason 4 is a similar story but from a slightly different angle. Suppose people choose to retire early, take longer vacations, or have shorter workweeks. All of these practices would lead to slower growth, but it is hard to see anything negative in this picture. If people decide that they would rather work 10 percent less and have 10 percent less income, there is no reason that economists or anyone else should be upset. This also has the same benefits for the infrastructure and environment as the slower population growth noted above.
In short, if growth is expected to slow for reasons 3 and 4, as Stock and Watson argue in their paper, there is no obvious reason for anyone to be concerned. This is certainly not bad news. In fact it is arguable it is good news given the problem of global warming and other environmental concerns.
Finally, we have reason number 2, where growth slows because workers can’t get work. This is undeniably bad news, especially in a country like the United States where the support system for the unemployed is minimal. In fact, contrary to Stock and Watson, this is the main reason that growth has slowed since the downturn in 2007. There have been sharp declines in the overall employment to population ratio, but this drop has been concentrated among younger workers. These are not people who we could plausibly believe had opted to drop out of the workforce voluntarily.
The good part of the story is that we know how to restore growth to its former trend in this case: spend more money to create demand. Unfortunately, the politics are such that we are not likely to see this happen anytime soon.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
The NYT began an article discussing a “right to work” measure in Minnesota by describing it as a “measure … that would allow workers to avoid paying fees to unions they choose not to join.” It would have been helpful to remind readers that under federal law a union is legally obligated to represent all the workers in a bargaining unit regardless of whether or not they choose to join the union.
This rule means that workers who do not join the union not only gain from whatever wage and benefit increases the union negotiates with the employer, they also are entitled to the union’s representation in any disputes that are covered under the contract. For example, if the employer wants to discipline or fire a worker who is not a member of the union, the union is obligated to represent this worker in the same way as if they were a dues paying member of the union.
In this context, the Minnesota measure means that workers who support a union can effectively be required to pay for the representation of workers who do not support the union. This is not an obvious step toward promoting individual freedom.
Contrary to what the article asserts, every worker in Minnesota can already “avoid paying fees to unions they choose not to join.” They have the option to not work at a company where there is a union contract that requires workers to pay for their union representation.
This measure is about taking away rights, not extending them. If it were approved, workers would no longer have the right to sign a contract that required that everyone who benefited from union representation paid for this representation. This is a case of the government interfering with freedom of contract.
The NYT began an article discussing a “right to work” measure in Minnesota by describing it as a “measure … that would allow workers to avoid paying fees to unions they choose not to join.” It would have been helpful to remind readers that under federal law a union is legally obligated to represent all the workers in a bargaining unit regardless of whether or not they choose to join the union.
This rule means that workers who do not join the union not only gain from whatever wage and benefit increases the union negotiates with the employer, they also are entitled to the union’s representation in any disputes that are covered under the contract. For example, if the employer wants to discipline or fire a worker who is not a member of the union, the union is obligated to represent this worker in the same way as if they were a dues paying member of the union.
In this context, the Minnesota measure means that workers who support a union can effectively be required to pay for the representation of workers who do not support the union. This is not an obvious step toward promoting individual freedom.
Contrary to what the article asserts, every worker in Minnesota can already “avoid paying fees to unions they choose not to join.” They have the option to not work at a company where there is a union contract that requires workers to pay for their union representation.
This measure is about taking away rights, not extending them. If it were approved, workers would no longer have the right to sign a contract that required that everyone who benefited from union representation paid for this representation. This is a case of the government interfering with freedom of contract.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan is supposed to be a brave and serious thinker. That’s how the Washington punditry treats him. Last year, the Peter Peterson gang gave Ryan a “Fiscy Award” for “leading the way in promoting fiscal responsibility and government accountability.” Politico made Representative Ryan its “health care policymaker of the year.” Ryan is a regular guest on the Sunday talk shows and he can always count on a warm reception from the very serious people.
For this reason when Representative Ryan again proposed a budget that would shrink non-defense spending outside of Social Security and health care programs to zero by 2050 the proposal deserves real attention. According to the projections of the Congressional Budget Office (Table 2), Representative Ryan’s budget would shrink the category of defense and non-defense discretionary spending, plus non-health entitlements to 3.75 percent of GDP by 2050.
Since Representative Ryan has said that he wants to keep military spending near its current level of 4.0 percent of GDP, this would leave no money to pay for the Justice Department, the Food and Drug Administration, Education, the National Institutes of Health or anything else that the government does.
This shrinking of non-defense spending to zero was also in Representative Ryan’s budget last year, however he could have been credited with an honest, if incredibly foolish, mistake. However he has now gone on record with the same proposal in 2012, presumably indicating that this budget does in fact reflect his views and the views of the Republicans in the House, if they again approve the budget, as they did last year.
It is remarkable that this extraordinary proposal by Representative Ryan has not gotten more attention from the people who think so highly of him in official Washington. Apparently they consider the elimination of most of the government to be a very reasonable suggestion.
House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan is supposed to be a brave and serious thinker. That’s how the Washington punditry treats him. Last year, the Peter Peterson gang gave Ryan a “Fiscy Award” for “leading the way in promoting fiscal responsibility and government accountability.” Politico made Representative Ryan its “health care policymaker of the year.” Ryan is a regular guest on the Sunday talk shows and he can always count on a warm reception from the very serious people.
For this reason when Representative Ryan again proposed a budget that would shrink non-defense spending outside of Social Security and health care programs to zero by 2050 the proposal deserves real attention. According to the projections of the Congressional Budget Office (Table 2), Representative Ryan’s budget would shrink the category of defense and non-defense discretionary spending, plus non-health entitlements to 3.75 percent of GDP by 2050.
Since Representative Ryan has said that he wants to keep military spending near its current level of 4.0 percent of GDP, this would leave no money to pay for the Justice Department, the Food and Drug Administration, Education, the National Institutes of Health or anything else that the government does.
This shrinking of non-defense spending to zero was also in Representative Ryan’s budget last year, however he could have been credited with an honest, if incredibly foolish, mistake. However he has now gone on record with the same proposal in 2012, presumably indicating that this budget does in fact reflect his views and the views of the Republicans in the House, if they again approve the budget, as they did last year.
It is remarkable that this extraordinary proposal by Representative Ryan has not gotten more attention from the people who think so highly of him in official Washington. Apparently they consider the elimination of most of the government to be a very reasonable suggestion.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
The Post probably didn’t have room in the piece for such small points, but when it told readers that the Ryan plan:
“calls for spending cuts and tax changes that would put the nation on course to wipe out deficits and balance the budget by 2040.”
It would have been reasonable to point out that it gets to this balance by virtually eliminating the non-defense, non-Social Security, and non-health care portions of the budget. According to the Congressional Budget Office’s analysis of the Ryan plan (Table 2), all spending on items other than health care and Social Security would be reduced to 4.75 percent of GDP by 2040 and to 3.75 percent of GDP in 2050.
The defense budget is currently over 4.0 percent of GDP and Representative Ryan has indicated that he wants to leave it at this level. That would leave little for the Justice Department, Education Department, Park Service, education, transportation and everything else government does in 2040 and nothing in 2050. That fact would have been worth pointing out in this article.
The Post probably didn’t have room in the piece for such small points, but when it told readers that the Ryan plan:
“calls for spending cuts and tax changes that would put the nation on course to wipe out deficits and balance the budget by 2040.”
It would have been reasonable to point out that it gets to this balance by virtually eliminating the non-defense, non-Social Security, and non-health care portions of the budget. According to the Congressional Budget Office’s analysis of the Ryan plan (Table 2), all spending on items other than health care and Social Security would be reduced to 4.75 percent of GDP by 2040 and to 3.75 percent of GDP in 2050.
The defense budget is currently over 4.0 percent of GDP and Representative Ryan has indicated that he wants to leave it at this level. That would leave little for the Justice Department, Education Department, Park Service, education, transportation and everything else government does in 2040 and nothing in 2050. That fact would have been worth pointing out in this article.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
The piece discusses more aggressive actions that Bernanke could take, such as targeting a higher rate of inflation, a policy he advocated when he was still a professor at Princeton. This is a good article.
The piece discusses more aggressive actions that Bernanke could take, such as targeting a higher rate of inflation, a policy he advocated when he was still a professor at Princeton. This is a good article.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
Okay, we should all be happy that the economy seems to be growing more rapidly that it was at this time last year, but can we try to be a little serious about this. The Census Bureau reported that housing starts fell by 1.1 percent in February. That’s not a big deal, starts had been trending upward and the monthly numbers are always erratic, but nonetheless a fall in starts is a negative sign.
Apparently, the Post did not want to utter a discouraging word. Its business digest section only discussed the 5.1 percent rise in permits for the month, never mentioning the decline in starts. It also featured a graph showing the rise in permits which was mislabeled as a rise in starts (print edition only).
Okay, we should all be happy that the economy seems to be growing more rapidly that it was at this time last year, but can we try to be a little serious about this. The Census Bureau reported that housing starts fell by 1.1 percent in February. That’s not a big deal, starts had been trending upward and the monthly numbers are always erratic, but nonetheless a fall in starts is a negative sign.
Apparently, the Post did not want to utter a discouraging word. Its business digest section only discussed the 5.1 percent rise in permits for the month, never mentioning the decline in starts. It also featured a graph showing the rise in permits which was mislabeled as a rise in starts (print edition only).
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
Readers of the front page WAPO piece on manufacturing productivity will assume that neither the Post nor any of the economic experts it consults have heard of arithmetic. The piece points to research showing that manufacturing productivity has been overstated. While it is good to see that the Post has finally noticed research that many of us have talked about for years, the Post grossly misrepresents the issues concerning manufacturing productivity and employment.
The Post presents the question as being one of whether higher productivity or increased imports are responsible for job loss in manufacturing. Those familiar with arithmetic know that the answer is that both are responsible.
Arithmetic tells us this because we know that our net imports of manufactured goods are equal to almost one-third of the manufactured goods we consume. If we produced these goods in the United States then manufacturing employment would rise by close to 40 percent.
On the other hand, the increase in the efficiency of manufacturing production has also affected the demand for labor in the sector. If productivity had not improved then more people would be employed producing the same amount of manufactured goods. While we would have lost some output due to import competition if productivity had not improved, there are sectors of manufacturing that are still subject to limited import competition. In these sectors higher productivity translates fairly directly into fewer jobs.
Insofar as productivity growth has been exaggerated due to a failure to accurately measure imports, as the research cited in this piece shows, it means that a larger portion of job loss has been due to imports and a smaller portion is attributable to productivity growth. However, it doesn’t change the fact that manufacturing productivity growth has still been strong and that both have been important factors explaining job loss.
Remarkably, this piece never once mentions the value of the dollar. The dollar directly affects the competitiveness of U.S. manufactured goods. A 10 percent fall in the real value of the dollar relative to the currencies of our trading partners has the same impact on competitiveness as a sudden surge of 10 percent in labor productivity.
As a historical matter, the United States went from adding jobs in manufacturing to losing jobs when the dollar surged following the East Asian financial crisis in 1997. The decline accelerated as the dollar continued to rise through the end of the 90s.
It is bizarre that a major piece on manufacturing employment would never mention the value of the dollar. This would be like reporting on patterns of gasoline consumption without ever talking about the price.
Readers of the front page WAPO piece on manufacturing productivity will assume that neither the Post nor any of the economic experts it consults have heard of arithmetic. The piece points to research showing that manufacturing productivity has been overstated. While it is good to see that the Post has finally noticed research that many of us have talked about for years, the Post grossly misrepresents the issues concerning manufacturing productivity and employment.
The Post presents the question as being one of whether higher productivity or increased imports are responsible for job loss in manufacturing. Those familiar with arithmetic know that the answer is that both are responsible.
Arithmetic tells us this because we know that our net imports of manufactured goods are equal to almost one-third of the manufactured goods we consume. If we produced these goods in the United States then manufacturing employment would rise by close to 40 percent.
On the other hand, the increase in the efficiency of manufacturing production has also affected the demand for labor in the sector. If productivity had not improved then more people would be employed producing the same amount of manufactured goods. While we would have lost some output due to import competition if productivity had not improved, there are sectors of manufacturing that are still subject to limited import competition. In these sectors higher productivity translates fairly directly into fewer jobs.
Insofar as productivity growth has been exaggerated due to a failure to accurately measure imports, as the research cited in this piece shows, it means that a larger portion of job loss has been due to imports and a smaller portion is attributable to productivity growth. However, it doesn’t change the fact that manufacturing productivity growth has still been strong and that both have been important factors explaining job loss.
Remarkably, this piece never once mentions the value of the dollar. The dollar directly affects the competitiveness of U.S. manufactured goods. A 10 percent fall in the real value of the dollar relative to the currencies of our trading partners has the same impact on competitiveness as a sudden surge of 10 percent in labor productivity.
As a historical matter, the United States went from adding jobs in manufacturing to losing jobs when the dollar surged following the East Asian financial crisis in 1997. The decline accelerated as the dollar continued to rise through the end of the 90s.
It is bizarre that a major piece on manufacturing employment would never mention the value of the dollar. This would be like reporting on patterns of gasoline consumption without ever talking about the price.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
The Washington Post is quickly becoming an employment service for psychics. An article on the Republicans’ latest budget and tax proposals, which will reduce tax rates on corporations and the wealthy, tells readers that Republicans believe that their plan “will spur economic growth and provide them with a politically potent election-year message.”
Reporters know that politicians do not always say what they believe. This is why real newspapers only report what politicians say. Only psychics would try to tell people what politicians actually think.
This piece also wrongly implies that reducing the number of tax brackets from 6 to 2, as the Republicans propose, is connected to tax simplification. It isn’t. To calculate one’s taxes, it is necessary to go to the tax tables and see what you owe given your income level. This is the same process regardless of whether there are 2 tax rates or 200 hundred. (Thanks to Robert Salzberg for calling this one to my attention.)
The Washington Post is quickly becoming an employment service for psychics. An article on the Republicans’ latest budget and tax proposals, which will reduce tax rates on corporations and the wealthy, tells readers that Republicans believe that their plan “will spur economic growth and provide them with a politically potent election-year message.”
Reporters know that politicians do not always say what they believe. This is why real newspapers only report what politicians say. Only psychics would try to tell people what politicians actually think.
This piece also wrongly implies that reducing the number of tax brackets from 6 to 2, as the Republicans propose, is connected to tax simplification. It isn’t. To calculate one’s taxes, it is necessary to go to the tax tables and see what you owe given your income level. This is the same process regardless of whether there are 2 tax rates or 200 hundred. (Thanks to Robert Salzberg for calling this one to my attention.)
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
The NYT had a bad case of he said/she said reporting this morning in an article that reported on a panel’s recommendations for improving the nation’s education system. The article noted the panel’s recommendation for increased the choice of schools available for parents to select among. It then cited comments from Randi Weingarten, the President of the American Federation of Teachers, saying:
“school choice options like vouchers and charters, which use public funds but are run by a third party, have not proved to be sustainable or to improve schools.”
This is not just something that Ms. Weingarten says, it also happens to be true. Extensive research has found that the vast majority of charter schools do not result in better performance by standardized test measures than the public schools, and a substantial portion do markedly worse.
The NYT should have pointed out that Ms. Weingarten’s assertion was true and not left it to readers to try to decide between competing claims. The NYT’s reporters have the time to investigate these claims, its readers do not.
The NYT had a bad case of he said/she said reporting this morning in an article that reported on a panel’s recommendations for improving the nation’s education system. The article noted the panel’s recommendation for increased the choice of schools available for parents to select among. It then cited comments from Randi Weingarten, the President of the American Federation of Teachers, saying:
“school choice options like vouchers and charters, which use public funds but are run by a third party, have not proved to be sustainable or to improve schools.”
This is not just something that Ms. Weingarten says, it also happens to be true. Extensive research has found that the vast majority of charter schools do not result in better performance by standardized test measures than the public schools, and a substantial portion do markedly worse.
The NYT should have pointed out that Ms. Weingarten’s assertion was true and not left it to readers to try to decide between competing claims. The NYT’s reporters have the time to investigate these claims, its readers do not.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
