In an article that told readers of the Fed’s plans to keep its zero interest rate policy through 2014 the NYT commented:
“there is growing criticism that the Fed’s policies are unfairly taking money from savers, including many seniors who planned their retirements around the interest rates that low-risk assets like bank deposits used to pay.”
It would have been worth pointing out that one of the goals of this low interest rate policy is to get savers out of low risk assets and into something like stock that can provide a higher yield and also potentially give money to firms that are looking to raise money for investment. If a retiree has $100-200k in bank accounts, it is a fairly simple matter to shift $10-$20k into a low-cost stock index fund. This would imply some increase in risk for the saver, but it could mean much higher returns.
In an article that told readers of the Fed’s plans to keep its zero interest rate policy through 2014 the NYT commented:
“there is growing criticism that the Fed’s policies are unfairly taking money from savers, including many seniors who planned their retirements around the interest rates that low-risk assets like bank deposits used to pay.”
It would have been worth pointing out that one of the goals of this low interest rate policy is to get savers out of low risk assets and into something like stock that can provide a higher yield and also potentially give money to firms that are looking to raise money for investment. If a retiree has $100-200k in bank accounts, it is a fairly simple matter to shift $10-$20k into a low-cost stock index fund. This would imply some increase in risk for the saver, but it could mean much higher returns.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
The NYT reported that Indiana’s legislature approved a measure that requires that the workers who support a union at the workplace pay for the representation of the workers who choose not to pay for the union’s representation. It would have been helpful to remind readers that a union is legally obligated to represent all the workers in a bargaining unit, regardless of whether a worker has opted to join the union.
This means that non-members not only get the same wages and benefits that the union gets for its members, they also are entitled to the union’s protection in the event of disputes with the employer. Most states allow workers to sign contracts that require non-union members to pay for the benefits they receive from the union.
The bill passed by Indiana’s legislature prohibits unions and employers from signing this sort of contract. Instead, it requires unions to provide free representation to non-members.
The NYT reported that Indiana’s legislature approved a measure that requires that the workers who support a union at the workplace pay for the representation of the workers who choose not to pay for the union’s representation. It would have been helpful to remind readers that a union is legally obligated to represent all the workers in a bargaining unit, regardless of whether a worker has opted to join the union.
This means that non-members not only get the same wages and benefits that the union gets for its members, they also are entitled to the union’s protection in the event of disputes with the employer. Most states allow workers to sign contracts that require non-union members to pay for the benefits they receive from the union.
The bill passed by Indiana’s legislature prohibits unions and employers from signing this sort of contract. Instead, it requires unions to provide free representation to non-members.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
The NYT reported on state efforts to collect sales tax on Internet sales. It reported the complaints of businesses about this practice including that of one business owner that:
“It’s not collecting sales tax that’s the hard part; paying taxes in the jurisdictions is an accounting nightmare.”
It would have been helpful to point out to readers that this is not true. There are companies that can do this for firms at a relatively low cost (similar to payroll companies). There is also low-cost software available to firms that would allow them to calculate the taxes themselves.
The NYT reported on state efforts to collect sales tax on Internet sales. It reported the complaints of businesses about this practice including that of one business owner that:
“It’s not collecting sales tax that’s the hard part; paying taxes in the jurisdictions is an accounting nightmare.”
It would have been helpful to point out to readers that this is not true. There are companies that can do this for firms at a relatively low cost (similar to payroll companies). There is also low-cost software available to firms that would allow them to calculate the taxes themselves.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
The print edition gave the headline, “they squabble: he rescues the economy,” to a Dana Milbank column on Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke’s loose money policies. Milbank’s point is that Bernanke has clearly been shown to be right in having relatively expansionary monetary policies, as opposed to Republican critics who complained that this was debasing the currency and would trigger massive inflation.
However the notion of Bernanke and the Fed rescuing the economy would seem to require a bit of qualification. After it, it as Bernanke and the Fed who ignored the growth of the housing bubble until it grew so large that it eventually imploded and took the economy with it.
This is sort of like a doctor who misses the huge cancerous tumor growing out of a patient’s forehead during a check-up. If he later performs the surgery that removes the tumor successfully, that could be said to save the patient’s life, but it would be a bit of a stretch to give the doctor credit for rescuing the patient.
Even after the collapse the Fed has arguably been too limited in its response. When he was still a professor at Princeton Bernanke argued that Japan’s central bank should deliberately target a higher rate of inflation (e.g. 3-4 percent) in order to reduce real interest rates further and thereby spur growth. Bernanke has been unable or unwilling to follow his own advice as Fed chair.
As a result of weak Fed policy, inadequate stimulus, and an over-valued dollar the economy remains horribly depressed four full years after the beginning of the recession. The first President Bush was booted from office due to an economy that looks fantastic compared to the one we have today.
The print edition gave the headline, “they squabble: he rescues the economy,” to a Dana Milbank column on Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke’s loose money policies. Milbank’s point is that Bernanke has clearly been shown to be right in having relatively expansionary monetary policies, as opposed to Republican critics who complained that this was debasing the currency and would trigger massive inflation.
However the notion of Bernanke and the Fed rescuing the economy would seem to require a bit of qualification. After it, it as Bernanke and the Fed who ignored the growth of the housing bubble until it grew so large that it eventually imploded and took the economy with it.
This is sort of like a doctor who misses the huge cancerous tumor growing out of a patient’s forehead during a check-up. If he later performs the surgery that removes the tumor successfully, that could be said to save the patient’s life, but it would be a bit of a stretch to give the doctor credit for rescuing the patient.
Even after the collapse the Fed has arguably been too limited in its response. When he was still a professor at Princeton Bernanke argued that Japan’s central bank should deliberately target a higher rate of inflation (e.g. 3-4 percent) in order to reduce real interest rates further and thereby spur growth. Bernanke has been unable or unwilling to follow his own advice as Fed chair.
As a result of weak Fed policy, inadequate stimulus, and an over-valued dollar the economy remains horribly depressed four full years after the beginning of the recession. The first President Bush was booted from office due to an economy that looks fantastic compared to the one we have today.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
Thomas Friedman has a great sense of irony. In a column titled “Average Is Over” he shows readers that average is clearly not over.
The column is a tidal wave of confusion about basic economics. The gist of the piece is that technology and globalization will displace all the average workers in the United States. Workers will have to be extraordinary to get decent paying jobs.
Both parts of this story are very poorly argued. Technology does replace many less-skilled jobs. Perhaps we should let Mr. Friedman in on a little secret here. This has always been true. The question is the rate at which technology displaces workers. Productivity growth has certainly be respectable since the pick-up in 1995 (@2.5 percent annually), but it is still below the 3.0 percent rate during the quarter century following World War II, when average was in. (Properly measured, productivity has been growing at closer to a 2.0 percent rate since the 1995 speed-up.)
Friedman apparently doesn’t know that technology doesn’t just eliminate jobs for less educated workers. The NYT had a piece a few months back on how new search technologies have drastically reduced the need for lawyers to do legal research. New screening devices can allow many medical diagnoses that formerly might have required doctors to be made by less highly trained technicians. Of course since doctors are a powerful interest group they may be able to ignore the development of technology and have rules that require that they still do diagnoses that could be performed instead by people earning one-fifth as much.
The real issues with technology are the rate at which it allows productivity to grow (in general, the faster the better, if the economy is not run by buffoons) and the extent to which it replaces low-skilled workers relative to the pace at which it replaces higher skilled workers. The same story applies to globalization.
We can get our manufactured products more cheaply from China. This is because it is a relatively poor country where people are willing to work hard for lower wages than workers in the United States. However China would also provide us with doctors, lawyers, architects and economists, all for much lower pay than their U.S. counterparts receive. This would drastically reduce the cost of health care, legal services, college education and other services provided by highly paid professionals. That would mean more economic growth and a big increase in living standards for the vast majority of people in the United States.
However, we don’t see huge numbers of Chinese taking professional jobs in the United States leaving U.S. born doctors, lawyers, etc. out of work. The reason is that U.S. professionals have much more power than manufacturing workers. They use the government to erect barriers to limit the number of foreign professionals who can work in the United States. This ensures that average can survive and flourish in the highly paid professions.
If anyone doubts this fact, they should take a look at the transcripts from Federal Reserve Board’s Open Market Committee Meetings for 2006. (Some of the highlights can be found here.) The transcripts show the people in top economic policy positions completely clueless as the housing bubble is in the process of deflating and the inevitable recession is coming into view. It is worth noting that none of these people have suffered serious career consequences from this failure showing that average (or below) still flourishes in these circles. But Thomas Friedman does a good enough job of demonstrating this directly twice a week in the NYT.
Thomas Friedman has a great sense of irony. In a column titled “Average Is Over” he shows readers that average is clearly not over.
The column is a tidal wave of confusion about basic economics. The gist of the piece is that technology and globalization will displace all the average workers in the United States. Workers will have to be extraordinary to get decent paying jobs.
Both parts of this story are very poorly argued. Technology does replace many less-skilled jobs. Perhaps we should let Mr. Friedman in on a little secret here. This has always been true. The question is the rate at which technology displaces workers. Productivity growth has certainly be respectable since the pick-up in 1995 (@2.5 percent annually), but it is still below the 3.0 percent rate during the quarter century following World War II, when average was in. (Properly measured, productivity has been growing at closer to a 2.0 percent rate since the 1995 speed-up.)
Friedman apparently doesn’t know that technology doesn’t just eliminate jobs for less educated workers. The NYT had a piece a few months back on how new search technologies have drastically reduced the need for lawyers to do legal research. New screening devices can allow many medical diagnoses that formerly might have required doctors to be made by less highly trained technicians. Of course since doctors are a powerful interest group they may be able to ignore the development of technology and have rules that require that they still do diagnoses that could be performed instead by people earning one-fifth as much.
The real issues with technology are the rate at which it allows productivity to grow (in general, the faster the better, if the economy is not run by buffoons) and the extent to which it replaces low-skilled workers relative to the pace at which it replaces higher skilled workers. The same story applies to globalization.
We can get our manufactured products more cheaply from China. This is because it is a relatively poor country where people are willing to work hard for lower wages than workers in the United States. However China would also provide us with doctors, lawyers, architects and economists, all for much lower pay than their U.S. counterparts receive. This would drastically reduce the cost of health care, legal services, college education and other services provided by highly paid professionals. That would mean more economic growth and a big increase in living standards for the vast majority of people in the United States.
However, we don’t see huge numbers of Chinese taking professional jobs in the United States leaving U.S. born doctors, lawyers, etc. out of work. The reason is that U.S. professionals have much more power than manufacturing workers. They use the government to erect barriers to limit the number of foreign professionals who can work in the United States. This ensures that average can survive and flourish in the highly paid professions.
If anyone doubts this fact, they should take a look at the transcripts from Federal Reserve Board’s Open Market Committee Meetings for 2006. (Some of the highlights can be found here.) The transcripts show the people in top economic policy positions completely clueless as the housing bubble is in the process of deflating and the inevitable recession is coming into view. It is worth noting that none of these people have suffered serious career consequences from this failure showing that average (or below) still flourishes in these circles. But Thomas Friedman does a good enough job of demonstrating this directly twice a week in the NYT.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
If Ross Douthat had access to the Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) projections that show Social Security will be fully solvent for almost three decades, with no changes whatsoever, and that it could pay more than 80 percent of scheduled benefits after that date for the rest of the century (which is more than current retirees receive), then he would not have attacked President Obama for not having a plan to overhaul Social Security. Therefore, we can conclude that he doesn’t have access to CBO’s projections.
If Ross Douthat had access to the Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) projections that show Social Security will be fully solvent for almost three decades, with no changes whatsoever, and that it could pay more than 80 percent of scheduled benefits after that date for the rest of the century (which is more than current retirees receive), then he would not have attacked President Obama for not having a plan to overhaul Social Security. Therefore, we can conclude that he doesn’t have access to CBO’s projections.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
That is a point that would have been worth making in an analysis of President Obama’s proposals to encourage job creation in the United States. The value of the dollar is by far the most important determinant of trade balance. If the dollar is over-valued by 20 percent this is equivalent to putting a 20 percent tariff on U.S. exports and giving out a 20 percent subsidy for imports.
If President Obama were serious about increasing U.S. employment in manufactured then it would be expected that he would say something about the over-valued dollar and his plans to bring it down. The fact that he didn’t say anything about the dollar’s value should have been noted in this piece.
That is a point that would have been worth making in an analysis of President Obama’s proposals to encourage job creation in the United States. The value of the dollar is by far the most important determinant of trade balance. If the dollar is over-valued by 20 percent this is equivalent to putting a 20 percent tariff on U.S. exports and giving out a 20 percent subsidy for imports.
If President Obama were serious about increasing U.S. employment in manufactured then it would be expected that he would say something about the over-valued dollar and his plans to bring it down. The fact that he didn’t say anything about the dollar’s value should have been noted in this piece.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
Larry Summers told Post readers that lack of confidence by businesses and consumers are major factors holding back the recovery. There is little evidence for this position.
Investment in equipment and software is almost back to its pre-recession share of GDP. The savings rate is still much lower than its post-war average, meaning that consumption is unusually high relative to income. This is especially striking since the huge baby boom cohort is at the edge of retirement and most have very little savings. This would be an argument for expecting a higher than normal saving rate rather than the opposite.
In short, there is no evidence in the data that lack of confidence is a major factor impeding recovery. The more obvious problem is that we simply lack a source of demand to replace the demand that had been generated by the housing bubble.
Larry Summers told Post readers that lack of confidence by businesses and consumers are major factors holding back the recovery. There is little evidence for this position.
Investment in equipment and software is almost back to its pre-recession share of GDP. The savings rate is still much lower than its post-war average, meaning that consumption is unusually high relative to income. This is especially striking since the huge baby boom cohort is at the edge of retirement and most have very little savings. This would be an argument for expecting a higher than normal saving rate rather than the opposite.
In short, there is no evidence in the data that lack of confidence is a major factor impeding recovery. The more obvious problem is that we simply lack a source of demand to replace the demand that had been generated by the housing bubble.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
In his column today David Brooks provided a brief discussion that purports to show that the growing inequality is attributable to a mix of globalization and technology and the moral failings of the working class. A little reflection would lead people to reject both parts of this explanation.
The first claim ignores the way in which deliberate policy shaped globalization. The reason that wages are much lower and the skills expected are much higher for manufacturing workers than in the past is because it has been government policy to place U.S. manufacturing workers in direct competition with their much lower paid counterparts in Mexico, China and elsewhere. The predicted and actual result of this policy is to reduce the pay of manufacturing workers.
The government could have adopted the same approach to doctors, lawyers, economists and other highly paid professionals. There are many millions of smart hard-working people in the developing world who would be delighted to fill these jobs at much lower wages than their counterparts in the U.S. receive. However, the barriers that make it difficult for these people to work in the United States have not been lowered by recent “free trade” agreements and some have even been increased.
In other words, it was not globalization and technology that led to the upward redistribution of income, it was conscious policy. The vast majority of people in the United States who hold high-paying jobs are able to maintain their income because they enjoy far more protection than manufacturing workers.
Moral turpitude side of this story also has an important economic policy aspect. Parents who work long and erratic hours are likely to find it much more difficult to watch over their children than parents with decent paying jobs with predictable hours. Given the large number of workers, especially younger workers who are likely to be parents of young children, who have irregular employment and irregular hours, it would be surprising if many children were not having serious problems staying focused on their education.
In his column today David Brooks provided a brief discussion that purports to show that the growing inequality is attributable to a mix of globalization and technology and the moral failings of the working class. A little reflection would lead people to reject both parts of this explanation.
The first claim ignores the way in which deliberate policy shaped globalization. The reason that wages are much lower and the skills expected are much higher for manufacturing workers than in the past is because it has been government policy to place U.S. manufacturing workers in direct competition with their much lower paid counterparts in Mexico, China and elsewhere. The predicted and actual result of this policy is to reduce the pay of manufacturing workers.
The government could have adopted the same approach to doctors, lawyers, economists and other highly paid professionals. There are many millions of smart hard-working people in the developing world who would be delighted to fill these jobs at much lower wages than their counterparts in the U.S. receive. However, the barriers that make it difficult for these people to work in the United States have not been lowered by recent “free trade” agreements and some have even been increased.
In other words, it was not globalization and technology that led to the upward redistribution of income, it was conscious policy. The vast majority of people in the United States who hold high-paying jobs are able to maintain their income because they enjoy far more protection than manufacturing workers.
Moral turpitude side of this story also has an important economic policy aspect. Parents who work long and erratic hours are likely to find it much more difficult to watch over their children than parents with decent paying jobs with predictable hours. Given the large number of workers, especially younger workers who are likely to be parents of young children, who have irregular employment and irregular hours, it would be surprising if many children were not having serious problems staying focused on their education.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
While it didn’t quite put it this way, the NYT told readers that President Obama plans to really lower the bar big-time on his economic record. It told readers:
“The president and his advisers are confident their course will lead to a full recovery, though not this year. That long-term prospect has stoked Mr. Obama’s competitive juices, lest a Republican take the White House and with it the eventual credit for economic gains.”
Economies generally recover over the long-term unless you do some really really awful economic policies. The real question is how long the recovery takes. If President Obama’s track record is so bad that all he can do is say that the economy will eventually recover, then he is in serious trouble.
While it didn’t quite put it this way, the NYT told readers that President Obama plans to really lower the bar big-time on his economic record. It told readers:
“The president and his advisers are confident their course will lead to a full recovery, though not this year. That long-term prospect has stoked Mr. Obama’s competitive juices, lest a Republican take the White House and with it the eventual credit for economic gains.”
Economies generally recover over the long-term unless you do some really really awful economic policies. The real question is how long the recovery takes. If President Obama’s track record is so bad that all he can do is say that the economy will eventually recover, then he is in serious trouble.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
