In a recent CEPR brief, we examined the decades-long rise in the educational attainment of low-wage workers at the national level. The table and figures below (or after the jump) show this same educational upgrading is evident across all 51 states (includ

April 13, 2012 (Prices Byte)

Alexander MainAl Jazeera English, April 12, 2012

The Haiti Reconstruction Fund (HRF) was a center piece of the international community’s pledge to “build back better”, yet its latest financial report reveals that despite receiving a significant share of donor disbursements, very little has thus far been spent on the ground. Additionally, without the Interim Haiti Recovery Commission (IHRC), unallocated resources from the HRF remain unutilized, collecting interest in bank accounts.

The HRF, established in March 2010, aims to coordinate and fund priority projects for Haiti’s reconstruction. The Fund has received 18 percent of all donor disbursements as of December 2011 and describes itself as the “largest source of unprogrammed funding for the reconstruction of Haiti”. The HRF allocates funding to projects that have been approved by the now defunct IHRC.

According to its February 2012 financial report, the HRF has received $377 million from donors, allocating $274 million (73 percent) to 16 projects. When the HRF allocates money for a project, the funds are transferred to a “partner entity”; either the UN, World Bank or Inter-American Development Bank, which then carries out the project. The financial report shows that while the Fund has transferred a large amount of resources, the partner entities have disbursed very little of it on the ground.

Figure 1 (click to enlarge)

People who haven’t gone through the financial aid process (recently or at all) might think of financial aid as mostly about grants or scholarships. Financial aid, however, comes largely in the form of federal loans, which a student must pay regardless of whether they complete their degree or not. Grants and scholarships are awarded, but they have not kept pace with the rising costs of education. The average Pell Grant, for example, has increased from $929 in 1979 to $3,706 in 2009 -- a near 300% increase. This may sound like a lot but not when compared to the 548%, 807% and 620% increases in average annual tuition for (respectively) a 2-year, 4-year public and 4-year private college.

There is evidence to suggest that there has been a significant shift away from the ‘need-based’ philosophy of Pell Grants: the much more rapid growth of non-need-based aid like student loans, as shown in the graph, or the expansion of tax credits, which tend to disproportionately benefit middle- and upper-income families. As a result, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the average outstanding student loan balance per borrower is $23,300.

Source: Avery, C. and Turner, S. Student Loans: Do College Students Borrow Too Much - Or Not Enough?; Journal of Economic Perspectives, Volume 26, No. 1, Winter 2012, Pg. 165- 192

This means students from low-income families are not getting the help they need with funding their educations. (CEPR recently looked at the increase in the financial burden facing minimum-wage workers paying for college.) In fact, unmet need (i.e. expenses after expected family contribution and grant aid) of enrolled students averages 72% of family income (2007 dollars) for families in the lowest income quintile, versus 14% for those in the top quintile. In a recent report by the Education Trust of 1,186 four year colleges and universities, some 275 institutions required low-income students to pay more than 100% of family income.

There have been many people who have suggested that the Washington Post has a pro-business bias. The Post seemed to confirm that view in a piece on Mitt Romney's agenda for his first day as president.

It noted that Romney said he would demand that China raise the value of its currency as one of his day one items. It then told readers:

"But some China experts say Romney would nevertheless be risking a backlash from the Chinese — over an issue that is not a top priority.

"In a recent survey of the concerns of American businesses working in China, currency ma­nipu­la­tion was only the 26th-biggest worry.

"'You can’t go to the Chinese and say, "I demand eight fundamental changes!"' said Derek Scissors, a China expert at the conservative Heritage Foundation. 'You’ve got to pick your thing.'"

Of course Scissors' assessment is exactly right. The United States cannot simply make a set of demands on China and expect the Chinese government to accept them. It must prioritize its demands and be prepared to make concessions on issues of concern to China.

The Post implied that because the over-valuation of the dollar against the Chinese currency is not a major concern of business it should not be a concern to the United States. This only makes sense to someone who believes that the concerns of business should be given a priority over the concerns of the rest of the country. In fact, there is a clear opposition between the interests of many, if not most, businesses and the rest of the country on dealings with China.

According to mainstream economics, the main mechanism for adjusting a trade deficit is reducing the value of a currency. In other words, anyone who wants to see the United States move towards more balanced trade should want the dollar to fall.

(The Post should be in this camp, since it has endless tirades about the budget deficit. By definition, a trade deficit means that a country has negative national savings. Negative national savings means that either the public sector has a deficit or the private sector does, as we did in the housing-bubble years because of huge over-building and a bubble-driven consumption boom. Anyone who views those options as unattractive would want to see the trade deficit come down, if they understood economics.)