Category Archives: Economics

Two Pieces of Good News from Washington

Posted on by

Speaker of the House John Boehner allowed a straightforward “clean vote” on raising the debt ceiling instead of holding the world economy hostage again. Many right-wingers are outraged. Maybe one day Congress will get rid of the debt ceiling altogether, since raising it merely allows the government to borrow money to pay bills Congress has already approved.

Secondly, Janet Yellen testified before Congress for the first time in her new role as chairman of the Federal Reserve. It’s hard to understand why President Obama initially seems to have preferred someone else for the job. There is a nice, clear summary of her testimony from John Cassidy at the New Yorker. This is his conclusion (calling her “dovish” means she’s not an “inflation hawk”, i.e. fighting inflation isn’t her one big priority):

She’s a historic figure. I am not just referring to her gender. I’m talking about her approach to policy making, and the emphasis she puts on creating jobs and reducing unemployment. “Since the financial crisis and the depths of the recession, substantial progress has been made in restoring the economy to health and in strengthening the financial system,” she said toward the end of her prepared remarks. “Still, there is more to do. Too many Americans remain unemployed, inflation remains below our longer-run objective, and the work of making the financial system more robust has not yet been completed.”

It’s been a long time since we’ve had a Fed chief come to office declaring that unemployment is too high, inflation is too low, and that we need to keep those Wall Street bounders in check. (Bernanke ended up saying some of these things, but he didn’t start out saying them.) In a post last year, I suggested that Yellen could be the most dovish Fed boss since … the Great Depression, and I noted that, “if Yellen does take over from Bernanke next February, there’s no reason to doubt that concern for the unemployed will remain her leitmotif.” Nothing she said today was inconsistent with that description.

The Usual Fear Mongering Baloney

Posted on by

Fox News headline: “ObamaCare could lead to loss of nearly 2.3 million US jobs, report says”.

Speaker of the House John Boehner tweets: “Pres. Obama’s [health care law] expected to destroy 2.3 million jobs”.

What the Congressional Budget Office really said:

CBO estimates that the ACA will reduce the total number of hours worked, on net, by about 1.5 percent to 2.0 percent during the period from 2017 to 2024, almost entirely because workers will choose to supply less labor — given the new taxes and other incentives they will face and the financial benefits some will receive….the largest declines in labor supply will probably occur among lower-wage workers….

The estimated reduction stems almost entirely from a net decline in the amount of labor that workers choose to supply, rather than from a net drop in business’ demand for labor, so it will appear almost entirely as a reduction in labor force participation and in hours worked relative to what have occurred otherwise rather than as an increase in unemployment (that is, more workers seeking, but not finding jobs) or underemployment (such as part-time workers who would prefer to work more hours per week)….

In other words, some people, especially low-wage workers, will decide to work less because of the ACA, mostly because of the benefits they’ll receive.

I don’t know why those who wrote the report believe this will result in fewer hours being worked. In the case of anyone but the self-employed, employers will presumably still want someone to work those hours. As the supply of labor declines, the demand for labor should increase, resulting in rising wages for some workers and job openings for others (and, of course, low wages and unemployment are still two of our major problems). 

You might even argue (incorrectly) that everybody should work as much as possible, because that’s the capitalist way. That’s very different, however, from saying the ACA is going to destroy millions of jobs. 

As usual, Paul Krugman offers thoughtful commentary on the economics and the social impact here and here.

Reasonable and Customary

Posted on by

We just received a notice in the mail telling us we are part of another class action lawsuit. This time the defendant in the case is our health insurance company. When we’ve been included in a class action lawsuit in the past, it’s usually meant that a small check was coming our way. It’s always good to get an unexpected check in the mail, even a small one. And there’s the justice angle, too. Some corporation or other is paying for its bad behavior.

In this case, our health insurance company has agreed to stop relying on two questionable databases when they determine those wonderful “reasonable and customary” charges: “We could give you 80% of what your doctor charged. Instead, we’ll give you 80% of the reasonable and customary charges where you live”.

Unfortunately, as we all know, everyone’s doctor always seems to charge more than what is “reasonable and customary”, according to the insurance companies.

So it’s good news that the company will stop short-changing its customers by underestimating “reasonable and customary” charges. That’s the principal result of our class action lawsuit being settled.

Another result is that the two named plaintiffs in the case (the “class representatives”) are going to receive a total of $35,000 as “incentive payments”. In other words, they’re being rewarded for bringing the lawsuit, and to encourage other injured parties to bring their own lawsuits in similar cases. 

Ok, that’s all well and good, but how about that check for $25 or $11.95 that’s going to be coming our way? The settlement is supposed to be “fair, reasonable and adequate to the members of the Class”, and we are definitely members of the unfortunate class shortchanged by our insurance company, so some financial compensation is in order, even if it’s only enough to buy lunch.

To our surprise, however, the settlement doesn’t include cash compensation to anyone but the two named plaintiffs. Maybe the lawyers forgot about us (we’ve never been introduced).

What the lawyers clearly did remember was to collect their fees. The settlement calls for our insurance company to pay “an award of attorneys’ fees and costs for Class Counsel not to exceed the sum of $2,500,000”.

So the two plaintiffs get $35,000, the rest of us get a notice in the mail and a promise of good behavior from our insurance company, while the lawyers who handled the lawsuit get no more than $2.5 million, which the insurance company can pay off by adding a few pennies to its rates. 

I believe that’s what lawyers call “reasonable and customary”.

It’s the Austerity and Lack of Trust

Posted on by

The chart below shows government spending after our last four recessions (that’s total federal, state and local spending, corrected for inflation, with the numbers at the bottom representing yearly quarters after the recessions).

After three recessions, government spending went up. After the most recent recession, it’s gone down:

blog_austerity_state_local_federal_spending_0

It makes sense for families to cut spending if they run into economic difficulty, but it makes no sense for the government to do the same. In situations like we’re in now, the government has to counteract the natural tendency of families and businesses to cut back when economic times are hard. Common sense and economic theory tell us the government should spend more after a recession in order to help the economy recover, even if that means increasing government debt until things get better. Yet we’ve been following the opposite policy the past few years. The result has been a relatively weak recovery that has left too many Americans unemployed and underemployed.

Why have we acted so stupidly? The obvious answer is that there were Republicans in the White House after those earlier recessions. Now there’s a Democrat. That’s why Republicans in Congress supported government spending after the earlier recessions, but have vigorously opposed it this time. (After all, Republicans love certain kinds of government spending, despite what they claim.) Hypocrisy, foolishness, the desire to recapture the White House, combined with the failure of Democrats to make the case for more stimulus. It’s all those things and more. 

The chart is from “How Austerity Wrecked the American Economy” at Mother Jones. The author updates the story here.

Meanwhile, Paul Krugman sees a connection between the declining acceptance of evolution among Republicans and their rejection of stimulus spending: in order to be a good Republican these days, you have to deny climate change, evolution and modern economics.

Another economist who has repeatedly pointed out the stupidity of what we’ve been doing is Joseph Stiglitz. In a New York Times article called “In No One We Trust”, he explains how we’re losing trust in each other and our institutions as inequality increases. The article is especially interesting when he shows how a lack of trust and an excess of bad behavior got us into the economic mess we’re still trying to get out of:

Trust is becoming yet another casualty of our country’s staggering inequality: As the gap between Americans widens, the bonds that hold society together weaken. So, too, as more and more people lose faith in a system that seems inexorably stacked against them, and the 1 percent ascend to ever more distant heights, this vital element of our institutions and our way of life is eroding….

The banking industry is only one example of what amounts to a broad agenda, promoted by some politicians and theoreticians on the right, to undermine the role of trust in our economy. This movement promotes policies based on the view that trust should never be relied on as motivation, for any kind of behavior, in any context. Incentives, in this scheme, are all that matter.

Which Side Are You On?

Posted on by

Journalist Edward McClelland lays it on the line at Salon in “The ‘Middle Class’ Myth: Here’s Why Wages Are Really So Low Today”.

Some key points:

In the relatively recent past, an “unskilled” worker straight out of high school could get a union job and earn enough to buy a car and rent an apartment.

Workers aren’t simply paid according to their skills. They’re paid based on how much they can get from their employers.

The anti-union movement’s biggest victory hasn’t been the elimination of existing union jobs. It’s been preventing the unionization of other jobs.

Companies claim that low-paid jobs were never meant to support a family or lead to a career, but that’s simply a way to justify paying low wages. And they can do that because they don’t have to deal with unions.

Today’s workers have to stop thinking of themselves as middle-class, just because they don’t work in a factory or they went to college: “Unless you own the business, you’re working class”.

“The smartest people I ever met were guys who ran cranes in the mill…They were smart enough, at least, to get their fair share of the company’s profits.”

It’s an excellent article and not very long. 

While we’re on the subject, Pete Seeger sings “Which Side Are You On?”, written in 1931 by Florence Reece, the wife of a union organizer, during Kentucky’s Harlan County War.

PS – Wikipedia says Florence Reece took the melody from a Baptist hymn. Pete Seeger was only 12 in 1931.