Category Archives: Economics

Miscellaneous economy stuff

More Government Regulation Foolishness

Posted on by
Reply

Used to be, brewers could send their spent grains, the leftovers after their brewing is done and the beverage…decanted…to ranchers to add to the latter’s feed supply.  Now, though, the FDA is “proposing” a set of regulations that would require brewers to treat their spent grains as pet food(!), meaning these leftovers must be dried and packaged without human contact.

This is expensive—too expensive for most brewers to handle.  Their landfill alternative isn’t any better: one Chicago brewer says it would cost him $100,000, every year, to send his leftover grains to a landfill.

To illustrate the benefits of this arrangement, so disliked by the government, for both parties, there’s this example.

…the brewers get those leftovers removed from their facilities for free.

And

…dairy and cattle farmers like Jim Minich, who gets 30 tons of spent grain from Revolution Brewing each week.  Not only does the grain save him more than $100,000 a year in feed costs, his 750 cows also produce more milk after [getting the spent grains.]

Never mind that there’s never been a problem for cattle or for humans eating/drinking the beef or milk from spent grain-fed cows.

There might be.  Sometime.  Maybe.  Gotta regulate.

The FDA does say, after a hue and cry, that they’re looking at revising these proposed regulations.  We’ll see.

Obama’s War

Posted on by
Reply

…on women and on minorities in general continues apace.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that raising the federal minimum wage to $10.10 an hour would kill off 500,000 jobs…57% of those jobs are held by women.

Women would be disproportionately harmed: those 57% work out to a loss of 285,000 jobs for women.  I suppose, though, that given this administration’s current buzz, President Barack Obama and his coterie view this as a general good.

Obama’s war is just as devastating on other groups of Americans whom his mouth holds in high favor, but his actions plainly disdain.  The Employment Policies Institute has some of the sordid details.

  • For every 10% increase in the minimum wage, teen employment at small businesses is estimated to decrease by 4.6%-9.0%
  • For every 10% increase in the minimum wage, young black and Hispanic teen employment, in particular, looks to fall 4.9%-8.4%

Hmm….

On Denying Market Forces vis-à-vis Supply and Demand

Posted on by
Reply

Here’s an interesting graph from AEIDeas:

What this illustrates is the outcome of the lack of a market for organs to be transplanted, in this graph, specifically kidneys.

As Mark Perry put it in his article [emphasis his],

While the annual number of kidney transplant operations has remained relatively flat since 2005 in a range between about 16,500 and 17,000, the number of registered patients on the waiting list continues to increase.  From about 65,000 registered patients in 2005, the waiting list for a kidney transplant has increased by more than 50% over the last eight years, and by 35,000 patients, to the 100,019 patients who are currently on the kidney waiting list.

And

We know from basic economic principles that congestion, shortages, and surpluses are always caused by a failure to apply market pricing.

Perry’s conclusion should be an obvious one:

The only realistic, long-term and truly compassionate solution to address America’s worsening kidney shortage is to legalize some form of donor compensation.  That would require Congress to amend the outdated National Organ Transplant Act of 1984 so that people who give kidneys could receive a benefit, perhaps a tax credit, tuition voucher, lifetime health coverage, or a contribution to a retirement plan.

Reasonable men can argue about the nature of the price to be offered, but the fact remains that a market is necessary—with a price to be offered for the good desired.  Indeed, with the price needing to vary with fluctuations in demand and supply, a government mandated “benefit” would seem still too suboptimal.  Let the market determine the price, in dollars.

Certainly such a market would be fraught with danger and need careful controls.  But the danger for those patients in the excess represented by the present 6:1 ratio of patients needing a kidney to patients getting a kidney—2013’s 83,000 more Waiting List patients than transplant patients—is greater.  And with an actual market, the risk of unauthorized organ harvesting—in the US, a small problem currently, but not insignificant to the victims—will go down markedly.

And there will be a sharp decrease in the number of excess patients.

Helping the Low Wage Worker

Posted on by
Reply

There are lots of sources for this help; I’m only going to talk about how government can help (yes, we can and should help the least among us, and yes, Conservatives, government does have a role, if limited: there are things government can do, even here, better than the private sector).  The trick here is to prevent government mission creep and an ever-increasing government role—a difficulty that in itself makes a powerful, and not entirely illegitimate, argument against any government role at all.

Who are the low-wage workers in America?  They’re our younger teenagers, just starting out; our college students looking for part-time work while trying to remain full-time students for their longer term benefit; the parent looking for part-time work to flesh out the family income, while also needing to take care of children still at home; the high school graduate, or drop-out, trapped by that level of education in a dead-end job.  In short, they’re far and away low-skilled workers, and they’re workers with jobs whose output has very little value to the employer, even if the employer needs that work done to some degree.

So how do we—how does government—help these folks?  One solution proffered lately is the Earned Income Tax Credit as a supplement to those low wages.  The EITC even is “enjoying” a push to expand its reach.  Glenn Hubbard, writing in The Wall Street Journal, is one of those pushing this idea:

The Earned Income Tax Credit, which supplements the income of low-wage workers as they earn more, is supported by many conservatives and liberals alike.  Expanding this program’s payments for single workers (that is, beyond workers with families)—or using an alternative low-wage subsidy—would create more powerful work incentives.

He also favors means testing this aid, but on a shallower slope in order to “reduc[e] the marginal tax rate on work as the support phases out.”  The problem with this last—means testing—is that it still leaves in place that added tax on work.  I’ve written elsewhere of the doom that means testing spells for any welfare program.

Means testing welfare generally actively discourages, if not work itself, then looking for higher-paying jobs, even when the individual is qualified for that better job and it’s available—that’s the outcome of the welfare cliffs that the Pennsylvania Secretary of Public Welfare was describing in my earlier post.  We can’t means test.  Either the individual is eligible for welfare, or he is not.  Full stop.

The larger problem, though, with an EITC form of aid is that, while it might indeed encourage more folks to look for work rather than welfare, it won’t encourage employers to offer that work, and a wage subsidy actively encourages employers to suppress the wages offered for the work they do have—after all, government will make up the difference with its EITC.  Thus, there’s no help for getting out of the bottom levels.

Rather than means testing or open-endedly subsidizing, we should be applying an upper bound on the amount of subsidy offered.  A couple of examples will illustrate.

During the Clinton years, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families was enacted, replacing Aid to Families with Dependent Children, and this program had both a work requirement for aid eligibility and a maximum lifetime duration of that eligibility.  Under that program, folks went back to work, child poverty rates fell sharply, and income sources for the affected families shifted from a 33% from earned income/40% from AFDC split in 1991 to a split of roughly 60% from earned income/9% from TANF by 2000.

The GI Bill, used to educate our veterans—whether the very generous program under which I got two advanced degrees, or the current still-generous program that provides funding for four years of college at sound (if not very expensive) schools—and which benefit was earned by our military service, offers another example of a limited, finite training subsidy.  It’s overkill for initial training, but it demonstrates in a different venue the efficacy of limiting handouts and providing a hand up instead.

The subsidy also needs to be aimed at helping the low-wage worker—or the wholly unemployed—improve his situation so he can get a better job, or a job at all; it should not be just an unfocused handout of money.

Given the reason for those low wages—low value work and lack of training—the better way to help our low-wage workers (we’re not going to increase the value of work that is inherently low-value) is to facilitate their ability to get initial training either for an entry-level job (so as to potentiate getting that first job) or for moving up from a low value job to higher value one.  This can be done by any combination of subsidizing the worker as he seeks that initial training, or by paying the employer (prospective or current) that subsidy.  Subsequent training then can and should be provided by the employer (consistent with business needs) as he recognizes the value of that now known worker or sought by the worker as he looks to change directions in his working career.

In either event, a training subsidy can’t be open-ended, nor can it be means tested to be effective.  The subsidy must have an upper bound either on the total amount paid out—use it wisely—or on the time available for its use—don’t dither—or it must have both limits, and the clock must start on first use (rather than first eligibility).

Spending on Education

Posted on by
Reply

…and education results turn out to be wholly independent of each other—that is, spending more and more hasn’t produced better and better outcomes for our students—it hasn’t had any effect at all.  It’s been a waste of our tax dollars.  This is clearly indicated by Cato Institute‘s Andrew Coulson’s report State Education Trends: Academic Performance and Spending over the Past 40 Years.  What Coulson found is illustrated by this statement early in the report:

The state-by-state results of this investigation are reported in the subsections that follow, but the overall picture can be summarized in a single value: 0.075. That is the correlation between the spending and academic performance changes of the past 40 years, for all 50 states.

At the risk of lecturing to the choir, correlations run from 0.0 to 1.0 with 1.0 being perfect correlation—every bit of the effect being looked into is, in some sense, “explained” by the correlates.  0.0 means that there is no correlation at all, there is no connection between the two correlates at all.  In this case, 0.0 would mean there is no connection whatsoever between spending on education and educational outcomes.  That correlation of 0.075 isn’t materially different from 0.0.

This graph should drive the point home:

Notice that: spending goes up and up and up, and employment (teachers and administrators) goes up and up.  Enrollment—the number of students reached—stays flat.  The performance of that static number of students…stays flat.  As a nation (keep in mind, this is state-level spending; this study didn’t get to Federal spending, which would only add to the amounts wasted, for reasons that become obvious below), we’re spending more and more per student, we’re spending more and more per unit of student performance, and we’re not impacting that performance.  This failure has been going on for nearly 45 years, too—more than two generations of kids.  Our kids’ kids aren’t even benefitting from this government spending.

What was that about doing the same thing over and over while expecting different results?

Here are a couple of graphs for specific states, one relatively blue and one relatively red, that further illustrate the point:

And

Again, spending is up, and performance, now assessed by SAT scores, is unaffected.

Of course, there are naysayers about these results.  New Mexico Voices for Children, for instance, had this to say:

The Cato report assumes that education money is spent the same way it was in the 1960s and ’70s.  In fact, schools have been mandated to provide many more services—special education, after-school programs, computer sciences, etc—and today’s classrooms require much more technology than they did in the days of the mimeograph.

All true.  And all with no effect on those reading, math, science, or SAT scores.

Others insist that, since the number of students taking the SAT has more than doubled in the last 25-30 years, those scores would, of course, flatten out.  But this beef ignores the fact that Coulson provided such demographic adjustments (and others, based on race, socioeconomic status, and so on), and the results didn’t change.

The bottom line is that, at best, spending money (especially increasing amounts) on technology for tech’s sake, on after-school programs to provide extra time away from home for the kids, etc is a waste.  Spending money on increasing numbers of personnel to run these programs, or to supervise the additional personnel, even on more teachers per “classroom” has no effect.

We need to get back to basics, and focus spending on these subjects: reading, writing, arithmetic—the classic three Rs—and add to the mix, throughout K-12, American history/civics and budgeting/finance/economics, and teach these only.  Full stop.

Anything extra should come at the expense of the local community that wants the extra, not at the expense of other communities in a state, or in the nation.

 

h/t Watchdog.org