Media clips
-
The good (and maybe bad) of the declining U.S. trade deficit. “Much of the improvement in U.S. trade accounts came from the displacement of imported oil with domestically produced energy. The folks at the Economic Policy Institute and the Alliance for American Manufacturing were quick to note that, once oil is factored out, the deficit in manufactured goods grew wider over the year, while the gap with China stood at over $318 billion. That makes a single country responsible for two-thirds of the total U.S. goods and services trade deficit of $471 billion. Are we swapping our role as an industrial giant to become a resource economy? Not quite – the trade accounts were also supported by the country’s large surplus in services.” Howard Schneider in The Washington Post.
The Washington Post February 11, 2014 -
The unemployment rate doesn’t reflect “discouraged workers” — people who want a job and are available to work and have actually looked for work in the past year, but who have given up looking in the past month because they don’t think any jobs are available or they don’t qualify for the ones that are. Because they’re no longer “actively seeking work,” they’re no longer considered out of work even though they aren’t working. And they’re no longer in the labor force because they’re no longer considered unemployed.
Taking into account all of the people who aren’t working changes the picture. Economist Heidi Shierholz at the Economic Policy Institute estimates that the unemployment rate would be 9.9 percent instead of 6.6 percent if what she calls “missing workers” were included in the official unemployment rate.
The Washington Post February 11, 2014 -
What all of this suggests is that the long-term unemployed are mainly victims of circumstances — ordinary American workers who had the bad luck to lose their jobs (which can happen to anyone) at a time of extraordinary labor market weakness, with three times as many people seeking jobs as there are job openings. Once that happened, the very fact of their unemployment made it very hard to find a new job.
So how can politicians justify cutting off modest financial aid to their unlucky fellow citizens?
New York Times February 11, 2014 -
Finally, much of the debate relies on elusive accounting. Ultimately, the argument turns on things that are difficult to value, especially retirement benefits. Most public employees are guaranteed a pension and have access to retirement health insurance – benefits that are disappearing from the private sector. What is this worth?
A lot more than federal surveys show, said Andrew G. Biggs of the American Enterprise Institute, because state and local governments are putting away far lessthan they should to finance their obligations, especially in some heavily unionized states. But Jeffrey H. Keefe, a Rutgers professor who studies the issue for the liberal Economic Policy Institute, disputes this and argues that the cost of defined benefit pensions is overestimated in federal surveys.
The Washington Post February 11, 2014 -
DOES IT KILL JOBS? The minimum wage is one of the most thoroughly researched issues in economics. Studies in the last 20 years have been especially informative, as economists have been able to compare states that raised the wage above the federal level with those that did not.
The weight of the evidence shows that increases in the minimum wage have lifted pay without hurting employment, a point that was driven home in arecent letter to Mr. Obama and congressional leaders, signed by more than 600 economists, among them Nobel laureates and past presidents of the American Economic Association.
That economic conclusion dovetails with a recent comprehensive study, which found that minimum wage increases resulted in “strong earnings effects” — that is, higher pay — “and no employment effects” — that is, zero job loss.
New York Times February 11, 2014 -
On an economy-wide basis, the fact that the trade deficit narrowed was a prop to growth. As a share of overall economic output, the gap between imports and exports fell from 3.3 percent of gross domestic product in 2012 to 2.8 percent last year, meaning the deficit was less of a drag on the economy as a whole.
“In terms of the macro impact and the impact on growth, what matters is the narrowing of the deficit. That is helping growth in the U.S., and it is what would help job growth,” said Nariman Behravesh, chief economist with the IHS Global Insight consulting firm.
But from there, the debate gets messier. Much of the improvement in U.S. trade accounts came from the displacement of imported oil with domestically produced energy. The folks at the Economic Policy Institute and the Alliance for American Manufacturing were quick to note that, once oil is factored out, the deficit in manufactured goods grew wider over the year, while the gap with China stood at over $318 billion. That makes a single country responsible for two-thirds of the total U.S. goods and services trade deficit of $471 billion.
The Washington Post February 7, 2014 -
The money would be invested in a government-backed bond with a yield pegged to the Government Securities Investment Fund offered to federal employees through the government’s Thrift Savings Plan, a retirement program. That low-risk, low-return fund yielded 1.47% over the last year and an average 2.24% over the last three years. Like Series EE savings bonds, the myRA bonds wouldn’t lose face value, which means the investments would be protected from market losses. But with such low yields they might barely keep up with inflation.
Once the accounts reach $15,000 in value, they would have to be rolled over into a conventional Individual Investment Account. That’s a sop to the financial services industry, which makes billions from managing IRAS. And that’s bad news, says economist Monique Morrissey of the Economic Policy Institute. “The president’s plan may serve to channel more savings into a high-risk, high-fee system without first addressing its failings,” she wrote on EPI’s blog.
Los Angeles Times February 6, 2014 -
Economists who see the minimum wage having negative consequences subscribe to classic pricing theories. If the price of a commodity increases, be it apples or low-wage labor, demand for that good should decline. Purchasers may instead choose a banana and businesses may turn to a self-checkout machine.
Here’s some of the recent research from economists on both sides of the debate:
“Under current labor market conditions, where tepid consumer demand is a major factor holding businesses back from expanding their payrolls, raising the minimum wage can provide a catalyst for new hiring. Economists generally agree that low-wage workers are more likely than any other income group to spend any additional earnings they receive, largely because they must in order to meet their basic needs. Higher-income individuals, corporations, and beneficiaries of corporate profits are more likely to save at least a portion of any additional income. Thus, in a period of depressed consumer demand, raising the minimum wage can provide a modest boost to overall economic activity because it shifts income to workers who are very likely to spend it immediately.” –David Cooper, Economic Policy Institute “Raising the Federal Minimum Wage to $10.10 Would Lift Wages for Millions and Provide a Modest Economic Boost,” Dec. 19, 2013.Wall Street Journal February 6, 2014 -
Politically, the question is whether a less-than-inspiring talking point—sure, most Americans don’t feel great about America right now, but we should feel better than everyone else!—can be a path to Democratic electoral success in 2016. Touting America as No. 1 probably won’t do much to rally the Democratic base, especially since a central part of the administration’s strategy is to push hard for free-trade agreements with Europe and Asia that may only heighten income inequality at home. Liberals are already suspicious of Obama’s centrism and are somewhat concerned that the party’s potential standard-bearer, Hillary Clinton, may be more inclined to follow her husband’s moderate, Democratic Leadership Council-led path than go progressive. (Nonetheless, Bill Clinton’s appeals to globalization during the faster-growth ’90s were the basis of two successful presidential campaigns.)
In the end, Obama’s quixotic call to American businesses to “join us” and “do what you can to raise your employees’ wages” will probably make as little headway as the president’s ceaseless appeals to the Republican-led House. “The reason businesses are not hiring or raising wages is not because they’re acting badly and hating America. It’s because they’re not seeing enough demand for their stuff,” says economist Heidi Shierholz of the progressive Economic Policy Institute.
National Journal February 6, 2014 -
Technically, a correction is a change of 10 percent or more, so the Dow would need to lose around 650 more points and the S&P 500 would need to drop by another 100.
“The S&p 500 has averaged a correction, that is a drop of 10 percent of more, every 18 months and currently we haven’t had one since 2011, so we’re about 28 months overdue,” says Alec Young, Global Equity Strategist at S&P Capital IQ.
Plus, many key economic indicators like manufacturing and unemployment indicate stocks should be a little lower says Bill Stone, Chief Investment Strategist at PNC Wealth Management. “We will get a 10 percent pullback sometime. Whether this is it or not is hard to say, but you ought to a be ready for it.”
Still, we’re probably not talking about a crash, because companies’ profits are pretty much in line with current stock values.
“The best measures of long run stock market fundamentals, the price to earnings ratio, is not in bubble territory,” says economist Heidi Shierholz, with the Economic Policy Institute in Washington DC.
Marketplace February 6, 2014