Category Archives: Economy

Big Brother Bernanke

China, Debt, Economy, Federal Reserve Bank

Federal Reserve chief Ben Bernanke “urged Asian leaders to build better pension systems and to increase government spending and the Obama administration to address the U.S. budget deficit,” reports the Wall Street Journal.

The audacity did not stop there. The “rebalancing of global growth,” as Bernanke put it, could not be achieved if the Chinese persisted in their errant practices:

“Trade surpluses achieved through policies that artificially enhance incentives for domestic saving and the production of export goods distort the mix of domestic industries and the allocation of resources,” and yield “an economy that is less able to meet the needs of its own citizens in the longer term.”

This from the man who, together with his predecessor, is responsible for distorting production and consumption in the largest economy in the world.

World leaders are coming to “a growing consensus … on the need to rebalance global economic growth so it depends less on U.S. consumers.”

Besides, who made Bernanke the crime boss of the world?

Mercer Citing On NYT’s Economix Blog

Economy, Government, Ilana Mercer, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, The State

Are Federal Workers Overpaid? asks Professor Nancy Folbre of Economix at the New York Times. Unfortunately, Ms. Folbre answers unsatisfactorily. However, she does cite me in her New-York Times’ Economix blog.

New York Times
Are Federal Workers Overpaid?
Nancy Folbre – 9 hours ago
“…They were dramatized by Ilana Mercer in World Net Daily in a feature entitled “Life in the Oink Sector” and echoed by the conservative columnist Jeff Jacoby” …

October 13, 2009, 7:11 am
Are Federal Workers Overpaid?
By Nancy Folbre

Today’s Economist

Nancy Folbre is an economics professor at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

It’s bad enough that the average federal worker is paid more than the average private-sector worker, especially taking into account the value of benefits like health insurance and pensions. But what’s really shocking is that the gulf between the total compensation (wages plus benefits) enjoyed by federal workers and private-sector workers has increased since 1990.

So argues Chris Edwards, the tax director at the Cato Institute, a libertarian research organization.

Similar arguments were featured in a full-page ad sponsored by The Free Enterprise Nation in The Wall Street Journal on Sept. 22.

They were dramatized by Ilana Mercer in World Net Daily in a feature entitled “Life in the Oink Sector” and echoed by the conservative columnist Jeff Jacoby in The Boston Globe.

None of the sources provided any details about the characteristics of federal workers or their jobs. But such details (easily extracted from the regular Current Population Survey) explain why federal workers are paid more and why their average compensation has risen higher. They also show that federal employment creates proportionately far more middle-class jobs than the private sector.

In 2008, only 14 percent of federal workers were on part-time schedules, compared to 26 percent in the private sector. Federal workers were far older on average: 55 percent were between the ages of 45 and 64, compared to 36 percent of private-sector workers. Furthermore, 45 percent of federal workers held a college degree or higher educational credential, compared to 29 percent of private-sector workers.

Federal workers are more likely to receive employer-paid health benefits than private sector workers — 77 percent compared to 56 percent. This is one reason our highest-paid federal employee, the president of the United States, is fighting for universal health insurance coverage.

Federal workers are also more likely than private sector workers to garner pension benefits (81 percent compared to 53 percent). Keep in mind, however, that for some federal employees, pension benefits come in lieu of Social Security payments.

Both health insurance and pension benefits are more expensive for older than for younger workers, and health insurance costs, in particular, have escalated rapidly since 1990. Also, age and educational attainment differences have widened considerably since 1991, when 20 percent of private sector and 31 percent of federal workers had a college degree or higher.

The biggest difference between private and federal employment, illustrated in the graph above, lies in the proportion of jobs paying less than $25,000 a year. In 2008 more than 43 percent of private-sector workers earned less than $25,000 a year. Most federal employees fell squarely in the middle earnings brackets, making $25,000 to $75,000 a year.

A larger share of federal than private-sector workers earned $75,000 to $150,000 a year. Beyond that level, private employees were overrepresented. The percentage earning more than $250,000 in 2008 (not shown in the graph above) was twice as high as the percentage of federal employees (1 percent compared to 0.5 percent).

In order to protect the confidentiality of its respondents, the Current Population Survey assigns all extremely high levels of earnings the same value or “topcode.” As a result, it’s impossible to accurately compare all private sector and federal workers in the long right-hand tail of the earnings distribution

But not all earnings are confidential. We, know, for instance, that the president of the United States earned $400,000 in 2008. He also enjoyed a $50,000 annual expense account and rent-free accomodations for himself and his family at the White House.

By comparison, the compensation of the chief executive officers of the 500 biggest companies of the United States in 2008 came out to an average of $11.4 million each.

Consistent with the overall picture described above, statistical analysis of the impact of individual education and experience on earnings in the United States by the Harvard economist George Borjas showed that federal employees are paid considerably less than comparable private workers at the top end.

As the conservative columnist Ross Douthat points out, earnings inequality is generally lower in public-sector employment, and countries with a larger public sector therefore experience less overall income inequality.

Some oinking can definitely be heard out there in the labor market, but anyone willing to follow the numbers can tell that the biggest piggies are not those employed by the federal government.

‘The Purchase & Sale Of Paper Instruments’

Business, Debt, Economy, Federal Reserve Bank, Outsourcing, Political Economy

It is undeniable that, for better or for worse, economist Paul Craig Roberts is a fiercely independent thinker. Make up your own mind, but I have long agreed that America’s outsourcing and trade deficits—the last being emblematic of a consumer society—are a sickly specter, although I shun Roberts’ illiberal recommendations:

“The main cause of this decline is the offshoring of U.S. high value-added jobs. Both manufacturing jobs and professional services, such as software engineering and information technology work, have been relocated to countries with large and cheap labor forces.

The wipeout of middle-class jobs was disguised by the growth in consumer debt. As Americans’ incomes ceased to grow, consumer debt expanded to take the place of income growth and to keep consumer demand rising. Unlike rises in consumer incomes due to productivity growth, there is a limit to debt expansion. When that limit is reached, the economy ceases to grow.

The immiseration of working people has not resulted from worsening crises of overproduction of goods and services, but from financial capital’s power to force the relocation of production for domestic markets to foreign shores. Wall Street’s pressures, including pressures from takeovers, forced American manufacturing firms to “increase shareholders’ earnings.” This was done by substituting cheap foreign labor for American labor.

Corporations offshored or outsourced abroad their manufacturing output, thus divorcing American incomes from the production of the goods that they consume. The next step in the process took advantage of the high-speed Internet to move professional service jobs, such as engineering, abroad. The third step was to replace the remains of the domestic workforce with foreigners brought in at one-third the salary on H-1B, L-1 and other work visas.”

[SNIP]

Our “moonbat” frequent poster will no doubt agree with the following Robert’s assessment:

What is happening is that the hundreds of billions of dollars in TARP money given to the large banks and the trillions of dollars that have been added to the Federal Reserve’s balance sheet have been funneled into the stock market, producing another bubble, and into the acquisition of smaller banks by banks “too large to fail.” The result is more financial concentration.

The expansion in debt that underlies this bubble has further eroded the U.S. dollar’s credibility as reserve currency. When the dollar starts to go, panicked policy-makers will raise interest rates in order to protect the U.S. Treasury’s borrowing capability. When the interest rates rise, what little remains of the U.S. economy will tank.

The ‘Democratization Of Credit’: Is It Over?

Affirmative Action, Business, Debt, Democracy, Economy, Federal Reserve Bank

WSJ: “The democratization of credit began decades ago. Federal legislation in the late 1970s required banks to avoid discriminatory lending and meet the needs of local communities, spawning a wave of home buying and entrepreneurship in lower-income neighborhoods. The rate of homeownership in families with incomes in the bottom two-fifths rose to nearly 49% by 2001 from below 44% in 1989, according to Fed data analyzed by Mr. Mann at Columbia.”

[This is not what that ignoramus Michael Moore claims. The sad thing about the man’s propaganda is that nobody among the so-called conservative MSM can refute it with reference to First Principles.]

“But the financial crisis and recession have reversed … the ‘democratization of credit,’ forcing a tough adjustment on both low-income families and the businesses that serve them.”

‘We saw an extension of credit to a much deeper socioeconomic level, and they got access to the same credit instruments as middle-class and mainstream Americans,’ says Ronald Mann, a Columbia University law professor. Now, ‘it will be harder for families at the bottom of the income ladder to get credit cards,’ he says.

The financial crisis has forced lenders to be especially cautious with the riskiest borrowers, a category that low-income families often fall into because their debt tends to be higher relative to income and assets. The ratio of credit-card debt to income is 50% higher for the lowest two-fifths of Americans by income than for the top two-fifths, Federal Reserve data show.”

[SNIP]

The following aside is beside the point, but my guess is that if a multiple regression analysis were conducted, IQ would be the underlying variable that would stubbornly crop up to account for this alarming, yet ostensibly unintuitive, ratio of debt to income in low-income individuals.

IN ANY CASE, do you agree that the democratization of credit is on the wane? I find that a dubious statement. The latest legislation described has not eliminated the imperative to lend to risky entities and individuals, so much as it has created, as ever, unintended consequences. These contingencies have, so far, caused banks to twist like pretzels in order to find legal ways around eliminating risky borrowers.