The Unassuming Economist

A new IMF working paper revisits ” the issue of classification errors in the U.S. Current Population Survey. While the results still support the previous literature’s conclusion that the job finding probability plays a more important role in explaining unemployment fluctuations (“outs of unemployment”) than the job separation probability does (“ins to unemployment”), they moderate the conclusion that “Out Wins”. Moreover, once the proposed adjustment is applied, the importance of the participation margin in explaining unemployment fluctuations becomes smaller than previously argued—around 10 percent in this paper vs previous estimates of 20 to 30 percent (Elsby, Hobijn and Sahin, 2015). Therefore, the misclassification correction procedures in the labor force survey continue to be an important issue in understanding labor market dynamics. The results of this paper suggest that policymakers should pay closer attention to the job separation margin than previously thought and less on the participation margin.”

From a new post by Timothy Taylor:

“A lot of people have heard, one way or another, that the country of Bhutan decided back in the early 1970s to pursue Gross National Happiness. The King at that time is supposed to have said:  “Gross National Happiness is more important than Gross Domestic Product.” But in practical terms, what does that actually mean?”

[…]

“1) It is bog standard economics that GDP was never intended to measure happiness, nor to measure broader social welfare. Any intro econ textbook makes the point.  A well-known comment from “Robert Kennedy on Shortcomings of GDP in 1968” (January 30, 2012) make the point more poetically. But for those who need a reminder that social welfare is based on a wide variety of outcomes, not just GDP, I suppose a reminder about Gross National Happiness might be useful.

2) Bhutan’s measurement of 124 weighted indicator variables, and their distribution through the population,  is probably about as good a way of measuring Gross National Happiness as any other, and better than some. But it’s also pretty arbitrary in its own way.

3) The interesting question about GDP and social welfare isn’t whether they are identical, but whether they tend to rise together in a broad sense. For example, countries with higher per capita income also tend to have more education and health care, better housing and nutrition, more participatory governance, and a variety of other good things. .A few years ago I wrote about “GDP and Social Welfare in the Long Run” (April 6, 2015), or see “Why GDP Growth is Good” (October 11, 2012).

4) “Happiness” is of course a tricky subject, which is why it’s the stuff of literature and love.  After a lot of consideration, Daniel Kahneman has argued that “people don’t want to be happy.”  Instead, they want to have a satisfactory narrative that they can tell themselves about how their life is unfolding. If incomes, education, and life expectancy rise over, say, 40-50 years but on a scale of 1-10 people don’t express greater “happiness” with their live, does that really mean they would be equally happy with lower incomes, education and life expectancy–especially if other countries in the world were continuing to make gains on these dimensions? There is an ongoing argument over whether those who have higher income express more happiness because they get to consume more, or because they feel good about comparing themselves who are worse off. It’s easy to say that “money doesn’t bring happiness,” and there’s some truth in the claim. But for most of us, if we lived in a country with lower income levels and could watch the rest of the world through the internet and television, it would bug us at least a little, now and then.

It seems to me easy enough to make the case that looking at Gross National Happiness as is better than an exclusive focus on doing nothing but boosting short-term GDP. But outside the fictional mustachio-twirling econo-villains of anti-capitalist comic books, no one actually believes in an exclusive focus on GDP. For me as an outsider, it’s hard to see how Gross National Happiness has made Bhutan’s development strategy different. After all, lots of countries at all income levels emphasize lots of goals other than short-term GDP. And the government of Bhutan pays considerable attention to GDP, as the authors note, “While there is importance given to GNH in Bhutan, governmental organizations (especially commerce related ones) focus keen attention on GDP and how it measures trade, commerce and the economic prosperity of the country. In addition, the IMF has provided a great deal of technical assistance to Bhutan to help improve its national accounts …”

My own favorite comment on the connection from GDP to social welfare is from a 1986 essay by Robert Solow (“James Meade at Eighty,” Economic Journal, December 1986, pp. 986-988), where he wrote: “If you have to be obsessed by something, maximizing real National Income is not a bad choice.” At least to me, the clear implication is that it’s perhaps better not to be obsessed by one number, and instead to cultivate a broader and multidimensional perspective. If you want to refer to that mix of statistics as Gross National Happiness, no harm is done. But yes, if you need to pick one number out of all the rest (and again, you don’t!), real per capita GDP isn’t a bad choice. To put it another way, a high or rising GDP certainly doesn’t assure a high level of social welfare, but it makes it easier to accomplish those goals than a low and falling GDP.”

From a new VOX post:

“The role of exchange rate policies in economic development is still largely debated. This column argues that there are theoretical foundations for policies that guarantee competitive and stable real exchange rates. When there are constraints on the available set of policy instruments, the complementary use of competitive exchange rates with export taxes for traditional export sectors would result in effectively multiple real exchange rates. The empirical evidence suggests that both foreign exchange interventions and capital account regulations can be effectively used for maintaining competitive exchange rates and for dampening the effects of boom-bust cycles in external financing and the terms of trade on the exchange rate, thereby promoting growth and stability.”

“A variety of historical experiences support the claim that stable and competitive real exchange rate (SCRER) policies are good for economic development (Rodrik 2008, Razmi et al. 2012). We have argued that there are theoretical foundations for such an approach as an optimal policy strategy in the presence of certain constraints on the available set of policy instruments. The main argument against such interventions – that they represent interference in the free functioning of markets, which, in the absence of such intervention would ensure efficiency – misses two fundamental points:

1. every central bank intervention, including the setting of interest rates, affects the value of the exchange rate; this means, in fact, that there is no such thing as a ‘pure’ market exchange rate; and
2. all economies, and especially developing and emerging markets, are rife with market imperfections, including learning and macroeconomic externalities.

Our analysis of the empirical evidence on the effectiveness of different policy instruments suggests that both foreign exchange interventions and capital account regulations can be effectively used for maintaining competitive exchange rates and for dampening the effects of boom-bust cycles in external financing and the terms of trade on the exchange rate, thereby promoting growth and stability.”

From a new VOX post:

“Short-time work schemes are a fiscal stabiliser in Europe. Between 2010 and 2013, they were used by 7% of firms, employing 9% of workers in the region. This column uses ECB data to show that firms use the schemes to offset negative shocks and retain high-productivity workers. High firing costs and wage rigidity increase the use of short-time work, which in turn reduces the fall in employment brought on by a recession.”

“STW clearly shelters individual workers or firms from the worst effects of recessions. The question of whether it has a significant aggregate impact is the focus of several country-specific papers (Balleer et al. 2016, for Germany, is one example).

To answer this question using the WDN3 data, we divide countries and sectors into those with high levels of STW take-up (in which more than 10% of firms use STW in the country-sector) and those with low levels (in which fewer than 1% of firms use STW). Using Eurostat data on employment and output per sector from 2008-13, we then estimate the response of employment to falls in output for high- and low-STW sectors.

Figure 5 shows the results in the form of the responses of employment to a 1% fall in output. The fall in employment is considerably lower for high-STW sectors, where it peaks at 0.12% after three to four quarters. In low-STW sectors, by contrast, the employment fall peaks at the much higher level of almost 0.40%,after just two quarters. This suggests that STW can have significant aggregate effects, smoothing changes in overall employment through the cycle.”

From a new post by Timothy Taylor:

“The Aspen Institute Economic Study Group has published a collection of 12 papers on the theme Expanding Economic Opportunity for More Americans Bipartisan Policies to Increase Work, Wages, and Skills, edited by Melissa S. Kearney and Amy Ganz (February 2019). I’ll list the complete Table of Contents for the volume below. Here, I’ll just focus on four of the proposals that struck me as especially thought-provoking: caught

1) A Boost for Community Colleges

From “A Policy Agenda to Develop Human Capital for the Modern Economy,” by  Austan Goolsbee, Glenn Hubbard, and Amy Ganz:

The United States should make a bold and dedicated commitment to increasing the skills and productivity of its workforce by leveraging the potential of the community college sector. We propose a federal grant program to provide new funding to community colleges, contingent on institutional outcomes in degree completion rates and labor market outcomes. We believe a program of a similar scale to the 19th century Morrill Land Grant Program, which dramatically expanded access to higher education for working-class Americans, is needed to ensure our workforce meets the demands of the modern economy. …

In 1910, fewer than 10% of Americans had a high school degree. By 1935, nearly 40% of the population had earned their degrees. This inflection point came from substantial new investments in the nation’s education resources. We aim to achieve increases of a similar magnitude …by 2030:

1. Close the completion gap between two-year college students aged 18 to 24 and their peers at four-year institutions by increasing the average completion/transfer rate among 18- to 24-year-olds at community colleges from 37.5% to 60% by 2030.3 This would result in 3.6 million additional 18- to 24-year-olds with college degrees in 2030.
2. Increase the share of Americans aged 25 to 64 with a college degree or other high-quality credential from 46.9% to 65% by 2030, which reflects the expected share of jobs requiring advanced skills by that year. This goal would require 28 million additional workers to earn first-time degrees or high-quality credentials by 2030. …

We estimate an annual investment of $22 billion.

2) A Boost for Apprenticeships

From “Scaling Apprenticeship to Increase Human Capital,” by Robert I. Lerman

[T]he United States has lagged far behind other developed countries—countries like Germany and Switzerland, but also Australia, Canada, and England—in creating apprenticeships. In these countries, apprentices constitute about 2.5-3.0% of the labor force, or about 10 times the U.S. rate. Increasing the availability of apprenticeships would increase youth employment and wages, improve workers’ transitions from school to careers, upgrade those skills that employers most value, broaden access to rewarding careers, increase economic productivity, and contribute to positive returns for employers and workers. …

The experiences of Australia, Canada, and England demonstrate that scaling apprenticeship is quite possible, even outside countries with a strong tradition of apprenticeship. While none of these countries have the strong apprenticeship tradition seen in countries like Austria, Germany, or Switzerland, they have nonetheless grown significant programs. In fact, if apprenticeships as a share of the U.S. labor force reached the levels already achieved in Australia, Canada, and England (on average), the United States would attain over 4 million apprenticeships, about 9 times the current number of registered apprenticeships in the civilian sector. …

Overall, the federal government has devoted less than $30 million (per year) to the Office of Apprenticeship (OA) to supervise, market, regulate, and publicize the system. Many states have only one employee working under their OA. Were the United States to spend what Britain spends annually on apprenticeship, adjusting for differences in the size and composition of the labor force, it would provide at least $9 billion per year for apprenticeship. In fact, the British government spends as much on advertising its apprenticeship programs as the entire U.S. budget for apprenticeship. …

Today, funding for the “academic only” approach to skill development in the United States dwarfs the very limited amounts available to market and support apprenticeship. Yet apprenticeship programs yield far higher and more immediate gains in earnings than do community or career college programs and cost students and the government far less.

3) Sharing the Costs of Higher Minimum Wages with a Tax Credit

From “The Higher Wages Tax Credit,” by David Neumark

In recent years, there has been a torrent of state and local minimum wage increases. For example, as of the end of 2017, 30 states (including the District of Columbia) had minimum wages above the $7.25 federal minimum wage, with an average difference of 26%. At the state and local level, California, New York, Seattle, and the District of Columbia have or will soon have a $15 minimum wage; other localities may follow. Finally, a change in the national political alignment could result in a $15 national minimum. …

While the effects of minimum wage increases are contested, it is impossible to dismiss the sizeable body of evidence that suggests minimum wage hikes reduce employment among the least skilled (including recent research that addresses criticisms of earlier evidence). In addition, it is uncontested that higher minimum wages do not target low-income families very well, in part because of the large number of teenagers earning the minimum wage, and in part because poverty is more strongly related to whether or not one works and how many hours one works, rather than low wages ….

I propose a Higher Wages Tax Credit (HWTC) to partially offset the costs imposed by minimum wage increases on firms that employ low-skilled labor. Following a minimum wage increase, the HWTC would provide a tax credit of 50% of the difference between the prior minimum wage and the new minimum wage, for each hour of labor employed; the credit would phase out at wages higher than the minimum wage, and as wage inflation erodes the real cost of higher nominal minimum wages. The HWTC would reduce the incentive for employers to substitute away from low-skilled workers in the face of minimum wage increases, thus mitigating the potential adverse effects of minimum wage increases while simultaneously preserving and possibly enhancing some of the benefits of minimum wage hikes.

4) Minimum Zoning to Ease Movement to Higher-Cost, Higher-Wage Locations

From “How Minimum Zoning Mandates Can Improve Housing Markets and Expand Opportunity,” by Joshua D. Gottlieb

Dramatic differences in income, productivity, and housing costs within the United States make geographic mobility important for spreading prosperity. But Americans’ ability to move to places like San Francisco, Boston, and New York in search of economic opportunities is limited by severe restrictions on new housing supply in these productive places.State-level Minimum Zoning Mandates (MZMs) allowing landowners to build at a state-guaranteed minimum density, even in municipalities resistant to development, would be an effective means of encouraging denser housing development. These MZMs would improve housing affordability, spread economic opportunity more broadly, and limit the environmental impact of new development. …

I propose that state governments adopt Minimum Zoning Mandates (MZMs). These MZMs would be explicit zoning codes that provide a baseline minimum density that land owners, such as developers, can invoke when municipal zoning and permitting processes prevent useful development.

The MZMs should provide all land owners with a meaningful right to build housing up to a certain density significantly beyond single-family houses. Medium-density rowhouses and small apartment buildings should be allowed in every location where any sort of development is allowed. This is the type of density that is associated with some of America’s most-loved neighborhoods: Greenwich Village and other parts of Lower Manhattan, Boston’s North End and South End, the Mission in San Francisco, Lincoln Park in Chicago, and much of historic Philadelphia. It meshes well with existing single-family homes, as we see in places like Cambridge, Massachusetts. MZMs need not enable high-rise condo towers that would change the character of leafy, low-density neighborhoods. Even medium-density zoning rules could generate interesting new neighborhoods and resolve the housing shortages in productive cities.”