Stopping Donald Trump II. Less Inequality or More Growth?

Posted on December 17, 2015 by jackheidel

In my last post I presented the argument that voters are often more reasonable than the populist leaders who are trying to appeal to them. They would rather hear something more optimistic than rage against a dangerous world.
But there is a difference of opinion on how to reach these voters:

Leading Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton endorses the Buffett Rule which calls for millionaires to pay a minimum tax of 30% on their income. Says Clinton, “I want to go even further because Warren is right. I want to be the president for the struggling, for the striving and the successful.”
All of the Republican presidential candidates, including Donald Trump, have tax reform plans which will grow the economy but none of which are revenue neutral. In other words, they will all add to annual deficits and therefore make our debt problem much worse than it already is.
The nonpartisan Tax Foundation has issued a new report, “Options for Broadening the U.S. Tax Base,” which proposes capping itemized deductions at $25,000 per individual combined with
i) cutting the corporate tax rate to 27%
ii) cutting the top three ordinary income brackets by 5%, and
iii) implementing a top capital gains tax rate of 20%.
Such a plan would be revenue neutral and would lead to a long term GDP gain of 2.7%, a long term wage gain of 2.2% and a ten year dynamic revenue gain of $759 billion.

The Clinton plan would bring in up to $50 billion per year in new tax revenue but would do little to boost the economy. The Republican presidential tax plans are fiscally irresponsible. The Tax Foundation plan would boost the economy and reduce deficits rather than increase them. Other specific reforms would boost the economy even more.
In other words there are clear cut ways to create more jobs and raise wages. This is a message which should appeal to the angry and disaffected voters who are attracted to Donald Trump.

Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/jack_heidel
Follow me on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/jack.heidel.3

Inequality and Growth

Posted on July 16, 2015 by jackheidel

In my opinion the two most serious problems facing the U.S. at the present time are 1) stagnant growth and 2) massive debt. As discussed by William Galston in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal, the U.S. presidential campaign is now beginning to address the first of these issues. For example:

Bernie Sanders rejects “growth for the sake of growth” and says that “our economic goals have to be redistributing a significant amount back from the top 1%.”
Hillary Clinton says that we have to build a “growth and fairness” economy. “We can’t create enough jobs and new businesses without more growth, and we can’t build strong families and support our consumer economy without more fairness.”
Jeb Bush argues that there is nothing wrong with household incomes that 4% growth wouldn’t solve.

The readers of this blog will have little difficulty figuring out where I stand on this continuum of economic values. My view is illustrated by the chart just below from the World Bank which shows that countries with the fastest growing economies also have the least amount of inequality.
Let’s be more specific. Mrs. Clinton would achieve more fairness by:

Raising the minimum wage.
Guaranteeing child care and other family friendly policies.
Encouraging profit sharing.
Encouraging more innovation by increasing public investment in infrastructure, broadband, energy and scientific research.

These are attractive goals but how do we achieve them? The best way to raise wages is to get the economy growing so much faster that it creates a labor shortage. Then businesses will be competing for labor and wages will go up. This is exactly what is happening in Omaha NE where I live and the unemployment rate is down to 2.9% (2.6% in Nebraska as a whole).
Furthermore, in a tight labor market, businesses will automatically try harder to keep good employees by providing extra benefits such as childcare and profit sharing.
Public investment in infrastructure, etc. will be more easily affordable with the higher tax revenue generated by a faster growing economy.
Conclusion: faster growth is the best way to create a more fair and equal society!

Letting Young People Drift and the Liberal Disconnect

Posted on June 23, 2015 by jackheidel

The New York Times had an excellent lead editorial on Sunday, “The Cost of Letting Young People Drift,” describing how 5.5 million young Americans, ages 16 – 24, are neither working nor in school. “At a time when the economy is requiring workers to have higher levels of skills, one in seven of America’s young adults can’t even get started.”
The NYT editorial is based on new research, “Zeroing In on Place and Race: youth disconnection in America’s cities” performed by Measure of America. The report points out that the problem has gotten much worse since the Great Recession in 2008, as shown in the chart below.
It also breaks down the youth disconnection rate by state. For example, Nebraska (7.6%), North Dakota (7.9%) and Iowa (8.8%) have the lowest percentages, while Mississippi (18.5%), West Virginia (19.6%) and Louisiana (19.8%) have the highest percentages (as shown below).
But also look at the latest “Unemployment Rates for States” published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. There is a very close connection between a state’s unemployment rate and its youth disconnection rate, as shown below. In other words, one of the best ways to keep young people connected is to give them a better chance of finding a job.
But it requires faster economic growth to provide more jobs. Just yesterday the NYT had an editorial, “Obstacles to Economic Growth,” lamenting our very slow rate of economic growth of about 2.2% for the past six years. According to the NYT, “What’s needed most is public and private investment in the economy sufficient to support strong growth and rising productivity.” The editorial then goes on to berate Congress for being more interested in budget cuts than in new spending programs to stimulate the economy. According to the NYT, “the pathway to prosperity is clear for leaders who will dare to take it.”
The NYT thus recognizes the need for more private investment to stimulate the economy but has no apparent interest in policy measures to encourage it. How can a news organization as sophisticated as the NYT be so passionate about wanting to improve society and so clueless about the best way to do it?

How to Expand Economic Mobility

Posted on June 11, 2015 by jackheidel

My blog addresses the three main economic and fiscal issues facing the U.S. today: slow growth, economic inequality and massive debt. Today I focus on inequality by referring to a recent article by the Manhattan Institute’s Scott Winship, “Up: Expanding Opportunity in America.” Mr. Winship observes that there has been little change in upward mobility over the past three generations. Furthermore the U.S. has upward earnings mobility rates quite comparable to Canada and the Scandinavian countries, which are generally regarded as having strong economies.
Nevertheless he makes several suggestions for attempting to boost upward mobility in the U.S. as follows:

Proposal 1: Wage War on Immobility through an Opportunity, Evidence and Innovation Office and an Opportunity Advisory Commission. OEIO would fund and evaluate an array of demonstration projects at the state and local levels. It would consolidate many already existing programs and have a budget of $20 billion per year.
Proposal 2: Experiment with Promising and Innovative Approaches to Mobility Promotion. Examples are: text-messaging strategies such as READY4K, Language ENvironment Analysis, and Converting Large Schools with High Drop-out Rates into Small Personalized Schools.
Proposal 3. Block-Grant Means Tested Programs and Send Them Out to the States. Such a proposal has recently been made by the House Budget Committee.
Proposal 4. Encourage Employment through Work Subsidies. This is already being done with the Earned Income Tax Credit.
Proposal 5. Encourage Delayed and Planned Childbearing through Tax Incentives. The idea is to promote marriage by expanding the current Child Tax Credit of $1000 per child for single parents to perhaps $4000 per child for married parents, but for low-income families only.
Proposal 6. Reform the Social Security Disability Insurance Program. The share of adults age 25 to 64 receiving SSDI benefits has tripled from 1.6% in 1970 to 5% in 2010. Reform of this program would put many able-bodied men and women back to work and save lots of money, some of which could be used to fund the above programs.

Conclusion: Increasing upward mobility is one very good way to combat economic inequality. Mr Winship provides an excellent discussion of several new as well as already established ways of accomplishing this goal.

Are Economics and Social Progress Related to Each Other?

Posted on May 25, 2015 by jackheidel

“Your (last post) is one of the most active and positive that I have read of yours. You do put your time to where your values are. Those of us who see you as too economically focused and ourselves as more humanely concerned need to act as well. Thanks for your focus and attention.”
from a reader of my blog

I am a fiscal conservative and a social moderate. The primary reason I write this blog is because I am so concerned about the fiscal recklessness of our national leaders. Our national debt is much too large and still growing too fast. We need to either cut spending or raise taxes (or do both).
But I am also a social progressive. I voted in favor of Nebraska raising its minimum wage last fall. I support gay marriage as a civil right. I support having Nebraska expand Medicaid in order to cover more low-income people (where Medicaid needs to be fixed is at the federal level).
There is in fact a very close connection between having a sound economy and social progress. As the above chart shows, the U.S. ranks very high in both GDP per person and social progress. All of the countries which are most socially progressive also have sound economies. This is not a coincidence.
My last post talks about what society can do to help blacks improve their socio-economic status. This includes improving educational opportunity in the inner city. But improved educational opportunity needs to be closely directed toward improved economic opportunity. This means, for example, having good jobs available for new high school and community college graduates. But this, in turn, means having strong economic growth with intelligent tax and regulatory policies to encourage entrepreneurship and business expansion.
In short, a sound economy is essential for social progress.

Why Is U.S. Productivity Growth Declining?

Posted on May 17, 2015 by jackheidel

The economist Alan Blinder has just reported, “The Mystery of Declining Productivity Growth” that U.S. productivity growth has fallen dramatically in the last few years. “The healthy 2.6% a year from 1995-2010 has since been an anemic 0.4%. What’s scary is that we don’t know why.”
The economists Edward Prescott and Lee Ohanian believe the productivity slowdown is caused by a corresponding slowdown in new startups (as illustrated by the above chart). They point out, for example, that:

The creation rate of new businesses in 2011 was 30% lower than the average rate of the 1980s.
New startups are critical for growth since many of today’s heavyweights will decline as new businesses take their place. For example, only half of the Fortune 500 firms in 1995 remained on that list in 2010.
Startups in high technology have also declined since 2000 even though there is no slowdown in the development of new technology.

Consistent with the recommendations of James Bessen in a recent post of mine, “Learning by Doing,” Messrs. Prescott and Ohanian recommend policy changes such as:

Better training, plus immigration reform, to produce more skilled workers.
Streamlining regulations that raise cost, especially for small businesses.
Tax reform to reduce marginal tax rates.
Reforming Dodd-Frank to make it easier for small businesses to obtain loans from main street banks.

In today’s New York Times, the economist Tyler Cowen wonders whether our economy is in the midst of a “Great Reset.” “Perhaps the most crucial issue is whether economies will return to normal conditions of steady growth, or whether we are witnessing a fundamental transformation” to a less productive economy.
Here’s another way to put it: shall we attempt to adopt better pro-growth policies or shall we just give in to the status quo and accept that we can’t do any better? Are we optimists or are we pessimists?

Learning By Doing III. Limiting the Influence of Lobbyists

Posted on May 14, 2015 by jackheidel

The eclectic entrepreneur/economist/law professor, James Bessen, suggests how to boost our stagnant economy in a new book, “Learning by Doing: the real connection between innovation, wages and wealth.” The idea is to make fuller use of new technology by putting more emphasis on practical vocational training, ending government favoritism for established businesses, and by removing regulatory roadblocks to job mobility and entrepreneurship. He also thinks that the greatest hindrance to progress on these fronts is the influence of lobbyists and, more generally, “the growing role of money in politics.”
How do we limit the ability of lobbyists, with their huge financial resources, to slow down the opening up of new technology to the broadest possible group of participants? Some people would say this can only be done by curtailing the use of money in politics. But this is virtually impossible. Spending money to get your message out is really just a form of speech and the First Amendment to the Constitution says that “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.”
Rather than trying to restrict the ways in which lobbyists can spend their money, we could alternatively try to immunize our elected representatives from its effect, in one or both of these two different ways:

Pass a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution. Such an amendment would likely create the discipline needed for Congress to be able to set priorities and decide what is more or less important with regard to the overall economy. Spending programs, tax revenue, and the effects of regulation would all have to be considered together to maximize economic efficiency. Lobbyists would have far less power to push one particular program independently of how it relates to everything else.
Term Limits for national office. Knowing that one’s time in office is limited would help provide the strength to make the difficult tradeoffs necessary for good legislation and make officeholders more immune to special interest influence.

Conclusion: Rather than making a likely futile attempt to reduce the amount of money in the political process, change the process sufficiently so that money doesn’t have as much influence!

Learning By Doing II. The negative influence of lobbyists

Posted on May 12, 2015 by jackheidel

My last post reported on a new book by James Bessen, “Learning by Doing: the real connection between innovation, wages and wealth.” It makes several recommendations for how the U.S. can better meet the challenges posed by the hollowing out of the middle class, as illustrated in the chart just below from the Dallas Federal Reserve.
Mr. Bessen blames one primary culprit for this problem: the growing role of money in politics. For example:

The dramatic growth in occupational licensure from 70 occupations covering 5% of the workforce in the 1950s to over 800 occupations covering over 29% of the workforce in 2008. Such a major change can only be understood as the outcome of massive lobbying.
Defense procurement. For example, in 2012 the defense industry spent $132 million on over 900 lobbyists. It is hardly surprising that defense procurement rules have favored established defense contractors at the expense of start-up technology firms.
The best patent law money can buy. Patent trolls have continued to file more lawsuits, despite the America Invents Act of 2011. A new legislative effort for patent reform in 2013 passed the House by a margin by a margin of 325 to 91 but then was killed by the Senate in May 2014.
Changes in trade secret law. The problem is that more uniform trade law, which sounds desirable, also broadens its scope which then limits employee mobility and the creation of spin-offs.
Strong enforcement of non-compete agreements in Massachusetts protects established firms but hurts startups. This has given Silicon Valley companies a big advantage over the companies on Route 128 outside of Boston.

Mr. Bessen makes a very strong case for the harmful effects of lobbyists and their money in retarding economic growth. But how can we possibly curtail the influence of lobbyists without limiting their freedom of speech? Stay tuned for the next post!

Learning By Doing

Posted on May 10, 2015 by jackheidel

The two biggest problems facing our country today are a stagnant economy and an exploding national debt. Faster economic growth would help pay our bills by bringing in more tax revenue. It would also create more jobs and give a boost to stagnant wages. One of the causes of this stagnation is that our economy has become less entrepreneurial over time as shown by this often cited chart from the Brookings Institution.
A very interesting new book by James Bessen, “Learning by Doing: the real connection between innovation, wages and wealth.” looks at both our economic history and our current economy to understand how society can best meet the challenges posed by new technology. Mr. Bessen identifies the basic problems as follows:

Funds have been shifted away from vocational education and community colleges at a time when large numbers of workers could acquire valuable skills at these institutions.
The rapid growth of occupational licensing restricts training and jobs open to mid-skill workers and, in many cases, limits their use of technology.
Military procurement favors large defense contractors over start-up firms, while heightened secrecy requirements limit the development of open standards and the broad sharing of knowledge.
Job mobility has declined, limiting knowledge sharing and weakening labor markets.
Abusive patent litigation has exploded, making it harder for startups and small firms to develop new technology.

Mr. Bessen concludes:“The practical skills of ordinary people have been a wellspring of widely shared wealth for 200 years, and the economic power of mighty nations rests on the technical knowledge of the humble. Provide the means for ordinary workers to acquire the skills and knowledge to implement new technology today and the economic bounty will not only grow, it will be widely shared.”
What are the roadblocks to implementing Mr. Bessen’s recommendations? I will return to this question later.

Why Inequality Is Harmful and What to Do About It

Posted on May 7, 2015 by jackheidel

I describe this blog as addressing our fiscal and economic problems, meaning deficits and debt on the one hand and slow economic growth on the other. But these topics, while being of critical importance to our national welfare, are also somewhat on the dry side. The subject of economic inequality stirs up lots more interest and response. In the Fall of 2012 The Economist declared that “a new form of radical centrist politics is needed to tackle inequality without hurting economic growth.”
Says The Economist:

There’s too much cronyism in the rich world. Banks which are “too big to fail” have an implicit subsidy. From doctors to lawyers, many high paying professions are full of unnecessarily restrictive practices. Social spending often helps the rich more than the poor. For example housing subsidies for the top 20% (mortgage-interest deductions) are four times the amount spent on public housing for the poorest 20%.
If income gaps become too wide, they can lead to less equality of opportunity, especially in education. The gap in test scores between rich and poor American children is 30 – 40% wider than it was 25 years ago.
If those on the top of the heap resist equalizing changes, it could lead to political pressure which serves nobody’s best interests.

Here are The Economist’s proposals for a True Progressive Agenda to attack inequality:

Compete. A Rooseveltian attack on monopolies and vested interests is needed. School reform is crucial: no Wall Street financier has done as much damage to social mobility as the teacher’s unions have.
Target. Government spending need to be focused on the poor and the young. Governments can’t hope to spend less on the elderly but they can reduce the pace of increase.
Reform. Eliminate tax deductions which primarily benefit the wealthy such as for mortgage-interest; narrow the gap between tax rates on wages and capital income.

“The right is still not convinced that inequality matters. The left’s default position is to raise income tax rates for the wealthy and to increase spending still further – unwise when sluggish economies need to attract entrepreneurs and when governments are overburdened with promises of future spending.”
Surely there is a better way!

It Does Not Add Up

Jack Heidel's blog on fiscal responsibility

Category Archives: economic mobility