Our economy is chugging along at 2% annual growth of GDP, not spectacular but not awful either. The unemployment rate has dropped to 4.3%, and low-wage earners are beginning to see decent pay raises. Furthermore there are good indications that GDP growth may rise in the near future to at least 2.5%, see here and here.
As growth increases, unemployment continues to drop, and wages increase more quickly, severe labor shortages in certain job categories are likely to develop. As the New York Times economics reporter, Eduardo Porter, points out, “The Danger from Low-Skilled Immigrants: Not Having Them.”
Eight of the fifteen occupations expected to experience the fastest growth – personal care and home health aides, food preparation workers, janitors and the like – require no schooling at all.
Low-skilled immigration does not just knock less-educated Americans out of their jobs, it often leads to the creation of new jobs – at better wages.
The strawberry crop in California owes its existence to cheap immigrant pickers. They are sustaining better paid American workers in the strawberry patch to market chain who would have to find other employment if the U.S. imported the strawberries directly from Mexico.
The benefits of immigration come from occupational specialization. Immigrants concentrated in more manual jobs free up natives to specialize in more communication-intensive (English speaking) jobs.
The average American worker is more likely to lose than to gain from immigration restrictions. Halting immigration completely would reduce annual economic growth by .3%.
The Pew Research Center estimates that about 30,000 unauthorized immigrants work in Nebraska, 3.2% of Nebraska’s total labor force. They are heavily represented in a handful of industries, making up 18% of Nebraska’s construction workers, 9% of production workers, and 5% of farm laborers. With an unemployment rate hovering around 3%, the Nebraska economy would be severely stressed without these immigrant workers.
Conclusion. Both in Nebraska and nationwide, the U.S. economy has a strong need for immigrant workers. An adequate guest worker visa program is badly needed to provide legal status to these workers who are so critical to the success of the U.S. economy.
The Democratic Party is starting to wake up. Donald Trump was elected President because he was able to appeal to blue-collar workers who feel left behind in today’s high tech global economy.
Yesterday the Democratic Congressional leadership held a rally in rural Berryville, Virginia to lay out an economic program to try to appeal to these very same Trump voters.
Increase people’s pay by lifting the national minimum wage to $15 per hour and also creating jobs with a $1 trillion infrastructure plan.
Reduce their everyday expenses by providing paid family and sick leave as well as breaking up large monopolies which can raise prices without restraint. Also empowering Medicare to negotiate lower drug prices for older Americans.
Provide workers with the tools they need for the 21st century economy by giving employers, especially small businesses, a large tax credit to train workers for unfilled jobs.
Unfortunately, there are problems with most of these ideas. In Seattle even a $13 per hour minimum wage has significantly reduced minimum wage work. The national minimum wage should be raised but to a more modest level.
There is no demonstrated need for a large-scale publicly funded infrastructure program and it would add hugely to the national debt.
A jobs program to maintain the employment rate for prime-age workers without a bachelor’s degree at the 2000 level of 79% and at a living wage of $15 per hour plus benefits would cost $158 billion per year.
Conclusion. Yes, blue-collar workers are hurting. Yes, some of the ideas suggested above would help them get ahead. But many would also increase already large deficit spending and therefore add dramatically to the national debt. What is needed is a combination of free market initiatives and carefully targeted government programs. Stay tuned!
The GOP healthcare plan, both the House version and the Senate version, are highly imperfect. Yet they each do one thing which is badly needed. They put Medicaid on a budget. The current open-ended Medicaid program, whereby each state is reimbursed by the federal government for a percentage of its costs (the average is 53%), would be replaced by an annual per-capita payment which would increase only at the rate of inflation. It is estimated that the new per-capita budget would reduce federal Medicaid payments by about 25% after 10 years.
In order to get the federal debt under control, all three major entitlement programs, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, must be reined in and the current GOP plan would start doing this for Medicaid.
Reining in spending like this will force states to alter the way they regulate and administer Medicaid and the New York Times columnist Ron Lieber points out some of the challenges which will arise if Medicaid has to operate more efficiently:
• Nursing homes. One third of people who turn 65 will eventually end up in a nursing home. Furthermore, 62% of nursing home residents cannot pay for nursing homes on their own. The average annual cost of a semi=private room is $82,000.
• Home and community-based care. Medicaid is required to pay for nursing homes and may also pay for home and community-based care which is much less expensive and lets seniors stay in their own homes.
• Optional services for low-income people and the disabled. Optional services besides long-term home care include dental care for adults, therapy for disabled children at school, prosthetic limbs and prescription drugs.
Conclusion. Changing Medicaid from open-ended funding to a strict federal budget which grows at the rate of inflation will put a large burden on state Medicaid administrators and require some difficult tradeoffs to control spending. But this is absolutely essential as a first step towards controlling the rapid increase of entitlement spending.
The House of Representatives, after much struggle, was finally able to pass a healthcare bill, The American Health Care Act. Now it’s the Senate’s turn to pass its own version and it, too, is turning out to be a struggle.
The healthcare policy expert, Avik Roy, considers the Senate bill to be a huge step forward:
Medicaid is finally put on a budget with annual increases in spending, starting in 2025, tied to the overall rate of inflation. In return, states will gain substantial latitude to use funds more effectively and efficiently.
Tax Credits in the Senate bill are means adjusted and will also encourage younger people to enroll for coverage. This is an improvement over the AHCA.
Expanded coverage. Mr. Roy predicts that passage of the Senate bill would increase (not decrease as the CBO predicts) the number of Americans with health insurance five years from now. This will result because the near poor in states like Texas and Florida, which have not expanded Medicaid, will be eligible for the new means-tested tax credits.
The 10th Amendment is strengthened because so much more authority for regulating healthcare insurance is transferred to the states. This represents huge progress because states are so much more fiscally responsible than the federal government (they have to balance their budgets)!
Conclusion. There are certainly many imperfections in the Senate bill. It does nothing to limit tax credits for employer-sponsored insurance. This is sorely needed to put the overall cost of American healthcare on a sustainable course. It does nothing to help low income people who struggle with high deductibles (for example, by helping to set up Health Savings Accounts). It also does nothing to rein in the cost of Medicare, such as by introducing means adjusted premiums and allowing Medicare to negotiate lower drug prices.
Nevertheless it is a huge step forward in controlling excessive healthcare costs as well as expanding health insurance coverage to more Americans in a fiscally responsible way.
I am just as personally embarrassed by President Donald Trump as most other people I know. He is rude towards other world leaders and especially our own allies. His destructive behavior endangers even his own policy initiatives. He was elected by blue-collar workers who feel left behind in today’s global economy. But how can he possibly lead others in implementing policies to help even his most avid supporters?
What is the Democratic Party doing about this? First of all, they are trying to stop acting so elitist toward the working class. But more fundamentally a new progressive social agenda apparently is emerging, here and here. It has many attractive features but there is one big thing missing, namely fiscal responsibility:
A “public apprenticeship” jobs program. The idea here is to maintain the employment rate for prime-age workers without a bachelor’s degree at the 2000 level of 79%. This would require the creation of 4.4 million jobs, ideally at a living wage of $15 per hour plus Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes, and therefore at a wage of $36,000 per year. This would cost $158 billion per year.
A universal child allowance of $250 per month. This would cost $190 billion per year, although half could be offset by consolidating less-efficient existing programs. This would cut child poverty by 40%.
An expansion of the earned income tax credit. A family of four making $40,000 per year would get a tax credit of $6000 instead of the current credit of $2000. This would cost $1 trillion over ten years. The idea here is extra motivation to hold a job.
Conclusion. Who is opposed to creating millions of new living wage jobs to put the unemployed and underemployed back to work? Such a program would give our economy a huge boost. Who is opposed to cutting child poverty in half (or doing even better)? But how in the world would we make room for such new programs in the federal budget? With $500 billion annual deficit spending already, we need to curtail federal spending, not increase it.
It is well known that the cost of higher education is increasing much faster than inflation and even faster than the cost of healthcare. In turn, student debt is also rising rapidly and creating a financial burden for lots of young people.
The New York Times writer, David Leonhardt, has an article in Sunday’s paper showing that most states have reduced their funding of higher education since 2009, some quite dramatically. This is not surprising since higher ed has to compete with K-12 education, Medicaid, prison operations, public employee pensions, etc. and states have to balance their budgets. But it means that the cost of tuition will continue to rise even faster than usual.
However, except for a few specific fields such as computer programming, high school STEM teaching and nursing, there is no overall shortage of college graduates to keep our economy going. In fact there is a surplus of college graduates in many non-technical areas.
But there is a growing labor shortage more generally, first of all for construction and agriculture workers which can be filled by unskilled immigrants. Furthermore, there are now millions of job openings for middle skill workers which are going unfilled for lack of qualified applicants. Training for such jobs as emergency medical technician, robot-heavy factory worker, and wind turbine technician is where states and localities should invest more public resources.
The huge demand for middle- and high-skill blue collar workers provides an opportunity to put laid-off middle-aged (Trump voting!) factory workers back to work in high paying middle class jobs. A little ingenuity at the local and state level should be able to figure out how to do this. Conclusion. A college education is not the only path to a productive and satisfying middle class life. In fact U.S. economic growth is being held back by a lack of qualified middle- and high-skill workers.
Responsible tax reform will be highly beneficial for the U.S. economy because:
Economic growth will be speeded up by lowering tax rates on businesses, thereby encouraging more investment.
National debt will shrink because faster growth will produce more tax revenue. But this only works if the revised tax plan is revenue neutral to begin with.
The Trump tax plan, described here and here, has the following features:
three tax brackets, reduced from seven. Simplification like this is a good idea.
double the standard deduction. This puts more money in the pockets of the average tax payer who does not itemize deductions and is therefore a good idea.
repeal of the alternative minimum tax. This only affects wealthy people and should be retained, if necessary, to make sure that overall reform does not increase the deficit.
lower capital gains tax. This will encourage more investment but should not be included unless the overall plan is revenue neutral.
repeal of inheritance tax. This tax feature should be retained until our annual budget deficits are eliminated, i.e. until we achieve balanced budgets on an annual basis.
preserving deductions for mortgage interest and charitable contributions. The mortgage interest deduction should be greatly reduced from its current level of $1 million per residence. Wealthy taxpayers don’t need that much help. Raising the standard deduction will already help middle income taxpayers.
cutting the corporate tax rate. This is an excellent idea as long as its revenue loss is made up elsewhere. It will encourage multinational corporations to bring their overseas profits back home for reinvestment in the U.S.
Conclusion. The Trump tax plan has some good features as well as some poor ones. Reducing tax rates is a good idea. But adding to annual deficits is a very bad idea. With some effort it is possible to reduce tax rates in a revenue neutral way.