EconTalk with guest Susan Mayer debunking some conventional wisdom on silver policy bullets.
I enjoyed this EconTalk podcast with guest Maeve Cohen, about rethinking economics.
I also think there is much room to improve economics education.
Maybe there could a little less emphasis on how to calculate GDP and more discussion on the implications of a ‘incentives matter,’ for example.
This gave me a chuckle, from this week’s EconTalk with Charles Marhon about what makes a strong town:
I like to point out that Rome didn’t get the Colosseum and then build Rome. The Colosseum was the byproduct of centuries of success. And you know, you can look and say Rome was successful because they had a Colosseum. And go out and build a Colosseum and then say, why isn’t Rome appearing here?
I recommend the podcast. Marohn makes a lot points that I am sympathetic to.
He thinks we’ve gone overboard on infrastructure due to the belief that more is always better for growth.
Because of that thinking (similar to thinking on housing and education) and distorted incentives (we don’t directly pay for all that infrastructure) we’ve pushed into the diminishing returns part of the curve and cities that have built infrastructure to try to stimulate growth (rather than build to keep up with growth) are getting to the point where they may not be able to pay their bills.
This article sums up nicely why Russ thinks we should be more skeptical of economists who are not willing to admit or, worse, aren’t aware of the limits to what they know.
One argument from the right against unemployment benefits is that it encourages people to stay unemployed so they can keep receiving it.
A standard retort from the left to that argument is that the unemployment payout is so small that nobody would choose that paltry sum over getting a job.
Mulligan points out that the sum is not trivial. Here’s Mulligan from about 24 minutes into the podcast (bold is mine):
Typically before the recession, unless you are well into the upper half of earnings, when you lost a job you got half of your earnings replaced. So if you used to earn $600 a week, you’d get an unemployment check for $300 a week. And I guess you are referring to kind of that $300 dollar number–it seems $300 isn’t very big. Well, if you earn $600–I earn more than $600 myself–but if you earn $600, then $300 is not all that trivial. Number one.
…number two: There’s all kinds of taxes you don’t have to pay when you are unemployed. Payroll taxes–forget about it. You don’t pay it when you are unemployed. A big chunk of income taxes you are not going to pay when you are unemployed. So when you put all of that together, without even getting to other help you might get from food stamps or Medicaid, put it all together, before the recession about 70%, maybe a little more, of your earnings would be replaced. Not half. And that’s without getting into, like I said, other types of programs.
And when you start with 70% as your baseline–so you are going to get 70% on the old rule, and you are going to put a bunch of new rules* in there–it pushes the 70% up to 85 or 90%. I don’t think we can call that trivial any more.
*The new rules Mulligan mentions earlier in the podcast are expansions made in other programs during in the recession like food stamps, mortgage payment relief and health insurance subsidies.
So, think about these choices:
Choice 1: Get a job making 70% – 100% of what you use to make and give up 40+ hours a week. After paying taxes and paying for more of your food, mortgage and health insurance, you are really making about 50% – 80% of what you use to make.
Choice 2: Don’t get a job (or at least not an official job). Keep making 70%+ of what you use to make.This includes unemployment and other programs. Keep the 40 or more hours of free time during the week, where you might find things to do for others off-the-books for extra cash (which maybe brings you to more than what you use to make).
After learning this, the ‘the unemployment payout is so small that nobody would choose that paltry sum over getting a job’ argument seems much less compelling. I’d say that it would be more of a surprise for someone to give up Choice 2 for Choice 1.
The whole podcast is worth a listen. There are a couple other points Mulligan makes that I’d like to mention.
One (and some of this may be a mix of Mulligan’s points and my own). Unemployment is more of a choice than a condition that folks find themselves in ‘through no fault of their own.’
He contends that use to be the social norm. If you lost a job, there was more expectation on you to not burden your fellow citizens and to do something productive. So, for example, you were expected to have been responsible and saved for a rainy day when you did have a job. You were expected to make tough choices in your own budget to trim the fat. And, you were expected to find another job and take it and make ends meet, even if it was for less pay that what you used to make. At least you were being productive, responsible and continuing to add to your own work experience and skill set that may lead to bigger and better things.
The ‘social norm’ seems to have shifted to view what you use to earn and the budget choices you made then were things you were entitled to keep and that being out of job is something that you have absolutely no control over.
Two. The cost-benefit analysis of unemployment benefits has shifted. Unemployment benefits use to be viewed as a stop-gap to help folks in transition. It wasn’t really thought of something that would help the economy. Now the benefit-side of the cost-benefit analysis includes stimulative effects to the economy. But, Mulligan does a good job of addressing that belief:
It does put money in a group of people’s hands; it takes it out of another group of people’s hands. And the net reduction in the economy is actually less spending. Because, you know, you have less work going on. So there’s less total income to be spent. And so the people who are going to suffer from that, depending on the industry they work in, they are going to see the drop in demand for what they make. And they may not appreciate my story; but they don’t understand–they need to appreciate: Why aren’t their customers spending? If you drill down to the bottom of that you are going to see that the safety net expansions are a big part of it.
Here Mulligan makes an atomic connection that so few others do. Income and spending derives from wealth creation (i.e. doing productive things), not the other way around. All unemployment benefits do is shift who is spending the wealth that is being created, so since you have fewer people creating wealth, there will be less overall spending.
In fact, this reminds me of a post of mine from 2011, Government is overhead.