Why is Inflation 7%?

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CPIAUCSL

Easy Monetary Policy

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FII10

The “real” interest rate is the nominal interest rate minus the inflation rate. It reflects the “real” cost of borrowing. Prior to the “Great Recession”, 2% was a typical “real cost” of borrowing money. To entice lenders to lend, borrowers had to pay some “real” amount extra per year, 2%.

The Federal Reserve did what it could to “ease” monetary conditions and lower interest rates to offset the negative impact of the Great Recession in 2008-9.

By the end of 2011, real rates were ZERO or negative. In other words, the Fed went too far. By June, 2013, rates returned to positive territory, but only reached 0.5%, where they remained through the end of 2017, despite president Trump’s complaints that the Fed was constraining the Trump economy. Monetary policies were “easy” for a very long 7-year period.

By May, 2019, real interest rates were back to just 0.5%, having reached a peak of just 1% for 3 months at the end of 2018. With further “easy” money policy, real rates dropped back to ZERO percent by August, 2019. The economy was now 9 years into recovery. Interest rates should have been higher.

The Fed found new ways to “ease” monetary policy as the pandemic struck in 2020. Real interest rates dropped to -1% and stayed there. Monetary policy has been “easy” for more than a decade. Time for inflation. “Too much money chasing too few goods”. “Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon”.

Supply Chain Disruption

The recovery has been faster than anyone expected, but most critically, with consumers less eager to buy “in-person” services, they have greatly increased their purchases of goods. The modern US economy relies on imports and modern manufacturers and retailers hold lower inventories to buffer changes.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/ISRATIO

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PCEDGC96

Yes, durable goods purchases jumped by 20% in 1 year, from $1.8T to $2.2T. Businesses have simply been unable to adapt to that scale of change.

Easy Fiscal Policy / Large Budget Deficits

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFSGDA188S

Standard macroeconomic theory focuses on aggregate demand versus aggregate supply as the key driver of output, unemployment and inflation. When total demand grows faster than remaining excess capacity of total supply, inflation results. The biggest driver of changes in aggregate demand is the level of government spending (demand) minus government taxation (reduces demand).

Historically, various pressures have kept the federal budget deficit between -3% and +3% of GDP, allowing the government to buffer change in private demand through the business cycle. The large drop from -2.5% to -5% in 1979-82 was a factor that contributed to the last major round of US inflation. A similar decline from -2.5% to -4% in 1989-91 increased inflation, but not on such a large scale. It also served to convince President Clinton and congress to reduce the deficit to ZERO by 1997 and run a surplus for a few years.

The 2001 recession caused a 2.5% decrease in this ratio, from a surplus to a deficit. Bush tax cuts, foreign wars and congressional agreement lead to deeper deficits at 3.3% in 2003-4, before some recovery to -1% in 2007, prior to the Great Recession.

Bush, Obama and congress agreed to spend more to fight the Great Recession, pushing the deficit to a worryingly low -9.8% in 2009. There was no agreement on a second major round of spending, so the deficit improved a bit to -6.6% by 2012 and then to a more reasonable -2.5% in 2014-15. Instead of continuing to improve with the economic recovery, it fell a little, to 3.1% in the last year of the Obama economy.

President Trump’s first order of business was to enact “job creating” tax cuts. Unfortunately, the desired boost to economic growth to fund these tax cuts did not occur. The budget deficit increased from 3.1% to 4.6% of GDP, as the economy reached a record long recovery period of a full decade.

To address the pandemic, congress and Trump agreed to spend money to protect the economy and workers, leading to very large budget deficits of 15% and 12% in 2020 and 2021, respectively. Too much aggregate demand for the level of aggregate supply, so we have major inflation.

Summary

Easy money, easy fiscal policy and a 20% increase in demand for goods leads to major inflation. Like a frog getting boiled as a pot slowly warms up, we became complacent based on the apparently “just right” conditions of the late teens (2012-19). The federal budget deficit needs to get back above -5%, real interest rates need to become positive and consumers need to rebalance to consume more services and less goods. I don’t think we’ll see 7% inflation for 2022, but it looks like 4-5% is a good bet. Hold on.

Politics

Biden deserves a good share of responsibility for the government spending budget deficit, as he was seeking to make it even larger. I give him a “pass” on consumer demand for durable goods since it mostly occurred before he started. I also give him a “pass” for the loose Fed monetary policy which has been going on for a decade or so. He was wise to reappoint the Fed chairman, who I believe will raise interest rates as needed to get the real interest rate back to a proper level. In the meantime, Biden will pay politically for higher inflation, which has a “real” impact on the wallets of voters.

https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-business-health-prices-inflation-bd71ae9e491907a51956c1d4eb07fb90

Good News: Real Airfares are 43% Less than in 1995

This article combines data from 4 sources with slightly different data. Airfares were flat at the end of the 20th century, but then dropped by 19% by 2004. They remained flat, in real terms, through 2009. Airlines pushed through 8% higher prices in 2010-11 and maintained real fares at the same level through 2014. After 19 years, real airfares were 14% lower than in 1995.

Fares then dropped year after year through 2019, reaching 26% below the 1995 baseline. They have fallen further in the pandemic years to 43% below the level of 25 years ago.

Bureau of Labor Statistics / CPI

The Bureau of Labor Statistics compiles a consumer price index for air travel as part of the overall CPI. It compiles average prices and tries to adjust for changes in the quality of the product.

https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CUUR0000SETG01?output_view=data

https://www.bls.gov/cpi/factsheets/airline-fares.htm

https://www.bts.gov/content/annual-us-domestic-average-itinerary-fare-current-and-constant-dollars

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CPIAUCSL#0

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CUSR0000SETG01#0

Bureau of Transportation Statistics

https://www.bts.gov/newsroom/figure-1-us-average-domestic-annual-fares-1995-2020

BTS graph and 20 more about the airline industry.

https://www.airlines.org/dataset/the-air-travel-value-proposition/

BTS: Revenue Per Passenger Mile

https://www.bts.gov/content/average-passenger-revenue-passenger-mile-indexes

Dept of Transportation: Average RoundTrip Fares

https://www.airlines.org/dataset/annual-round-trip-fares-and-fees-domestic/

Prior 25-50 Years

Real airfares declined consistently throughout the period, but no data source is fully compatible with the 4 summarized above. It appears that the real cost of flying declined by about one-third between 1979 and 1995 as the airline industry was deregulated.

https://www.travelandleisure.com/airlines-airports/history-of-flight-costs

https://www.travelandleisure.com/airlines-airports/airfare-cost-change

See How the Cost of a Flight Has Changed Since 1963 [Charts]

Air Industry Productivity (How’d they do it?)

https://www.econlib.org/library/Enc1/AirlineDeregulation.html

https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2017/article/economic-productivity-in-the-air-transportation-industry.htm

Moral Foundations Theory of Politics

The Righteous Mind-Jonathan Haidt 2014

Political views are rationalizations of moral intuitions. They are demonstrably not the result of dispassionate analysis by individuals.

A small number of moral intuitions are broadly held across time and cultures and can be “explained” on the basis of evolutionary pressures on mankind.

The prevalence of the six logically defined and statistically confirmed dimensions differ markedly between liberal and conservative minded people in various cultures.

1. Care/Harm

Desire to protect children and weaker others from harm. Caring, kindness, gentleness, nurturance, compassion, feelings, empathy. Liberals and conservatives both show an interest in this dimension of morality. Liberals value this dimension most highly. Conservative men and libertarians, on average, show much less interest in this dimension.

2. Fairness/Reciprocity/Cheating

In a social setting, there is a need to rely upon others keeping their word, being honest, doing their share of work, etc. Justice, rights, cooperation, deception, trust. Liberals tend to interpret this in terms of equality. Equal rights, equal opportunity and equal results. Conservatives are closer to the evolutionary basis as seen in game theory / the prisoners dilemma / “tit for tat” winning strategy. They highly value proportionality, closely linking results to inputs or effort.

3. Liberty/Oppression

No one wants the “alpha dog” to take advantage of their position. Individual and group opposition to domination, tyranny, restrictions, bullies and cruelty. Liberals and conservatives both value this dimension in modern, western, secular, commercial societies. They define the oppressor differently, with liberals focusing on business and institutional sources of power and conservatives focusing on government and regulators. Libertarians value this dimension most highly. These first 3 sources of morality are more individual oriented, mediating the tensions between individuals and groups.

4. Group Loyalty

Clear commitment to the group. More than “limited liability”. Betrayal, in-group attachment, patriotism, nationalism, betrayal, self-sacrifice, us vs. them, tribe, religion, party, flag, clan, neighbors, family. Conservatives value this dimension very highly, with felt loyalties to several groups. Liberals value this dimension, but not nearly as highly; with a tendency to value the largest groups: nation, humanity, nature. The liberal focus on “diversity” and valuing others, outgroups and the “oppressed” is very different from the conservative worldview. Western, secular, commercial societies value this dimension less.

5. Authority/Respect

Larger groups require some degree of hierarchy. Leader and follower. This is a complement to the liberty/oppressor value. Respect for authority, leader, institution, rules, history. Safety, order, predictability. Obedience, deference, submission. Against subversion, revolution. This is the classic conservative value, supporting the known value/benefits of a given system against the potential value/risks of change. Modern, individualistic liberals tend to not value this dimension highly, instead choosing to “challenge authority”.

6. Purity/Sanctity

The sixth dimension differs from the first 5. It is not so clearly about managing the “individual to group” challenges. It focuses on the disgust/gag reflex to things or situations that are so threatening as to be beyond consideration. This takes place at both the practical and the abstract levels. Degradation, disgust, disease, infection, dirt, germs, contamination, carnality, body, sex. Piety, chastity, temperance, compliance, burning, cleanliness, food rules. Everyone has some sensitivity to this dimension, but conservatives have much higher concern. Research says that conservatives, on average, have a lower interest in new (unsafe, novel) activities or experiences. Moral values 4-6 retain higher priority outside of western, commercial, secular societies. Liberal references to purity may focus on things like the environment.

Basic References

https://www.online-psychology-degrees.org/study/jonathan-haidt-morality/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_foundations_theory

https://www.wired.com/2012/10/the-psychology-of-liberals-and-conservatives/?gclid=Cj0KCQiAoY-PBhCNARIsABcz773DJzBnc5VoJf5iUksyynjWCWM-bcXuNVXNGat-dSIuvliFr7UOl9EaAh9zEALw_wcB

Applications

Haidt is a self-professed “liberal” who intuitively/instinctively rejected the “rational” morality theories he learned in graduate school in the 1980’s. During his early research on alternate approaches, he had the “aha” insights that 1) other cultures have very different moral values and that 2) moral/political views are intuitive and rationalized. He hoped/hopes that liberals can see that their more limited moral palate (3 items) is not the only one and that this difference between including or not including the other 3 bases is a huge insight, even if liberals choose to not value the other 3 dimensions. He analyzed national politics in each election cycle from 2000, highlighting the large advantage that Republican politicians have in monopolizing the 3 other dimensions. In 2016, he advised the Dems to fight against Trump on the “conservative” moral dimensions of loyalty (Putin?), authority/order (Trump chaos/revolution/policy changes), and purity (sex allegations) instead of policy positions or personal character.

How the Democrats Can Use Moral Foundations Theory Against Trump

Haidt collaborated with a CATO scholar to analyze the 2016 Democratic and Republican candidates for the presidency, analyzing their supporters in terms of the Moral Foundations Theory.

https://www.vox.com/2016/2/5/10918164/donald-trump-morality

https://www.cato.org/commentary/donald-trump-supporters-think-about-morality-differently-other-voters-heres-how

Research and Critics

The Wiki post has some references.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_foundations_theory

The basic conclusions are supported, but all details are not. The 1 Care / 2 Fairness versus other dimensions emphasis between liberals and conservatives is supported. But, statistically, there may just be individual versus group moral foundations (2 dimensions versus 5-6).

https://digest.bps.org.uk/2021/03/15/do-liberals-and-conservatives-really-have-different-moral-foundations-differences-may-be-less-clear-cut-than-often-claimed/

Group? Which group? Small or large? In-group or out-group? Research is now focused on defining questions that clarify in-group versus out-group attraction and then, the difference between liberals versus conservatives, if any.

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.579908/full

Academics have been busy working on the details. One criticism is that the 5 or 6 dimensions were defined in an ad hoc manner, rather than part of an overall theory of how man evolved. One group has stepped up to propose a theory that is solely based upon the various forms of cooperation, resulting in 7 dimensions.

On the academic left, Haidt’s “moral equivalence” approach to the 3 modern, secular, liberal values and the 3 historic, religious, conservative values has been sharply criticized. An alternate view that highlights bias/bigotry, social dominance, right-wing authoritarianism, Schwartz Value Theory and Evolutionary/Coalitional Theory (ECT) has been proposed.

https://www.salon.com/2018/09/02/are-trump-supporters-evil-or-just-wrong-political-scientists-struggle-with-morality/

Summary

Haidt and his colleagues have defined 6 dimensions of moral thinking which underly modern political views that make sense based on evolution. The “west” could clearly learn something about the moral/political views of other societies that did not have the same historical evolution into a commercial/largely secular situation. Politicians could seek to more effectively target their messages to trigger all of these 6 values in their target audiences. Civic minded individuals could promote greater understanding of these insights to lessen the Manichaean “good versus evil” polarization we see in politics today.

Good News: US Economy Added 6 Million Jobs in 2021

Today’s news releases show 6.0M jobs added during 2021 according to the household survey and 6.5M jobs added according to the employer survey. The ADP employer jobs survey released this week showed 6.2M jobs added. The employer reported number of open jobs increased from 6.8M to 10.6M this year. Hence the total filled plus open jobs increased by 10.6M, from 149.3M to 159.6M, a truly incredible expansion of the US economy’s production potential and demand for labor. This is 1M more filled plus open jobs than the December, 2019 peak of 158.6M. Employers are clearly struggling to work this backlog down from the 10-11M range back to the pre-pandemic 6-7M level. This provides the demand side for another 8-12 months’ worth of 500K filled jobs added per month.

The 3 underlying measures use different definitions and survey methods, but in the long-run they generally agree.

https://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/ces_cps_trends.htm#intro

The monthly changes are much less consistent. Much of the media highlighted that the employer survey data showed just 200K jobs added in December. The household survey indicated 600K jobs added, while ADP reported 900K jobs.

It’s best to look at all 3 measures to try to get a best estimate of the most recent changes. I see roughly 500K new jobs added each month from July through December. A flat number, not an increasing one. The first half of the year was probably adding a few more jobs each month, closer to 600K each.

https://adpemploymentreport.com/2021/December/NER/NER-December-2021.aspx

Look Past the “Spin”

https://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/biden-december-jobs-figure-unemployment-decline

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10379015/US-employment-report-misses-expectations-Just-199-000-jobs-added-December.html

 https://www.realclearpolitics.com/2022/01/07/another_disastrous_jobs_report_lands_on_bidens_desk_560237.html

 

 

Good News: A Great Labor Market

Layoffs

From 2000-2009, the dynamic US labor market laid off workers at a consistent 2M per year rate. This declined a bit to 1.8M per year in the next decade. After the pandemic, the economy quickly returned to this 1.8M per year rate from July to December, 2020.

It has dropped and remained at a 1.4M per year rate at the end of 2021, fully 30% lower than its normal level. Good news, indeed.

Unemployment Claims

Historically, the US economy generated 350,000 new unemployment claims each week. This measure declined slowly after the Great Recession, reaching a nice 300,000 level in 2014. It slowly declined to a record low of 205,000 in Feb, 2020. The disruption rate dropped back down to the very high but stable 800,000 level from Aug, 2020 through Apr, 2021. In the last 8 months the rate has dropped very quickly back down to the record low 200,000 level!

Cumulative individuals claiming unemployment benefits has historically varied with the business cycle. We can see the increase from 2M to 4M at the turn of the century. The “Great Recession” had a greater negative impact, driving this number from 2M – 4M – 7M. This number fell throughout the extended business cycle recovery period, breaching 2M in Feb, 2017 and reaching a low of 1.7M in Feb, 2020. The unemployed number reached a full order of magnitude higher at 23M during the pandemic, then dropping to 13M in Sep, 2020 and 4M in Mar, 2021 and 2M in Nov, 2021 and finally equaling the record low in December, 2021 at 1.7M. This is great news!

Unemployment Rate

The unemployment rate has reached 4.2% and will return to its historical low of 3.5% in the next 4-6 months.

Minority Unemployment Rate

African-American unemployment was typically in the 8-10% range. It was driven down to the 5-6% level after the Great Recession during the extended business cycle expansion period. The rate is now below 7% and falling.

Hispanic American unemployment averaged 5-7% in the 2000’s. It spiked after the Great Recession to 13%, then slowly declined to 4.3%. It has since recovered to 5.2% and is dropping quickly.

Broadly Defined Unemployment

Broader definitions of unemployment show the same swift recovery from the pandemic situation.

Labor Force Participation

Labor force participation among the core 25-55 year age group reached an historic, and possibly unsustainable high of 83% in late 2019. It stayed around 81% at the end of 2020 and has since improved to 81.8%. This is one of the few labor market indicators that clearly shows that we have NOT “fully recovered”. There is 1% of the population waiting to be attracted back into the labor force.

Quits Rate

The voluntary “quit” rate has doubled since the good side of the “Great Recession”. It is 50% higher than during the very favorable labor market of 2018-2020. Employees are confident that they can leave their current employer and find another position quickly.

Job Openings

This is the CRAZY positive labor market chart. Historically, we see 3-5M job openings. Expansion to 6M in 2016-17 as the post Great Recession recovery faced its “end”. But, the expansion continued even further, with 7M open positions available in 2018-20. The economy recovered to 6.8M open positions in Dec, 2020. This figure has since climbed to an incredible 11M open positions, more than double the historic norm.

This is truly a “good news” labor market!

Good News: Minimum Wage Continues to Increase

States and cities have been increasing their minimum wages annually since before the pandemic struck in early 2020 and have set higher rates for 2022.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/31/politics/minimum-wage-increase-2022-15-dollars/index.html

https://www.paycor.com/resource-center/articles/minimum-wage-by-state/

Public Policy is More Favorable

Historically, corporations and supporters have highlighted the negative impacts of small/large and narrow/broad minimum wage increases (2019 example).

https://fee.org/articles/support-for-15-minimum-wage-plummets-when-americans-are-told-its-economic-impact/?gclid=Cj0KCQiAlMCOBhCZARIsANLid6ZmQXEJ_4xmXTiQ3n16kSGLLqLvgeS_hdpoSlXwUR_oD-_b9NK3AfcaAtBvEALw_wcB

Historically, economists generally emphasized the negative short-term and long-term impacts of significantly higher, broadly applied minimum wage increases. Studies in the 1990’s indicated that the negative effects of moderate minimum wage increases could be relatively small, so economists’ articles have been more balanced in the past 3 decades.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage

Some more liberal leaning economists have been actively suppporting minimum wage increases as the US minimum wage has continued to decline on a real, after inflation basis, US minimums have fallen compared with other developed countries and the US distribution of income has become more unequal and poverty rates have not fallen despite US economic progress.

Some economists even point to the self-serving benefits of higher minimum wages for corporations, including greater productivity, innovation and retention.

There does not appear to be widespread business or general public support for Biden’s across the board $15 per hour minimum wage proposal.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/how-economists-see-bidens-15-wage-proposal

Biden has been able to increase minimum wages on government contracts.

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-report/biden-orders-15-minimum-wage-on-federal-contracts-by-march?context=article-related

But, large corporations are increasing their own minimum wages and trying to position themselves as supportive of “common sense” public policy changes that do not impact themselves very much. Some critics say that this is because large corporations can absorb higher minimum wages through their economies of scale and pricing power, while smaller businesses cannot and will go out of business, resulting in further growth of power for large businesses.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2021/02/26/big-business-behind-push-for-15-minimum-wage-column/4545386001/

Surprisingly, recent survey research indicates that many small businesses also do not stridently oppose modest minimum wage increases.

https://www.verizon.com/business/small-business-essentials/resources/most-small-businesses-support-minimum-wage-hikes/

Corporate Minimum Wage Increases

Perhaps more importantly, large corporations in a variety of industries have voluntarily increased their minimum wages from the $12/hour to the $15/hour plus range in the last 2 years. (Out of self interest).

Banking

https://www.americanbanker.com/news/fifth-third-is-latest-bank-to-raise-its-minimum-wage

https://www.yahoo.com/now/wells-fargo-raises-minimum-wage-215921054.html

https://www.bizjournals.com/boston/news/2018/01/25/santander-to-raise-minimum-wage-to-15-per-hour.html

Health Care

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=cdb8465e-3eaf-45aa-8d9d-e7946210ba3a#:~:text=Walgreens%20is%20the%20latest%20retail,more%20workers%20with%20larger%20wages.

https://www.courant.com/business/hc-biz-cigna-tax-benefits-20180131-story.html

Fast Food

https://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/business-a-lobbying/578847-starbucks-to-raise-us-minimum-wage-to-15-by-next?rl=1

https://www.businessinsider.com/mcdonalds-raises-minimum-wage-aims-average-15-per-hour-2021-5

https://www.restaurantdive.com/news/taco-bell-to-raise-average-minimum-wage-to-15-an-hour-by-2024/611490/

Various Industries

https://qz.com/2060508/what-amazons-18-average-hourly-wage-means-for-other-employers/

https://www.masslive.com/business/2021/01/wayfair-sets-15-minimum-wage-for-all-us-workers.html

Retailers

https://www.npr.org/2021/02/25/971338686/costco-to-raise-minimum-wage-to-16-an-hour-this-isnt-altruism

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/17/target-raises-minimum-wage-to-15-an-hour-months-before-its-deadline.html

https://www.npr.org/2021/02/25/971338686/costco-to-raise-minimum-wage-to-16-an-hour-this-isnt-altruism

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/09/14/sams-club-raises-minimum-wage-to-15-as-tight-labor-market-continues.html#:~:text=Sam%27s%20Club%20said%20Tuesday%20that,than%20its%20parent%20company%2C%20Walmart.

https://www.businessinsider.com/under-armour-minimum-wage-us-canadian-labor-shortage-2021-5

Summary

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/25909-you-don-t-need-a-weatherman-to-know-which-way-the

Wages for less skilled and less experienced positions are increasing – dramatically – in the USA – in the last 5 years, especially since the pandemic reduced the supply of labor, and going forward. Larger companies have seen the costs of higher turnover and decided that they are going to offer relatively higher wages and find ways to generate enough economic value added to justify these marginal (incremental) investments. Politicians in left-leaning and centrist areas have pushed through higher minimum wages. Lower experience and lower skilled workers are able to take advantage of this situation. This is “good news” for these individuals. It is also “good news” for the economy because it has prompted firms to find ways to restructure work, processes, tools, technology, etc. to add more value from each employee.

Good News: Lawyers Have Less Power in the US.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let%27s_kill_all_the_lawyers

The US population has doubled from 1960-2020, so the share of new lawyers remains roughly at the same percentage, despite the greatly increased complexity of modern business, communications, intellectual property and society. This ratio is now way down from the 2000’s when it was unusually elevated.

Supply and demand drove lower salaries and higher unemployment after 2010.

https://abovethelaw.com/2021/08/law-schools-are-building-another-giant-lawyer-bubble-destined-to-burst-in-the-legal-job-market/

Starting salaries at major law firms have always been attractive to undergraduates. The distribution of starting salaries shows that the legal profession is divided between those in the top one-fourth and all of the rest. The median starting salary at $100K for 7 years of college education looks more like an engineer, pharmacist, actuary, data scientist, financial analyst or market researcher than a world changing persuader.

The percentage of US congress reps with a legal background has declined decade after decade.

Lawyers occupy 9% of CEO roles; far less than their MBA competitors.

https://hbr.org/2017/08/do-lawyers-make-better-ceos-than-mbas

In general, public opinion has less and less support for the “advocate” model of legal representation.

https://medium.com/indian-thoughts/devils-advocate-the-new-age-sophists-bf25c928eefdhttps:/

New lawyer debt is at a record high level ($150K). (page 27).

The legal profession remains 86% white, far removed from the American population distribution. (page 34).

Legal wage growth accelerated in the “oughts” and then rose by less than inflation in the teens (page 47).

The number of law school applicants dropped nearly in half from 2004 to 2015, from 101,000 to 54,000. (page 55).

Despite the great reduction in new law school entrants, the bar exam pass rate has declined from 80% to 70%. (page 80).

The highest skilled lawyers remain in high demand in the US, earning $120-180K for starting salaries. They are typically not “changing the world”. But, they are helping the owners of great wealth to maintain and improve their positions. As an accountant, engaged to measure and advise, I appreciate this value-added role in society.

Hey Joe, Hey Joe … Reverse the Trump Tariffs

There are few policy choices that have 90-95% positive results compared with 5-10% negative results. Cutting international trade tariffs is one of those “rare birds”.

President Trump “delivered” on his 2016 campaign promises regarding trade deals. He unilaterally increased tariffs on imported aluminum, steel and manufactured goods from China and the rest of the world, including our trade and military allies. As with most “trade killers” (which used to be a minority Democratic party position), he claimed that this would save or restore American jobs. As usual, it had no measurable positive effect. He also claimed that this would lead to a renaissance in American manufacturing. Didn’t happen. He claimed that these actions would make America more self-sufficient in critical military and economic areas. Didn’t happen. Note pandemic issues. Finally, he claimed that these actions would form the basis for “new and improved” trade deals to replace the “awful” deals negotiated by Democrats and Republicans alike for 70 years in the post- WWII era. NAFTA 2 was concluded with minor changes. Small China commitments were obtained to buy things China wanted to buy. But, mostly the response was “HUGE” retaliatory tariffs from China and our allies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_tariffs

https://www.npr.org/2021/11/27/1054293073/whiskey-distilleries-europe-tariffs-lift

The “root cause” of the failed results in this situation, and in most other trade fights, is a logical / intellectual error. Proponents of trade restrictions believe that bilateral trade negotiations are a simple “win/lose” game. A real estate deal is a simple “win/lose” game. Bilateral trade deals are more complex. There are many winners and losers in both countries, some direct and some indirect. Higher tariffs or trade restrictions benefit the importing country’s manufacturers and their employees. However, these tariffs typically result in much higher prices for the importing country’s consumers, so the net effect for the importing country is negative. Unfortunately, bilateral trade deals or actions often don’t even help the importing country’s producers. Whatever country is “next most” competitive takes the place of the target country which has been made less competitive by the new tariffs. In the case where a country holds a large share of the global market, neither the “next best” country, nor the domestic producers benefit. The “target” country has such a strong competitive, cost, price advantage that even with added tariffs they are the preferred supplier. This is a very disappointing result for those who wish to take direct action to “save jobs”, but global markets truly matter.

Columnists, journalists and politicians say that Joe can’t reverse the tariffs for political reasons. The American voting public is too unsophisticated to understand complex trade logic. Given Trump’s framing of his actions, this will look like a capitulation to China. The progressive left doesn’t believe in “free” international trade, which undercuts worker’s pay and the environment. American “labor” is a required part of the Democratic Party coalition and opposes “free” trade. Consumers do not link tariffs to goods inflation. American business and agriculture are fully committed to the Republican Party, so will not repay beneficial actions.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/30/removing-us-china-trade-tariffs-would-ease-inflation-jacob-lew.html

https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/03/politics/global-supply-chain-collapse-biden-tariffs/index.html

The American people elect leaders (of either party) to lead. Step up. The benefits of “free trade” are well known, well documented and supported by 90% of professional economists of both parties. Assign Kamala Harris, Pette Buttigieg and Jared Kushner (just kidding) to develop the communications plan for this policy decision.

The American People Benefit Directly: Taxes, Inflation and Jobs

Tariffs are simply taxes with a longer name. Exporters pay a small share, less than one-third of the total. Importing firms pay a slightly larger share, again less than one-third of the total. Consumers typically pay more than one-half of the tariffs in the form of higher prices. This is a tax, plain and simple. Estimates of the taxes paid by Americans for the Trump Tariffs range from $50-80B.

https://www.americanactionforum.org/research/the-total-cost-of-tariffs/

Tariffs provide importers with an excuse, reason, justification to increase prices. This is contributing to the current round of inflation at a level last seen in the 1980s. American consumers are paying $700 annually for these taxes.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/24/politics/china-tariffs-biden-policy/index.html

Tariffs are imposed to “save jobs”, but the “indirect” impact is usually larger than the “direct” impact. Domestic manufacturers who use imported products find their costs to be higher and some become uncompetitive. Domestic retailers who now sell more expensive products find their sales lower and reduce their work force accordingly. Target countries impose retaliatory tariffs on domestic export products. This is the main source of job losses. The Trump Tariffs are estimated to have cost Americans 250,000 jobs.

https://carnegieendowment.org/chinafinancialmarkets/83746

https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/24/politics/china-tariffs-biden-policy/index.html

Make American Businesses More Competitive Globally

American businesses pay one-fifth to one-third of the $80B of annual tariffs imposed. This drops straight to the bottom-line. Reduced profits result in reduced capital investments, R&D, product innovation and new markets.

Tariff administration has an overhead cost and it distracts supply chain, logistics and international trade staff from higher value added work.

Tariffs require profit-maximizing firms to accelerate their consideration of import sourcing and domestic production options. Some of this has a minor impact. Some of this activity displaces other higher value-added sourcing projects.

One estimate indicated that 8% of stock market value was destroyed by the Trump Tariffs.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2021/05/20/trumps-tariffs-were-much-more-damaging-than-thought/?sh=527605ba65bd

Sharply higher tariffs disrupt existing supply chain relationships and remove some sources as economically feasible sources. In a time of supply chain challenges, tariff make a bad situation even worse.

Farmers were most negatively impacted by the Trump Tariffs. Trump provided temporary subsidies to offset some of the pain, but farmers complained that they were seeing decades old trade lanes being permanently disrupted. Reduced tariffs and reduced retaliatory tariffs might restore these natural trade lanes.

https://www.npr.org/2021/11/27/1054293073/whiskey-distilleries-europe-tariffs-lift

Resume American Trade Leadership that Benefits America

Revert to the 70 year bipartisan American “free trade” strategy that delivered tremendous value for the US and the world. US exports tripled from 4% of GDP in 1955 to 12% in 2007 forward.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/B020RE1Q156NBEA

Restore positive relationships with our historic trading partners.

Re-engage in leadership at the World Trade Organization (WTO) and regional agreements like the Asian Pacific Trade Agreement to establish beneficial trade rules for services and intellectual property.

Conclusion

Reversing the Trump Tariffs can create 250,000 jobs, reverse an $80B consumer tax increase, help American manufacturers and farmers to compete globally, improve supply chain performance, and help the U.S. to craft international trade deals that greatly benefit a country that mostly provides “world class” services.

Are You Better Off? Yes, Today, November, 2021.

Ronald Reagan skewered Jimmy Carter with this taunt in the 1980 presidential debate. Joe Biden’s approval rating is falling quickly in recent months. US voters need to assess the true state of the US economy under Biden’s leadership after 2 years of a global pandemic, last seen in 1918.

Real Disposable Personal Income Per Capita

Real, inflation adjusted income per person continues to rise. In 2000, average income was just $33,000 per year. It rises quite significantly to $38,000 in booming 2007-10. It remains at this level through 2013. This is a 15% increase over 13 years, a little better than 1% per year. The economy adds another $6,000 in the next 7 years before the pandemic. That’s growth twice as fast, 2% per year during this boom time. Real income has grown another $2,000 to $47,000 in the last 2 years, 2% annually, after the pandemic. Very good news.

Employed Persons

US employment was typically 130M from 2000-2012. Great growth occurred from 2012 to 2020, reaching an unprecedented 152M. The pandemic dropped employment to 130M, an incredible 22M lower. Employment quickly rebounded about half-way to 142M during 2020. It has grown by another 6M in the last year. The employment growth from 2010-20 averaged 2M per year. The 2021 record is a very strong performance, reflecting a healthy economy that has robustly adapted to the challenges of a pandemic environment.

Unemployment Rate

Unemployment averaged about 5% during the first decade of the century, a generally good result compared with 20th century history. It doubled to 10% during the “Great Recession” and then slowly declined to 5% by 2015 and then even further, exceeding economists’ expectations, to 3% in 2018-2020. The pandemic rocketed it up to 15%, but it quickly recovered to 7%. It has since declined to less than 5%, which has historically been the typical definition of “full employment”.

Job Quits

From 2000-2008, about 2% of employees voluntarily left their positions in any given month. The quit rate dropped to 1.5% in the aftermath of the “Great Recession” (2010-13). It very slowly recovered to 2.2% during 2016-18. It increased a little bit to 2.3% in 2019-2020. It rebounded to 2.3% in 2020, and has since increased to an unprecedented 3%. This reflects a labor market where 50% more employees are making a voluntary choice to leave their current employer, apparently confident that they can find an equal or better position.

Job Openings

Job openings averaged 4M from 2000-2014. Openings fell to 3M in 2010-12 after the “Great Recession”. Job openings then grew to 6M in 2017-18 and further to 7M in 2019-20. Job openings quickly returned to 7M early in the pandemic and then began their climb to the current 11M level. Again, these are unprecedented levels, twice as many open jobs as in any time from 2000-15.

Unemployed Persons Per Job Opening

The 2006-7 baseline was 1.5 unemployed persons per open position. The “Great Recession” peak was 6 to 1, an incredibly different labor market, where many older people “retired”; new college graduates went to graduate school, accepted lower positions or remained unemployed; and mid-career professionals accepted positions at 20% lower salary levels. It took 5 years to return to the typical 1.5/1 ratio. This ratio declined a little bit further to 1/1 during 2017-2020 in a tight labor market. The ratio very quickly returned to the historical 1.5 baseline during 2020. It is now at an unprecedented 0.8/1 level. Fewer unemployed people than jobs, not 1.5 to 1, but 0.75/1, half as many potential applicants. This is the first “employees” labor market since the 1960’s.

Home Values

The US Home Price Index was set to 100 in 2000. It increased to 180 during 2005-7. It dropped back to 140 in 2010-13, indicating that part of the rise before “the Great Recession” was a bubble. Prices climbed steadily from 140 to 210 (50% increase) from 2013 to 2020. Despite the pandemic, house prices have continued their climb, exceeding 260, another 25% increase in the last 2 years.

Mortgage Interest Rates

Mortgage interest rates averaged 8% during the 1990’s. They averaged 7% in the 2000’s. They declined even further to 4% during the 2010’s. They fell even further to 3% in 2020-21. The interest cost to finance a house is at an all-time low.

Stock Market

The US stock market averaged 16,000 points from 2014-16. It increased by 50% to 24,000 in 2018, and then climbed to 26,000 and 28,000 before the 2020 pandemic crash. Despite the real financial costs of the pandemic, the market quickly rebounded to 25,000 in the middle of 2020. It has since continued its climb to 36,000, 20% above the pre-pandemic level.

In 1992 James Carville claimed that “it’s the economy, stupid”.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It%27s_the_economy,_stupid

If so, voters should provide some support to president Biden’s results. Real income is up 2% annually, a record level. Reduction in number of unemployed is 6M in 1 year, another record. Unemployment rate is at 4.6%, below historical “full employment” level. Voluntary quit rate is 50% higher than history, indicating tremendous worker confidence. Nearly twice as many job openings as the historical level, providing great options for job seekers to find their “best” opportunities. Mortgage interest rates remain at historical lows, supporting home purchases. House values have grown by another 25%. The stock market is 20% higher.

This is all at a time when the pandemic unfortunately continues to claim lives and greatly disrupt life and the economy. Overall, the recovery is proceeding at a rate far faster what anyone thought was possible during 2020.

Welfare Benefits: Order of Magnitude

“Typical welfare family”, a single parent and 2 children (cue the video), receives $35,000 of welfare benefits annually claims the Wisconsin congressman in 2014. That number has stuck in our minds, just like the “welfare queen” and escaped prisoner “Willie Horton”.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2014/12/05/grothman-single-parents-welfare/

Fact checkers debunked this claim, but it’s important to work through the details to get back to a reasonable “order of magnitude” estimate of “welfare benefits”.

If a family has ZERO income, they may receive maximum benefits. The Clinton “welfare reforms” limited the primary benefits to a total of 60 months. Families cannot receive benefits “forever”. Most household heads do work and have some income during the year. The maximum benefit number is an inappropriate “anchor”.

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) (welfare) participation rates have fallen from 80% of those eligible to less than 25% since “reform” was implemented. The reform has had it’s intended effect. Two-thirds of those previously participating no longer do so. Some have become more productive and income earning members of society. Others “make do”.

Click to access what_was_the_tanf_participation_rate_in_2016_0.pdf

The percentage of families “in poverty” receiving welfare benefits has fallen from 68% to 23%.

https://www.cbpp.org/research/family-income-support/temporary-assistance-for-needy-families-tanf-at-25

Current average TANF benefits in my home state of Indiana are $346/month or $4,152. That’s a long way from $35,000 of cash benefits, which is the “anchor” that needs to be removed. $4,000 per year of cash is the typical Indiana welfare benefit. The maximum is $700/month or $8,400/year, twice as high. More kids, no income, still eligible. This is possible, but it’s not a useful reference point. The normal received benefit is just one-half of the maximum.

https://www.needhelppayingbills.com/html/indiana_cash_assistance.html

Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP of food stamps) is the next welfare program. For an Indiana family of 3, current benefit value is $6,240 per year. A family of 3 can earn up to $25,000 annually before benefits start to decline. The national ratio of SNAP to TANF recipients is 82%. In Indiana, just 75% of those eligible receive ANY SNAP benefits.

https://www.fns.usda.gov/usamap/2018#

https://www.in.gov/fssa/dfr/snap-food-assistance/about-snap/income/

Housing assistance is listed at $9,000. There are various federal and state programs. This is like “winning the lottery” for low income families. In Indiana, 1 in 8 eligible families (12%) receive housing subsidies. These average $736/month or $8,832 per year. On an “expected value” basis, this is only $1,060 per year. From a public policy point of view, this is the relevant number.

See pages 23-24.

Support has not increased materially since 2013.

https://www.pgpf.org/blog/2020/07/how-does-the-federal-government-support-housing-for-low-income-households

In the Wisconsin representative’s model, there is $7,000 of higher education benefits. This is clearly irrelevant to public policy. Individuals do not make ongoing annual work choices based on education benefits.

The Cato Institute started this “conversation” about “welfare versus work” in 1995 and updated their analysis in 2013.

Like the congressman, they note that the “welfare benefits” received are in “after-tax” dollars, so they “should” be translated back into pre-tax dollars to be “fair”. Since the marginal tax rate for low-income wage earners is often just 10%, this is immaterial. More importantly, the emotional, political currency is cash. “how much do THEY receive?” is THE question. This is an after-tax amount. No “grossing up” is required.

The Cato folks also include the full value of Medicaid benefits received by those below the eligible income transition. The value paid per child ($2,145) and per adult ($4,211) yields an $8,501 annual “benefit” currently. Is this a “welfare” benefit or a “citizen” benefit? The US health care system is primarily funded through tax-deductible employer plans. Medical plan subsidies are now available up to 400% of the federal poverty level. From a federal budget perspective, lowest income families receive more value. From an “incentive” perspective, low income families are generally indifferent between federal and employer sponsored plans. This $9,000 does not belong in “the cost of welfare”.

The Cato analysis includes the cost of the “earned income tax credit” (EITC) as a welfare benefit. The EITC was created and enhanced as an incentive for unemployed persons to work and earn some income, thereby providing themselves with short-term and long-term benefits and reducing the cash level welfare benefits. It grows quickly with earned income up to about $18,000 and then falls back down nearly as quickly as income grows to $40,000 per year. This is not what most people think of as a “welfare benefit”.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earned_income_tax_credit

The Cato analysis also focuses on welfare benefits versus the minimum wage, emphasizing that overly generous welfare benefits provide a disincentive for recipients to seek paid employment (ignoring the 60 month TANF benefits limit). As the effective minimum wage in 2021 approaches $15/hour and $31,200/year, we won’t be hearing this comparison again.

As a professional “cost accountant” since 1978, I was often asked to provide the “exact cost” of various products or services. College courses, residence hall rooms, food service meals, buildings for rent, account managers, computer hardware, installed cables, telephone services, computer maintenance, software development, dresses, tops, retail stores, extension cords, surge protectors, imported goods, cell phones, returned cell phones, etc. The answer is always “it depends”. This is never a popular answer. It depends on what decision you are making. Short-term, medium-term or long-term timeframe. Do we include opportunity costs? Which externalities should we consider, if any? Do we include strategic, brand or cultural consistency as factors?

For the “welfare benefits” question, I think that the relevant public policy/budget and personal incentive numbers are largely the same. Welfare/TANF and food stamps/SNAP matter. EITC, medicaid, education benefits, housing assistance, and income taxes don’t matter.

Welfare/TANF for an Indiana family of 3 is worth $4,152 annually. The complementary food stamp/SNAP benefits are worth $6,240. The total quasi-cash welfare payment is $10,392 per year of eligibility. Maximum of 5 years. This is the right “anchoring” number: $10,000 per year for a family of 3. They will be going to the local food pantry every week. They will be seeking family and private charity. They will be leaning on friends, relatives and neighbors for “subsidized” child care. They will be working and seeking to advance themselves.

There are disincentive challenges remaining in our current systems.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2014/12/05/grothman-single-parents-welfare/

But, these technical, marginal, incremental, opportunity rates are not the heart of the matter. Lower income families are not “optimizing” their benefits. I volunteered to provide low income/elderly federal income tax services for several years. The benefit and tax rules are complex beyond comprehension.

The core public policy question is “Is $10,000 of annual benefits a reasonable amount for our state to pay to a family of 3 with no income?”. I would argue that it is too low, half what it ought to be.

Support for a universal basic income (UBI) has grown in recent years, as the economy, productivity and equity returns have grown by 3% annually but wages have remained flat for 40-50 years in the US.

https://www.investopedia.com/news/history-of-universal-basic-income/

Typical welfare benefits at $10,000 are now irrelevant compared with $30,000 effective minimum wage.