Afternoon Must-Read: Michael Hiltzik: Can We Finally Agree That ObamaCare Is Working?

Michael Hiltzik: Can we finally agree that Obamacare is working?: “At the end of a war, some people will remain holed up in the trees…

…thinking they can still turn the tide of a lost cause. Increasingly, that’s the best description of the anti-Obamacare dead-enders…. Nearly 60% of enrollees in ACA-compliant exchange health plans this year were previously uninsured…. Obamacare cut costs for buyers eligible for subsidies by an average 76% …. More than 80% of buyers are eligible for government subsidies…. Most people can save money by choosing plans offering narrower provider networks, and there’s “no meaningful” difference in health outcomes…. Projected rate increases for 2015 are coming in well below expectations…. Here’s the Republican approach to these trends. On Thursday, Sens. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, issued a report attacking the Administration for its botched rollout of Healthcare.gov…. Texas Gov. Rick Perry fired up his state’s Republican convention by calling the expansion of Medicaid, which he’s refused to implement, ‘federal blackmail’. Number of Texas residents left without health insurance by his stand: 1.1 million…

Afternoon Must-Read: Emmanuel Saez and Thomas Piketty: Inequality in the Long Run

Emmanuel Saez and Thomas Piketty: Inequality in the long run: “During the 20th century, growth rates were exceptionally high…

…and rates of return were severely reduced by capital shocks (destructions) and the rise of taxation… quantitatively sufficiently important to explain why wealth concentration did not return to pre-WWI levels in the postwar period. Other factors might also have played a role… [but such] process[es] does not seem to have taken place in pre-WWI Europe…. To the extent that population growth (and possibly productivity growth) will slow down in the 21st century, and that after-tax rates of return to capital will rise… the 21st century… could… [see] wealth concentration….

The long-run dynamics of income inequality… is the most difficult part because income inequality combines forces arising from the inequality of capital… and forces related to the inequality of labor income…. Kuznets posited that income inequality first rises with economic development when new, higher-productivity sectors emerge… but then decreases as more and more workers join the high-paying sectors…. Our data show that this is not the reason that income inequality declined in developed countries during the first half of the 20th century…. Kuznets’ overly optimistic theory of a natural decline in income inequality in market economies largely owed its popularity to the Cold War context of the 1950s….

The most widely used economic model is based on the idea of a race between education and technology…. Such skill-biased technological progress is not sufficient to explain important variations between countries…. The race between education and technology fails to explain the unprecedented rise of very top labor incomes that has occurred in the United States over the past few decades…. Changes in tax policy, as well as social norms regarding pay equality, likely play a key role in shaping labor income inequality…. Inequality does not follow a deterministic process. In a sense, both Marx and Kuznets were wrong. There are powerful forces pushing alternately in the direction of rising or shrinking inequality. Which one dominates depends on… institutions and policies…

Morning Must-Read: Paul Krugman Thinks About Larry Ball, Austerity, and Hysteresis

Paul Krugman: Austerity and Hysteresis: “If you believe official estimates of potential output…

…the Great Recession and its aftermath have done incredible damage, not just to short-run output and employment, but to long-run prospects…. Advanced country real GDP… grew 18 percent from 2000 to 2007… and… was… expected to keep rising at… the same rate… [but] advanced-country GDP is likely… in 2014… [to be] 10 percent below trend…. [with] estimates of economic slack… only 2.2 percent…. Something like an 8 percent hit to economic potential all across the advanced world, which is huge.

One possibility is that the output gap numbers are wrong…. Another possibility is that it’s just a coincidence that underlying growth slowed at the same time as the crisis. But if you take the numbers seriously… hysteresis… is a very big issue…. Austerity equal to one percent of GDP reduces potential output by around 1 percent. That’s huge–easy enough to make austerity a hugely self-defeating policy, even in purely fiscal terms…. Economic policy has been even more destructive than we thought.

Morning Must-Read: Steve Cecchetti and Kermit L. Schoenholtz: Monetary Policy Target Regimes: Inflation, Price Level, Nominal GDP, etc.

Mark Thoma sends us to Steve Cecchetti and Kermit L. Schoenholtz: Monetary Policy Target Regimes: Inflation, Price Level, Nominal GDP, etc.: “The question of the appropriate policy target…

…has become a matter of intense debate…. We conclude that returning to the price path implied by the pre-crisis trend is a realistic possibility. Returning to the earlier nominal GDP path is not. That said, the inflation overshoot that our rough calculations suggest is moderate, so the benefits are likely to be limited. But the costs could include a loss of credibility in the inflation-targeting framework. Would that really be worth it?

Things to Read at Nighttime on June 20, 2014

Should-Reads:

  1. Dan Hamermesh: Daniel Hamermesh on Economics is Fun: “Stop! Stop, stop, stop. The economics profession is not in disrepute. Macroeconomics is in disrepute. The micro stuff that people like myself and most of us do has contributed tremendously and continues to contribute. Our thoughts have had enormous influence. It just happens that macroeconomics, firstly, has been done terribly and, secondly, in terms of academic macroeconomics, these guys are absolutely useless, most of them. Ask your brother-in-law. I’m sure he thinks, as do 90% of us, that most of what the macro guys do in academia is just worthless rubbish. Worthless, useless, uninteresting rubbish, catering to a very few people in their own little cliques…”

  2. Justin Wolfers (2005): Is Business Cycle Volatility Costly? Evidence from Surveys of Subjective Well-being: “High inflation and, to a greater extent, unemployment lower perceived well-being. Greater macroeconomic volatility also undermines well-being. These effects are moderate but important: eliminating unemployment volatility would raise well-being by an amount roughly equal to that from lowering the average level of unemployment by a quarter of a percentage point. The effects of inflation volatility on well-being are less easy to detect and are likely smaller…”

  3. Snehal Banerjee and Brett Green (2012): Learning Whether Other Traders Are Informed: “Standard rational expectations (RE) models of financial markets assume that market participants know whether other traders are informed, and therefore know how to update their beliefs using prices. We relax this assumption to study return dynamics when investors learn how to use the information in prices. In this setting, the price is a non-linear function of the underlying signal, and, as a result, expected returns and volatility are stochastic and persistent, even when fundamental shocks are i.i.d. Moreover, the price reaction to information about dividends is asymmetric: the price reacts stronger to bad news than it does to good news. In fact, the price can even decrease following positive signals about dividends. The model also generates volatility clustering in which surprises in return realizations (or dividend realizations) are followed by higher volatility and higher expected returns…”

Should Be Aware of:

And:

  1. Jacob Heilbrun: The Neocon Surge: They are not, in fact, being greeted as liberators: “Don’t look now, but the latest installment in the decades-old neocon saga is currently taking place…. Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith and a host of other neoconservatives are seizing the spotlight to conduct their own very personal war of liberation… free themselves from the rap that they got it all wrong. And so they are going into overdrive to pin the blame for the collapse of Iraq on anyone other than themselves. Only this time, the American people, unlike in 2003, seem primed to ignore them…. L. Paul Bremer III… Max Boot… Dick Cheney, emerging from his undisclosed location, teamed up with his daughter Liz… Robert Kagan…”

  2. Daniel Larison: Anne-Marie Slaugher: A Warmonger By Any Other Name: “I can understand why someone wouldn’t want to be called a warmonger. Fortunately, the word still has very negative connotations. Despite the strong bias in favor of military action in our foreign policy debates, being labeled a warmonger remains a definite political liability. This is why those that have a record of advocating for military action are so displeased when the label is applied to them. If supporters of intervention are accurately called warmongers, that will tend to make it harder to get the U.S. into new wars, and that is bound to be frustrating for them. I’m just not sure why the rest of us should care.”

  3. Dan Corrigan: Bring Sanity Back With Common Sense Gun Solutions: “74 different school shootings since 20 kids and six adults were slaughtered at Sandy Hook on Dec. 14, 2012. The map darkens every week with death dots, as do similar maps for shooting sprees and gun violence in the U.S. workplace…. Our U.S. Congress has been able to do NOTHING. Our state legislature has been far worse…”

Already-Noted Must-Reads:

  1. Rob Stavins: What are the Benefits and Costs of EPA’s Proposed CO2 Regulation?: “There are surely ethical arguments (and possibly legal arguments) for employing a global damage estimate….I leave it to legal scholars and lawyers to debate the law, and I defer to the philosophers among us to debate the ethics, but let’s at least ask what the consequences would be for EPA’s analysis if a U.S climate benefits number were used…. The combined U.S.-only estimates of annual climate impacts of CO2 ($3 billion) and health impacts of correlated pollutants ($45 billion) greatly exceed the estimated regulatory compliance costs of $9 billion/year, for positive net benefits amounting to $39 billion/year in 2030…. If EPA’s global estimate of climate benefits ($31 billion/year) is employed instead, then, of course, the rule looks even better, with total annual benefits of $76 billion, leading to EPA’s bottom-line estimate of positive net benefits of $67 billion per year…. The Obama Administration’s proposed regulation of existing power-sector sources of CO2 has the potential to be cost-effective, and… welfare-enhancing…”

  2. John Holbo: The Rhetoric of Having Been Wrong: “This is pretty simple. Either the neocons know they were wrong last time, or they don’t. If you are The Boy Who Cried Wolf, and you don’t know it, you are useless for wolf-crying purposes. If, on the other hand, you know you were wrong before, and you know everyone else knows, but you think you are right this time, and you want to warn everyone, you won’t say ‘now is not the time to re-litigate whether I was perfectly right in the past concerning each and every last wolf.’ No, you will say something reasonable, like: ‘I know you have no reason to trust me, given how wrong I was before in a case that looked an awful lot like this one. I am so sorry for the damage I have done, but I will be even sorrier if the fact that you can’t trust me means even more damage is done. That will be my fault, too, if it happens, so please…’ There is, after all, such a thing as common sense. I was wrong about Iraq. I was one of those Kenneth Pollack-reading liberal queasyhawks, to my ongoing shame…”

Weekend reading

This is a weekly post we’ll publish every Friday with links to articles we think anyone interested in equitable growth should read. We won’t be the first to share these articles, but we hope by taking a look back at the whole week we can put them in context.

Is the growth problem secular? Or is it stagnation?

Greg Ip asks whether our current growth problem is secular, due to supply-side structural changes, or stagnation, due to demand-side cyclical problems. The answer has big implications for monetary policy going forward. [free exchange]

John Hilsenrath riffs off Ip’s post and wonders if the Federal Reserve Board missed the secular supply-side issues during the 2001-2007 business cycle and set the wrong course for interest rates. [wsj]

The problem of the long-term unemployed

The Fed also needs to consider the fate of the long-term unemployed. Can monetary policy bring them back into the labor market? Or have they been locked out? After their meeting this past week, the Federal Open Market Committee appears to think the long-term unemployed aren’t lost yet. [wsj and wonkblog]

These are the days of our lives

Danielle Kurtzleben looks at what Americans do doing during their day. The graph on how working parents spend their time is particularly enlightening. [vox]

And Ben Casselman takes a look at how the unemployed spend their time. [fivethirtyeight]

Time is money and poor Americans don’t have much of either. The problems caused by time poverty. [nyt]

Maybe the kids are alright

“Sleeping in a twin bed under some old Avril Lavigne posters is not a sign of giving up; it’s an economic plan.” Adam Davidson looks at the economic fate of young Americans who moved back home. [nyt magazine]

An end to the Chinese Credit Party?

Is the period of strong credit growth over in China? Here are three takes:

  • Jamil Anderlini looks at the Chinese shadow banking system. [ft]
  • David Keohane wonders about local government backstops. [alphaville]
  • The World Bank’s chief economist is worried about the bubble bursting. [wsj]

 

Gender pay gap linked to workplace flexibility

The White House, the Department of Labor, and the Center for American Progress are hosting a Summit on Working Families next week to explore important issues such as equal pay and workplace flexibility. According to recent research by Harvard economist Claudia Goldin, these two issues are intimately related. Moreover, they hold implications for the broader economy.

Goldin published a paper earlier this year in the American Economic Review titled “A Grand Gender Convergence: Its Last Chapter.” She calls the converging roles of men and women “among the grandest advances in society and the economy in the last century.” Goldin argues that what is needed to complete this convergence is not necessarily government mandates or a changing role of men in the household, “(although that wouldn’t hurt),” but instead policies to foster workplace flexibility.

Goldin examines the gender wage gap in a number of different professions over the years and finds that the difference in earnings by gender can be explained by differences in the degree to which jobs allow for flexibility in the hours worked (rather than penalize an employee’s need for flexible hours over the course of a career). In professions hiring people with MBA or JD degrees, for example, Goldin finds that the gender pay gap significantly increases over time. In the corporate and legal sectors, there is a reward to working not only long hours but also to working those hours continuously, which is critical to becoming a top manager or partner but is at odds with flexible scheduling over the course of a career. Indeed, the increase in the gender pay gap in these professions appears to coincide with the arrival of children, which disproportionately affects women.

In contrast, Goldin finds that some professions in the health sector do not penalize taking time off, and in those professions the gender pay gap does not increase significantly over time. For pharmacists, for example, the difference in pay between men and women does not increase significantly over the course of their career, even after they have children. Overall, Goldin concludes that occupational pay differences are “largely due to the value placed on the hours and job continuity of workers.”

Policies to promote workplace flexibility could include policies which aim to improve the availability of quality childcare  and provide more options that may prevent women from temporarily leaving the workforce, or paid family leave, which would also reduce turnover. Cities such as Boston are already seeking to close the gender pay gap, including through policies to encourage workplace flexibility.

As Betsey Stevenson of the Council of Economic Advisers notes: “Boston recognizes that this isn’t just an issue of fairness and isn’t just an issue of equity as a moral value… this is about competitiveness and having competitive advantage.” Workplace flexibility policies may not only promote gender equity but also increase attachment to the workforce, which could boost productivity and long-term growth.

Job quality matters: How our future economic competitiveness hinges on the quality of parents’ jobs

Being the parent of young children in the United States today is no easy task. Many have to juggle multiple jobs with unpredictable hours—single-parent and two-income families alike—and whether wealthy or poor, the question of childcare is ever present. Only adding to this stress is the growing evidence of the importance of the years between conception and kindergarten for a child’s development. No wonder parents, and particularly mothers given their traditional role as the primary caregiver and increasingly as breadwinner, are so concerned about how to balance work and raise their young children.

image-storypage
Read a pdf of the full document

The findings of many new studies on the importance of children’s early years for future outcomes should give pause to parents and policymakers. As this paper documents, the research shows that children’s kindergarten skill levels are correlated with their subsequent success (or failure) in the job market as adults, even accounting for the quality and quantity of elementary, secondary, and post- secondary schooling.1 An even more worrisome finding is that experiencing stress during childhood or adolescence (such as experiencing a parent working a low- quality job—or worse—losing a job) can negatively affect mental and physical health, and educational attainment and have lasting effects into adulthood.2

No wonder harried working mothers and fathers, up and down the income ladder, report conflicts between their job and meeting their children’s needs. Our work- place policies largely fail to help the majority of working parents—a substantial majority of whom lack the income to compensate for the lack of family-friendly workplace policies in our nation. In 2013, only 61 percent of private-sector workers had employer-provided paid sick days and only 12 percent had access to employer-provided paid family leave.1 Access to workplace flexibility policies is also extremely limited: in 2011, only half of workers had access to flexible hours policies and about one quarter of workers had access to flexible location policies.4

Low-income workers have even more limited access to policies to help them address conflicts between earning a living and caring for the next generation. Too many families rely on a fragile patchwork of familial and non-relative care to try to balance the demands of work and home.5  In a 2000 study of low-income working parents, the majority of parents reported that they did not expect to be able adjust their work schedules or create arrangements to better balance work and family, other than through finding another job.6

 In short, the structures of our workplaces today do not at all match the needs of working parents or their children. This crisis in the home is not just a private problem—it is one of national importance. In not meeting the needs of today’s children, we risk a lower-productivity future, which will have serious implications for our nation’s economic growth.

Economists have long argued that human capital, that is, the level of skills, education, and talents of the potential workforce, is one of the most important factors in deter- mining economic growth.7  Human capital has long been the engine powering our nation’s global competitiveness. Yet, growing evidence suggests that the United States is falling behind other countries in terms of skill acquisition. New data from the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development found that across 34 developed countries, U.S. teenagers rank 17th in reading, 21st in science, and 26th in math.8

Read a pdf of the full document

In the national debate over how to improve skills of the U.S. workforce, economists and policymakers are looking to early childhood and finding compelling evidence that the early years matter far more than we previously understood. Economists traditionally measure human capital in terms of educational attainment or levels of training, but this may overstate the importance of post-secondary education.9  This is not to say that later investments are not important, but that recent research in economics points to the conclusion that, in order to improve our nation’s economic growth and competitiveness, policymakers must also focus on early childhood.10

 Early childhood is so important because this is when we acquire what economist and Nobel laureate James Heckman terms “non-cognitive” skills, also known as “soft skills,” which are both important on their own as well as provide the foundation for later skill acquisition.11 Non-cognitive skills are skills that are not specifically intellectual or analytical in nature, such as a child’s perseverance or ability  to get along with others. By and large, these soft skills are learned from primary caregivers very early in life—be they mom and dad, grandparents, childcare professionals, some combination of these role models, or sadly sometimes hardly anyone at all. This is why it is so important for our society and our policymakers tounderstand the largely under-explored issue of children’s widely differing early childhood experiences due to changes in inequality and the kinds of jobs in which their parents are engaged.

Two interrelated trends define the economic experience of families over the past 50 years. First, families have altered the way they work and care for children. Most children no longer have a full-time, stay-at-home parent, which means that where and how children spend their days are markedly different compared to a generation or two ago.12  The typical American middle-income family put in an average of 11 more hours a week at work in 2007, just before the start of the Great Recession, than it did in 1979 and, in 2010, fewer than one third of children lived in a family with a full-time stay-at-home parent.13 Abundant economics research has explored the effects of greater maternal employment and the quality of childcare on children’s outcomes, but we know much less about how the quality—and flexibility—of parents’ jobs interacts with these processes. What we do know from the research points to the conclusion that parental job quality, including the ability to have some control over when work happens, is a very important issue.

Second, the United States has seen a sustained rise in economic inequality, widening the gap between low-and high-incomes to unprecedented levels.14 As has been well documented, inequality in the United States has taken the form of the top pulling apart from the rest of the income distribution, with little income gains for the bottom 90 percent of families.15  This means that while some children have access to immense resources, others lack access to the resources they need to be fully productive members of our society and economy. Just as importantly, high inequality is associated with greater divergence in access to high-quality jobs— those that pay good wages, offer stable and predictable schedules, and provide benefits that allow workers to address conflicts between work and family.16 This means that low-income children are experiencing the double-whammy of less income just as their parents cope with less control over their time to provide care.

This report examines what is known about the importance of early childhood for the development of human capital, then turns to what we know about the effects of family income, employment patterns, and job quality on children’s development. We find that job quality, especially control over schedules and access to benefits that allow workers to address conflict between work and family, is an under-examined issue in the economics literature. However the research that does exist shows that this is an important issue to include in our policy agenda to improve children’s outcomes.

Briefly, here is what we discovered:

 

  • The time parents spend with their child affects the child’s cognitive and non-cognitive development, with strong effects during a child’s earliest years.

 

 

  • Mothers’ movement into the workplace and the rise in income inequality means there is a growing divergence across families in terms of resources that parents can devote to their children.

 

 

  • Money matters. Parents’, and particularly single mothers’, access to well-paying work has real impacts on child outcomes through a variety of mechanisms. Perhaps most significantly, access to quality childcare is highly dependent on income.

 

 

  • The level of stress among parents due to juggling work and family responsibilities has a direct effect their child’s development.

 

 

  • Most working parents have limited or no access to work-family policies such as workplace flexibility, paid leave, and paid sick days and those who do are more likely to be from higher income families. These policies help parents address conflicts between work and home, with real implications for parenting and children’s outcomes.

 

Read a pdf of the full document

All of these factors have a direct impact not only on the future human capital available in our country, but also, by extension, the productivity of our economy in the decades ahead.A key conclusion of this paper is that we need to better understand the links between developing our children’s human capital and the quality of their parents’ jobs, including wages, the ability to have some control or flexibility on hours or scheduling, and the stress that they experience and bring home from work. One thing is very clear: our future economic competitiveness depends on getting this right.

 


1      Almond, Douglas, and Janet Currie. Human Capital Devel- opment Before Age Five. NBER Working Paper. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research, 2010. http:// www.nber.org/papers/w15827.pdf.

2      National Scientific Council on the Developing Child. Excessive Stress Disrupts the Architecture of the Developing Brain. Working Paper. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, Center on the Developing Child, June 2009; Strazdins, Lyndall, Megan Shipley, Mark Clements, Léan V. Obrien, and Dorothy H. Broom. “Job Quality and Inequality: Parents’ Jobs and Children’s Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties.” Social Science & Medicine 70, no. 12 (2010): 2052–60. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.02.041; Kalil, Ariel,and Ziol-Guest, Kathleen M. “Single Mothers’ Employment Dynamics and Adolescent Well-Being.” Child Development 76, no. 1 (2005): 196–211.

3      U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. “Table 32. Leave Benefits: Access, Private Industry Workers, National Compensation Survey, March 2013.” U.S. Department of Labor, 2013. http://www.bls.gov/ncs/ebs/benefits/2013/ownership/ private/table21a.pdf.

4      Glynn, Sarah Jane. Working Parents’ Lack of Access to Paid Leave and Workplace Flexibility. Washington, DC: Center for American Progress, November 2012. http://cdn. americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/ GlynnWorkingParents-1.pdf.

5      Williams, Joan C., and Heather Boushey. The Three Faces of Work-Family Conflict: The Poor, the Privileged, and the Miss- ing Middle. Washington, DC: Center for American Progress and the Center for WorkLife Law, University of California, Hastings College of the Law, 2010.

6      Dodson, Lisa, Tiffany Manuel, and Ellen Bravo. Keeping Jobs and Raising Families in Low-Income America: It Just Doesn’t Work. Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study, 2002.

7      DeLong, J. Bradford, Claudia Goldin, and Lawrence Katz. “Sustaining U.S. Economic Growth.” In Agenda for the Nation, edited by Henry J. Aaron, James M. Lindsay, and Pietro S. Nivola. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution, 2003; Mankiw, N. Gregory, David Romer, and David N. Weil. “A Contribution to the Empirics of Economic Growth.”The Quarterly Journal of Economics 107, no. 2 (1992): 407–37; Barro, Robert, and Jong-Wha Lee. “Educational Attainment in the World, 1950-2010.” Vox, 2010. http://www.voxeu.org/index.php?q=node/5058.

8      Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development. PISA 2012 Results: What Students Know and Can Do: Student Performance in Mathematics, Reading and Science (Volume I). Revised edition. OECD Publishing, 2014. http://www.oecd.org/pisa/keyfindings/pisa-2012-results- volume-i.htm.

9      Heckman, James J., and Lakshmi K. Raut. Intergenerational Long Term Effects of Preschool – Structural Estimates from a Discrete Dynamic Programming Model. NBER Working Paper. National Bureau of Economic Research, May 2013. http://www.nber.org/papers/w19077.

10   On the importance of later interventions, see, for example: Heller, Sara, Harold A. Pollack, Roseanna Ander, and Jens Ludwig. Preventing Youth Violence and Dropout: A Randomized Field Experiment. Working Paper. National Bureau of Economic Research, May 2013. http://www.nber.org/papers/w19014.

11   Heckman, James J. Schools, Skills, and Synapses. Working Paper. National Bureau of Economic Research, June 2008. http://www.nber.org/papers/w14064.

12   Boushey, Heather. “The New Breadwinners.” In The Shriver Report: A Woman’s Nation Changes Everything, edited by Heather Boushey and Ann O’Leary. Washington, DC: Center for American Progress, 2009.

13   Mishel, Lawrence, Josh Bivens, Elise Gould, and Heidi Shierholz. “Table 2.18 – Annual Hours Worked by Married Men and Women Age 25-54 with Children, by Income Group, Select Years, 1979-2010.” In The State of Working America, 12th ed. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2012; Glynn, Sarah Jane. The New Breadwinners: 2010 Update. Washington, DC: Center for American Progress, 2012.

14   Piketty, Thomas, and Emmanuel Saez. “Income Inequality in the United States, 1913–1998.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 118, no. 1 (February 2003): 1–39.

15   See: Saez, Emmanuel. Striking It Richer: The Evolution of Top Incomes in the United States (Updated with 2012 Preliminary Estimates). Berkeley, CA: University of California – Berkeley, September 2013. http://elsa.berkeley. edu/~saez/saez-UStopincomes-2012.pdf; Mishel, Lawrence, Josh Bivens, Elise Gould, and Heidi Shierholz. “Figure 4H – Cumulative Change in Real Annual Wages, by Wage Group, 1979-2010.” In State of Working Amer- ica, 12th Edition. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2012. http://www.stateofworkingamerica.org/chart/ swa-wages-figure-4h-change-real-annual-wages/.

16  Schmitt, John, and Janelle Jones. Bad Jobs on the Rise. Washington, DC: Center for Economic and Policy Research, September 2012. http://www.cepr.net/docu-ments/publications/bad-jobs-2012-09.pdf; Schmitt, John, and Janelle Jones. Making Jobs Good. Washington, DC: Center for Economic and Policy Research, April2013.  http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/good-jobs-policy-2013-04.pdf; Williams, Joan C., and Heather Boushey. The Three Faces of Work-Family Conflict: The Poor, the Privileged, and the Missing Middle.

Nighttime Must-Read: Rob Stavins: What Are the Benefits and Costs of EPA’s Proposed CO2 Regulation?

Rob Stavins: What are the Benefits and Costs of EPA’s Proposed CO2 Regulation?: “There are surely ethical arguments (and possibly legal arguments) for employing a global damage estimate,..

…I leave it to legal scholars and lawyers to debate the law, and I defer to the philosophers among us to debate the ethics, but let’s at least ask what the consequences would be for EPA’s analysis if a U.S climate benefits number were used…. The combined U.S.-only estimates of annual climate impacts of CO2 ($3 billion) and health impacts of correlated pollutants ($45 billion) greatly exceed the estimated regulatory compliance costs of $9 billion/year, for positive net benefits amounting to $39 billion/year in 2030…. If EPA’s global estimate of climate benefits ($31 billion/year) is employed instead, then, of course, the rule looks even better, with total annual benefits of $76 billion, leading to EPA’s bottom-line estimate of positive net benefits of $67 billion per year…. The Obama Administration’s proposed regulation of existing power-sector sources of CO2 has the potential to be cost-effective, and… welfare-enhancing…