Must-Read: James Pethokoukis: The Magical Thinking of America’s Pro-Brexit Conservatives

Must-Read: James Pethokoukis: The Magical Thinking of America’s Pro-Brexit Conservatives: “Lawrence Kudlow called Brexit a ‘Thatcher moment’ that could put Britain ‘on the pro-growth path of free-market supply-side policies’…

…The Wall Street Journal … explained… ‘now more than ever Britain will need supply-side economic policies that reassure investors and make Britain a growth model for Europe.’… By detaching from the EU regulatory superstate, an unchained Britain would return to its risk-taking, free-trading roots. London would become a sort of Hong Kong on the Thames, England a Texas on the North Sea. With the Voldemort of Brussels vanquished, free-market magic could be unleashed. Economicus growthus leviosa! Or not.

This is the sort of magical, fantastical thinking all too common in the Republican Party and among American conservatives… why Donald Trump can offer a $10 trillion tax cut plan that would need to quintuple GDP growth to break even–all with scant criticism from many leading voices on the right…. Even if you doubt the potential for long-term damage–permanently slower economic growth, the disintegration of the EU–the short-term post-Brexit picture is pretty ugly…. A 2017 recession as likely. Not to mention that disentangling from the EU might consume British politics and policy for years. And all for what, exactly? The U.K…. ranks ninth for global competitiveness, says the World Economic Forum. And it ranks 10th… on the Index of Economic Freedom…. Britain is already a relatively well-run, free-trading nation…. Never has so much been risked for potentially so little.

Must-Read: Brad Setser: Post-Brexit

Must-Read: Post-Brexit vote, in Europe at least: It is not the Great Recession. Odds are that it is not the Lesser Depression. Odds are that it is the Longer Depression…

Brad Setser: Follow the Money: “A few thoughts, focusing on narrow issues of macroeconomic management…

…The U.K. has been… supplying the rest of Europe with demand—something other European countries need. This… will shape the economic fallout. The fall in the pound is a necessary part of the U.K.’s adjustment… will spread the pain from a downturn in British demand to the rest of the euro area. Brexit uncertainty is thus a sizable negative shock to growth in Britian’s euro area trading partners, not just to Britain itself… knock[ing] a cumulative half a percentage point off euro area growth over the next two years…. The euro area… has fiscal capacity to counteract this shock…. The euro area could provide a fiscal offset, whether jointly, through new euro area investment funds or simply through a shift in say German policy on public investment and other adjustments to national policy…. [But] I would bet that the euro area’s aggregate fiscal impulse will be negative in 2017—exactly the opposite of what it should be when a surplus region is faced with a shock to external demand….

The euro area would also benefit from additional focus on the enduring overhang of private debt…. Euro area banks should have been recapitalized years ago, with public money if needed…. But in key countries they were not…. And Europe’s new banking rules are now creating additional incentives for delay…. Putting public funds into the banks does not addresses popular concerns about the way the global economy works. Forcing retail investors to take losses in the name of new European rules does not obviously build public support for ‘more’ Europe. Keeping bad loans at inflated marks on the balance sheet of weak banks undermines new lending, and makes it hard for private demand growth to offset the impact of fiscal consolidation. There is no cost-free option, economically or politically….

A conception of the euro area that focuses on the application of common rules with only modest sharing of fiscal risks… designed… too restrictively, with too much deference to Germany’s desire to avoid being stuck with other countries’ bills…. Something will need to give, eventually.

Must-Read: Heather Boushey and Kavya Vaghul: Working Mothers with Infants and Toddlers and the Importance of Family Economic Security

Must-Read: If an intelligence vast, warm, and sympathetic from a planet orbiting a distant star were to scrutinize the United States today, it would be puzzled. Raising the next generation is one of two or three most important tasks any civilization that is going to survive must perform. Arranging society so that the proper resources are devoted to one task is thus one of the principal problems that any non-dysfunctional societal socio-economic system must address. Yet there has been a sharp drop over the past generation in the share of society’s resources that flow to mothers of young children either through within-household or within-kin group transfers from those who have not given birth or through entitlements–e.g., AFDC–provided by society as a whole, with SCHIP and the expansion of EITC being the only factors cushioning the impact of other social and economic changes.

An intelligence vast, warm, and sympathetic from a planet orbiting a distant star would probably conclude that we have, collectively, gone mad in our decision that the raising of young children is a less important part of the collective work of society than was previously held to be the case:

Heather Boushey and Kavya Vaghul: Working Mothers with Infants and Toddlers and the Importance of Family Economic Security: “WOver the past four decades in United States, the composition of families with children has changed markedly…

…Most importantly, there is an increase in diversity of family types. There is no longer a dominant ‘typical’ family, especially not one with a breadwinning father, a care-taking mother, and their dependent children…. Marriage (if it happens at all) happens later in life, and the median age of first marriage is now 29 for men and 27 for women…. The typical woman has her first child now at age 26. Further, children are increasingly being born into families with unmarried parents; in 2014, 40.3 percent of all births in 2014 were to an unmarried mother…. It used to be that most children were raised in married-couple families, be they at the top or the bottom of the income ladder. Now, however, while families at the top continue to raise children inside marriage—typically with both parents holding down a fairly high-paying job—children in families at the bottom of the income distribution—and now many in the middle—are living with a single, working parent, most often a mother…

Must-Read: Nick Bunker: How the U.S. Housing Boom Hid Weaknesses in the Labor Market

Must-Read: But I cannot help but think that the argument of this paper is fundamentally wrong:

Nick Bunker: How the U.S. Housing Boom Hid Weaknesses in the Labor Market: “The share of workers ages 25 to 54 with a job has been on an overall decline since 2000…

…This decline hit prime-age workers without a college degree particularly hard…. Kerwin Kofi Charles and Erik Hurst of the University of Chicago and Matthew Notowidigdo of Northwestern… detail the relationship between share of prime-age, non-college-educated men working in manufacturing, working in construction, and those not employed. The combined share of these three series seems to stay relatively constant at about 50 percent, with increases in construction employment offset by declines in manufacturing employment or declines in non-employment. So perhaps increased demand for construction workers during the housing bubble offset the declines in manufacturing employment. Looking at trends in employment across metropolitan areas in the United States, the three authors find evidence that the construction industry did end up hiring workers who left the manufacturing sector…. The results of this paper support the larger idea that declining employment and labor force participation among prime-age men is primarily a result of declining demand for the types of labor that many of them traditionally provided…

The first two figures in the paper show the share of non-college men with jobs holding roughly steady until 2000, and then declining:

Pubs aeaweb org doi pdfplus 10 1257 jep 30 2 179

And the number of manufacturing plus construction jobs staying roughly constant until 2000, and then declining:

Pubs aeaweb org doi pdfplus 10 1257 jep 30 2 179

Share. Number. Share. Number. The non-college male employment share held up perfectly well through 2000 in spite of the fact that the average non-college male had a smaller and smaller chance of landing a job in manufacturing-and-construction. “Declining demand of the types of labor… traditionally provided” has no effect on employment shares–until after 2000. I believe that declining demand had a big effect on the price of labor–on real wages. But I see no sign it had any effect on the chance of a non-college male getting a job.

And look at non-college women:

Pubs aeaweb org doi pdfplus 10 1257 jep 30 2 179

Lagging men by 12%-points in employment in 2000, but by 15%-points today.

I see no reason to think that there is a cross-gender cross-era thing in employment shares for shifts in economic structure that lead to a declining demand for labor in traditionally “male” sectors to explain. Slack demand and thus a broken labor market is a much better hypothesis to start with.

The continued rigidity of wages in the United States

Nicole Kelly, left, interviews Angelo Falcone for a bartender job at a job fair in Miami.

“Wage rigidity” is an important feature of many models of the macroeconomy because the term refers to how firms try to deal with their employees when recessions hit. During economic downturns, output declines as firms sell fewer goods and services, which in turn reduces a firm’s revenue—leading to the need to cut costs. Given the large role of labor costs in overall firm costs, that means cutting labor costs. Now there are costs to firing and then rehiring workers, so firms ideally would try to keep as many workers as possible on staff and reduce wages to cut down on costs. But empirically that’s not what happens. Wages don’t seem to change that much and instead workers get laid off to reduce costs. That’s why such wage rigidity causes unemployment to spike during recessions.

Some research on wage rigidity challenges this assumption. Pointing to data on individual wage growth, some economists argue that the wages of new hires is more important. If wages are really rigid, then the inflation-adjusted wages of new hires won’t vary as recessions come and go. Yet these researchers can point to data showing the wages of new hires moving up during economic expansions and down during recessions. So perhaps wages are more flexible than some think.

Now comes a new paper that shows how the cyclical nature of the wages of new hires isn’t really evidence against wage rigidity. The working paper, by economists Mark Gertler of New York University, Christopher Huckfeldt of Cornell University, and Antonella Trigari of Bocconi University, was released earlier this month. The three economists’ major point is to show that looking at the wages of all new hires in the United States is lumping together two groups of workers with different experiences. There are new hires who were previously unemployed and then there are new hires who were previously employed.

Using data from the Survey of Income and Program Participation, the authors can see how individual workers’ wages change over time. What they find is that the trends in wages for these two different groups of new hires are clearly different. The wages for new hires from the unemployment line don’t vary much more over time than the wages of already employed workers. But the wages of new hires from the ranks of the already employed do vary. This phenomenon, however, is less about flexible wages and more about workers moving up the job ladder, which mostly only happens during economic expansions, and is the reason why wages for these new hires move with economic cycles.

Outside of the implications for macroeconomic models of the labor market during recessions, the results from Gertler, Huckfeldt, and Trigari are also a reminder of the effects an economic downturn can have on workers’ career earnings. Recessions hinder the hiring of already employed workers, which hurts their chances of climbing the job ladder and future wage gains. Downturns don’t just harm the workers who lose jobs, but also the ones who keep their jobs.

Must-Reads: June 29, 2016


Should Reads:

Must-Read: Timothy B. Lee: Brexit Isn’t the Most Serious Threat to the EU — the Euro Is

Must-Read: Timothy B. Lee: Brexit Isn’t the Most Serious Threat to the EU — the Euro Is: “David Beckworth makes the case that the economic woes of eurozone countries like Spain and Greece…

…can ultimately be traced back to the euro itself… other problems… made worse by the ECB’s tight-money policies…. Without reforms, eurozone countries could continue suffering from slow growth and abnormally severe recessions for decades to come. That, in turn, will fuel public resentment against the EU and increase the danger that other countries will follow the UK’s lead. And the euro isn’t just a mistake–it’s a mistake that’s going to be hard to fix. Any country that tries to leave the euro risks triggering a financial crisis. And while deeper economic integration could help to mitigate the euro’s problems, the political obstacles could be insurmountable. Brexit wasn’t great news for the future of the EU. But the common currency is likely to create much bigger headaches for European leaders in the years to come.

Must-Read: Jay Rosen: Facebook Backs Off on the View from Nowhere

Must-Read: Jay Rosen: Facebook Backs Off on the View from Nowhere: “Today Facebook released a document it calls: News Feed Values. It’s a start…

…For a long time Facebook wouldn’t even say it had priorities. It would describe you as the editor of News Feed: you, rather than Facebook…. But… we want to know: what are you optimizing for, along with user interest? How do you see your role within a news ecosystem where you are more and more the dominant player? In news, you have power now. It is growing. Help us understand how you intend to use it. What kind of filter will you be? What kind of player… playing for what? The document released today is not a revelation, but it does say a few interesting things. Here is my summary of News Feed’s editorial philosophy:

Your social graph comes first, not the public world. Informing you is a higher priority than entertaining you. But we think ‘information’ comes in many forms, not just serious news. A good recipe for beer can chicken is information to the person who is looking for it. We don’t exclude points of view we don’t like, or favor the sources we do like. We let the invisible hand of user choice make those decisions. Except: We do try to edit out what people find misleading, sensational, spammy–mere click bait. We do police nudity, hate speech, personal abuse, and violent or overly graphic content….

No one should expect Facebook to be a traffic distributor because that is not a priority the company has for its product…. One more thing Facebook says… its committed to the personalization of News Feed as a kind of right that users have. ‘You control your experience.’ I will be worth watching how this rights revolution in news display unfolds…

Must-Read: Andrew Golis: Comments Are Usually Garbage. We’re Adding Comments to This.!

Must-Read: Andrew Golis: Comments Are Usually Garbage. We’re Adding Comments to This.!: “Comments, on most websites most of the time, are garbage…

…When comments are garbage, so are our communities. The conversations we have allow us to explore ideas and stories, and to build relationships. Comments form conversations, and conversations form communities. So when we started This. (a network where you can share just 1 link a day), we knew two things: 1. the first version of the site wouldn’t have comments, and 2. we’d only add them when we thought we could devote the time and attention to succeeding where others have failed…. Over the course of the next 6 months, we’ll build what we think will be a powerful new way to comment…. This first step is pretty rudimentary: simple text comments below a shared link. But it comes with 3 unique elements…. 1. Members can opt out…. 2. Conversations get their own notifications page…. 3. No Assholes…. We think conversations will allow our members to form into a fun, smart-as-hell community. We can’t wait to unveil what we’ve got coming in the weeks and months ahead. As always, we work best when we hear from our members. Have thoughts? See bugs? Have a suitcase full of cold hard cash in need of a new home? Email me.