Should-Read: Miles Kimball: Contra Randal Quarles

Should-Read: Miles Kimball: Contra Randal Quarles: “my criticisms of Randal Quarles’ views above are not criticisms directed at Randal personally… https://blog.supplysideliberal.com/post/2017/7/30/contra-randal-quarles

…I think he is more likely to modify his views in response to cogent arguments than most prominent people are….

Ravi Menon, a Singaporean official who engaged in last-minute talks with Mr. Quarles on a U.S.-Singapore trade deal, wrote in 2004, “Right from the start, we took a problem-solving approach aimed at finding middle ground rather than trying to convert each other on ideological arguments.”…

Randal is not as dogmatic as many of those who are in positions of power, and is open to persuasion. Nevertheless, unless he reconsiders his views, I worry that a vote for Randal Quarles is a vote for another financial crisis, simply because as things stand, he is not committed to doing whatever is possible to continue to raise capital requirements on banks.

Should-Read: Erik Loomis: The Jobless Future is Going to Be Great

Should-Read: Erik Loomis: The Jobless Future is Going to Be Great: “If Democrats are going to start articulating pro-worker policies again as central platform planks, they need to get on board real fast to the problems that automation is already causing… http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2017/07/jobless-future-going-great

…problems that will grow rapidly.

Robot developers say they are close to a breakthrough—getting a machine to pick up a toy and put it in a box.

It is a simple task for a child, but for retailers it has been a big hurdle to automating one of the most labor-intensive aspects of e-commerce: grabbing items off shelves and packing them for shipping.

Several companies, including Saks Fifth Avenue owner Hudson’s Bay Co. HBC +0.82% and Chinese online-retail giant JD.com Inc., JD +1.79% have recently begun testing robotic “pickers” in their distribution centers. Some robotics companies say their machines can move gadgets, toys and consumer products 50% faster than human workers.

Retailers and logistics companies are counting on the new advances to help them keep pace with explosive growth in online sales and pressure to ship faster. U.S. e-commerce revenues hit $390 billion last year, nearly twice as much as in 2011, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Sales are rising even faster in China, India and other developing countries.

That is propelling a global hiring spree to find people to process those orders. U.S. warehouses added 262,000 jobs over the past five years, with nearly 950,000 people working in the sector, according to the Labor Department. Labor shortages are becoming more common, particularly during the holiday rush, and wages are climbing.

Throwing nearly a million people out of work sounds pretty great! Hard to see any down side. Democrats should just offer some tax credits for employers to train workers. That will pretty much solve the problem!

Seriously, the real answer for this is going to need to be the right to a job, guaranteed by the government as an employer of last resort. I have no real problem with part of the solution being universal basic income, but again, I am extremely skeptical of Americans approving a welfare program that is not based upon work, as it files in the face of everything about American culture and history. Just the federally guaranteed job isn’t enough–free college tuition and the forgiveness of debt, a real industrial policy, the building of a green economy, and federal subsidies of everything from working in a farmers’ market to your local hipster bicycle shop are going to have to be pieces of the puzzle. People need work of some kind, even if self-defined. And they need a decent income and path to dignity. In a fully automated economy, they aren’t going to get it. And before someone says, “Derp, Luddite, Derp,” let me remind you that previous generations’ technological advancements worked because the increased jobs they created in an expanding economy absorbed those job losses. Today, we don’t create jobs to replace those lost through automation. They are just totally lost jobs, except for robot designers. Not solving this problem means massive social upheaval, no doubt channeled through racial violence, xenophobia, misogyny, and religious nationalism.

I have almost no faith that we will solve any of these problems.

Must- and Should-Reads: July 31, 2017


Interesting Reads:

Should-Read: Timothy Noah: @TimothyNoah1 on Twitter

Should-Read: The way I now think about it, there are:

  1. Hard neoliberals: Mont Pelerin—the market giveth, the market taketh away, blessed be the name of the market!
  2. Soft neoliberals: Washington Monthly—harness market means to attainable social democratic redistributive ends where those can be accomplished at low cost, and otherwise to focus on growth to lift all boats.
  3. Cultural neoliberals: New Republic—we don’t like Blacks, especially young Blacks, and extra especially Jesse Jackson. We don’t like women much when they move out of their place. We think unions are yucky. We think Arabs are bad.

These groups overlap, to say the least…

Timothy Noah: @TimothyNoah1 on Twitter: “@rortybomb @jonathanchait: It simply isn’t true… https://twitter.com/TimothyNoah1/status/887406956994064384

…that Charlie Peters and the WashMonthly (where I was an editor in 1980s) favored Social Security only for very poor. WashMonthly neolibs simply opposed Social Security for the rich. In that spirit it favored progressive taxation of benefits, which began under Reagan as a genuinely bipartisan solution to the system’s insolvency. There may be political reasons for “universality” that we failed to appreciate. Means-tested programs have, in recent years, been demonized as welfare by Republicans, even tho Republicans tend to favor means-testing. It’s kind of a bait and switch. I wrote about this a few years ago. But the budgetary benefits of means-testing many (not all) benefits remain a strong argument for doing so.

In any event, I’m growing weary of the caricatures being written of Washington Monthly-style neoliberalism by people who are too young to remember the debates among Democrats in the 1970s and 1980s yet choose to demonize them. The Washington Monthly neolibs got some things wrong. Most notably, we underestimated the fragility of unions we hoped to reform and not eliminate. (Well, @kausmickey wanted to eliminate them. The rest of us just wanted to fix them.) Walter Reuter was a Washington Monthly hero. So was FDR. Neolibs had some desire to harness market forces to regulatory goals, but that was hardly a sellout to the GOP. The main product of this thinking was cap and trade, which wasn’t exactly embraced by Rs when Obama proposed.

It is a deep conviction of mine that the left and centrist liberals have been talking past each other for a generation. That’s really going to have to stop. Something like a dialog began during the Democratic primaries, but after Bernie Sanders dropped out the gulf widened, and it’s widened much further since Trump’s inauguration. The End.

Should-Read: Matt Bruenig: The Success Sequence Is About Cultural Beefs Not Poverty

Should-Read: Almost every time I read something Matt Bruenig writes on a blog, I come away very impressed: very smart, committed, snarky, insightful, and thinking very differently from me so that I learn about things that, because his values are similar to mine, I really care about:

Matt Bruenig: The Success Sequence Is About Cultural Beefs Not Poverty: “The Success Sequence is back!… http://mattbruenig.com/2017/07/31/the-success-sequence-is-about-cultural-beefs-not-poverty/

…First endorsed by Isabell Sawhill and Ron Haskins… [now] picked up by Brad Wilcox and Wendy Wang at AEI. George Will also recently mailed in a column… a rewrite of the AEI product…. If you are a long-time observer of the Success Sequence community (like I am), you may have noticed something a little strange…. Each… defines the Success Sequence somewhat differently…. For Sawhill and Haskins… [1] Graduate high school. [2] Get a full-time job. [3] Get married before having children. [4] Wait until at least age 21 to get married. [5] Wait until at least age 21 to have children….

Wilcox and Wang… [1] Graduate high school. [2] Get a full-time job. [3] Get married before having children…. Delay-marriage and delay-parenting… are gone! What happened to them?… Wilcox dropped the delay-marriage and delay-parenting rules because they do not mesh with his particular conservative worldview. His cultural and religious commitments make him uncomfortable advocating for the delay of marriage and childbirth. So he doesn’t. Sawhill and Haskins have no similar compunction…. Many of the rules of the Success Sequence are just the tacked-on cultural preferences of the authors…. The delay rules do not actually cut down poverty because none of the rules provide meaningful poverty reduction after you have applied the full-time work rule. The authors in the Success Sequence community smuggle their cultural views into the anti-poverty debate by embedding them into a sequence with full-time work, which drives nearly all of the low-poverty outcomes that they find….

Trying to promote your cultural views as the panacea to poverty is a smart strategic move. It brings attention to your cause…. Just look at the education reform folks…. But one does have to wonder how a teenager reading this literature will be able to figure out which set of competing cultural preferences swirling around in the Success Sequence community constitutes the One True Success Sequence….

Work Does All of the Work…. Despite what the Success Sequence says, marriage does not help you except insofar as marrying adds another full-time worker to the family…. A high school degree does not do much for you either…

But every time I read a sequence of Matt Bruenig’s tweets—well, I end up blocking him before I tweet back something I would regret…

Must-Read: Jacqueline Bell (2007): Bear Stearns Hedge Funds File For Bankruptcy

Must-Read: Ten years ago tomorrow it started:

Jacqueline Bell (2007): Bear Stearns Hedge Funds File For Bankruptcy: “New York (August 1, 2007, 12:00 AM EDT)—Two Cayman Islands-based Bear Stearns hedge funds… https://www.law360.com/banking/articles/31291/bear-stearns-hedge-funds-file-for-bankruptcy

… that ran into trouble over risky investments connected to subprime mortgage loans filed for bankruptcy protection late Tuesday. The two hedge funds, Bear Stearns High-Grade Structured Credit Strategies Master Fund Ltd. and Bear Stearns High Grade Structured Credit Strategies Enhanced Leveraged Master Fund Ltd, filed for Chapter 15 bankruptcy protection in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.Both funds listed debts and assets in excess of $100 million in their bankruptcy petitions…

A glance at pay inequities for African American women’s Equal Pay Day

Employees work on a school bus on the assembly line at Blue Bird Corporation’s manufacturing facility in Fort Valley, Ga. (AP Photo/David Goldman)

Today marks African American women’s Equal Pay Day, which represents the day that black women must work to in 2017 to make the same amount of money that men (of all races ) did in 2016. For African American women that’s nearly an additional eight months of earning on average 63 cents for every dollar earned by a man last year. Although women (of all races) are paid 80 cents for every dollar men are paid, the wage gaps for African American women and  women of color are dramatically wider—only the wage gap for Asian American women is smaller than that of white women. The persistent gender wage gap continues to harm women, their families and the larger economy, but it is particularly damaging for African American women.

Persistent pay inequalities for African American women and women of color have far-reaching economic consequences. Lower pay lowers demand, which drags down economic growth. And to the extent that women are not employed in jobs that make the most of their skills and talents, this also drags down growth by reducing productivity.

We’ve updated Equitable Growth’s interactive tool with new data to compare wages within and across demographic groups in the United States. Our updated numbers continue to show that women, and even more so African American women, continue to earn considerably less than men. The data show that men earn a median wage of $20.00 per hour, while African American women earn a median wage of $14.47. The $5.53 difference constitutes a pay gap of approximately 38 percent relative to African American women’s hourly wage rate. (See Figure 1.)

Figure 1

Looking more closely at the wages across the distribution, we see that men get paid more at each decile. Men earning low wages make an average of  $9.53 per hour compared to an average wage of $8.25 earned by African American women at the low end of the pay scale, a pay gap of about 15 percent. At the high end of the earnings distribution, the pay gap is considerably wider, approximately 46 percent, with men earning $48.68 and African American women earning $33.42. The data illustrates that the pay gap between men and African American women is more narrow at the 10th percentile for low-wage workers and widens for workers as they move up the wage distribution.

When we look at the wage distributions for different genders, races, and ethnicities, we see the same pattern of widening pay gaps as a worker moves from low-wage to high-wage work. Men earning low wages make $9.53 per hour compared to a wage of $8.25 earned by African American women on the same pay scale, a pay gap of about 15 percent. At the high end of the earnings distribution, the pay gap is considerably wider, approximately 46 percent, with men earning $48.68 and African American women earning $33.42. (See Figure 2.)

Figure 2

At the lower end of the wage distribution, workers from different demographic backgrounds have relatively similar wages. Latina and African American women earning low wages average the least pay, $8.25 per hour, while white men at the same pay level earn the most, $10.13. This cluster of wages at the bottom is likely in part due to minimum wage laws, which provides a wage floor for workers and shrinks the dispersion of wages at the bottom.

For workers who earn middle-range wages, the gender gap grows. Latina and African American women at the median earn the least of these groups, earning on average $13.00 and $14.47 per hour, respectively, while white men earn $22.29. At the top of the earnings distribution, the wage gaps are the largest— $29.24 for Latinas,  $33.42 for African American women, but $51.90 for white men)—a difference of nearly $20.00 per hour.

This scattering of top wages reflects discrimination across both gender and race in the U.S. labor market. The pre-exisiting cultural and social norms we observe such as occupational segregation and the lack of family friendly policies in the workplace keep women from obtaining and holding onto high paying jobs. And racial discrimination within hiring practices and other labor market interactions play a large role in leaving workers of color behind. African American and Latina women are most disadvantaged as they experience both sets of discrimination at work.

Increasing educational attainment levels for all women of color, as is commonly suggested, has not proven to shrink the gender wage gap. Over the past few decades women received more college and graduate degrees than men and African American women’s college enrollment has accelerated. Despite this rise in educational attainment, African American women still earn less, experiencing a wage gap at every educational level.

Studying the wage distributions of workers by their level of educational attainment highlights this mismatch. By comparing the earnings of white men with high school degrees to African American women with college degrees we demonstrate that the return to a college degree for African American women is not enough. (See Figure 3.)

Figure 3

White men with high school degrees make about $9.62 per hour at the low end of the pay scale, only 13 percent less than African American women with a college degrees, who earn $10.90. In the middle, white men with a high school degree earn $18.23 per hour, or 17 percent less than the median African American women with a college degree, who earn $21.31. And even at the top of the wage distribution, the pay gap between white men with high school degrees and African American women with college degrees is only 24 percent.

Raising the minimum wage at the federal, state, and local levels would help compress the pay gaps we observe between workers in different demographic groups. This data, however, show that we need to focus on workers higher up the income ladder. Policies to mitigate workplace discrimination, increase worker bargaining power, and family friendly policies would also help reduce pay inequities for women of color. Until we address structural sexism and racism, they will continue to have negative economic consequences for these groups of workers unless addressed by our broader community.

Must-Read:Paul Krugman: Who Ate Republicans’ Brains?

Must-Read: And where was the phalanx of Republican health care experts united in condemnation of the McConnell approach? If you didn’t sign a public letter calling for a very different process, why should you have standing to participate in any future reality-based policy debate? Just asking:

Paul Krugman: Who Ate Republicans’ Brains?: “Senator Lindsey Graham was entirely correct when he described the final effort at repeal as ‘terrible policy and horrible politics’, a ‘disaster’ and a ‘fraud’. He voted for it anyway… https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/31/opinion/republicans-trumpcare-obamacare-lies.html

…and so did 48 of his colleagues… caught in their own web of lies. They fought against the idea of universal coverage… denounced the Affordable Care Act for failing to cover enough people; they made “skin in the game,” i.e., high out-of-pocket costs, the centerpiece… then denounced… high deductibles….

But the stark dishonesty of the Republican jihad against Obamacare itself demands an explanation. For it went well beyond normal political spin: for seven years a whole party kept insisting that black was white and up was down. And that kind of behavior doesn’t come out of nowhere. The Republican health care debacle was the culmination of a process of intellectual and moral deterioration that began four decades ago…. A key moment came in the 1970s, when Irving Kristol, the godfather of neoconservatism, embraced supply-side economics — the claim, refuted by all available evidence and experience, that tax cuts pay for themselves by boosting economic growth. Writing years later, he actually boasted about valuing political expediency over intellectual integrity: “I was not certain of its economic merits but quickly saw its political possibilities.” In another essay, he cheerfully conceded to having had a “cavalier attitude toward the budget deficit,” because it was all about creating a Republican majority—so “political effectiveness was the priority, not the accounting deficiencies of government.” The problem is that once you accept the principle that it’s O.K. to lie if it helps you win elections, it gets ever harder to limit the extent of the lying—or even to remember what it’s like to seek the truth….

Looking back, it’s easy to see the rot spreading. Compared with Donald Trump, the elder Bush looks like a paragon—but his administration lied relentlessly about rising inequality. His son’s administration lied consistently about its tax cuts, pretending that they were targeted on the middle class…. Given this history, the Republican health care disaster was entirely predictable…. And let’s be clear: we’re talking about Republicans here, not the “political system.”… Republicans have spent decades losing their ability to think straight, and they’re not going to get it back anytime soon.

Understanding the importance of antitrust policy for U.S. economic competitiveness and consumer choice

US Airways and American Airlines planes are shown at gates at Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport, February 14, 2013, in Grapevine, Texas.

In a new paper in the Washington Center for Equitable Growth’s ongoing series on antitrust policy and its implications for the economic well-being of U.S. workers and consumers, John E. Kwoka of Northeastern University documents the rise in industry concentration and examines the evidence for one possible explanation: the change in merger enforcement policy at the Federal Trade Commission, or FTC, and the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Kwoka examines FTC enforcement data from the mid-1990s through 2011, finding that enforcement rates for mergers that would result in four or fewer significant competitors not only remained high but also increased marginally over that time. But for mergers where the number of remaining significant competitors was more than four, enforcement not only fell over the analyzed time period but also had literally ceased by 2007.

Figure 1

While Kwoka acknowledges the limitation of the data, which only cover FTC actions, not the Department of Justice, and don’t extend fully to the present time, it is noteworthy that these findings are consistent with several well-known real world examples of consolidation, such as the telecommunications industry, dominated by four companies, as well as the airline industry. As Kwoka points out, only 10 years ago, there were six major legacy airlines, plus Southwest and several low-cost carriers. In 2008, the Department of Justice permitted the merger of Delta and Northwest to move forward, setting off a wave of mergers in the industry that has left us today with only four significant competitors and severely curtailed consumer choice.

These findings are all the more interesting in light of earlier research that Kwoka has done. He has examined the level of concentration at which anti-competitive outcomes become nearly certain, finding that prices rose in nearly 95 percent of instances of mergers that resulted in six or fewer remaining significant competitors. As Kwoka himself notes, “It is notable, therefore, that it is in precisely this range of five to seven significant competitors where enforcement policy has shifted so dramatically in the past 20 years.”

The antitrust enforcement line, therefore, has effectively been drawn in the wrong place. The consequences of using four remaining significant competitors rather than six have led to rising concentration and harm to competition and consumers.

Kwoka mentions several explanations for this shift in merger enforcement policy, including agency budget constraints. The explanation he focuses on is changes in antitrust policy’s presumptions about the competitive consequences of increases in concentration.

Over the past 50 years, those presumptions shifted from a viewpoint that held that even modest increases in concentration would result in above-competitive prices and profits to one in which it was believed that tougher merger standards sacrificed cost efficiencies, which presumably would be passed along to consumers. While antitrust policy has moderated somewhat from that so-called Chicago school view, the FTC enforcement data from 1996 through 2011 nonetheless demonstrate that there has continued to be a shift away from merger enforcement actions in all but the most concentrated markets.

Furthermore, while the latest merger guidelines, published in 2010, emphasize the multiplicity of relevant factors beyond just cost efficiencies in evaluating the likelihood of possible harms from a merger, they also further relax the thresholds for the levels and changes in concentration at which a merger might be presumed to lessen competition.

Kwoka concludes by calling for the strengthening of antitrust policy by revisiting policy decisions about which standards to use when considering merger proposals to ensure that policy hasn’t diverged from the evidence. This will also require investing in further analytical and empirical work to inform that decision-making. In addition, agency budgets need to be expanded to ensure that they have adequate resources to vigorously pursue the merger cases that raise these concerns.

Should-Read: Robert C. Feenstra and David E. Weinstein: Globalization, Markups, and US Welfare

Should-Read: Robert C. Feenstra and David E. Weinstein: Globalization, Markups, and US Welfare: “We work with symmetric translog preferences… http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/692695

…find that between 1992 and 2005, US import shares rose and US firms exited, leading to an implied fall in markups, while variety went up because of imports. US welfare rose by nearly 1 percent as a result of these changes, with product variety contributing one-half of that total and declining markups the other half…