Weekend reading

This is a weekly post we publish on Fridays with links to articles that touch on economic inequality and growth. The first section is a round-up of what Equitable Growth has published this week and the second is work we’re highlighting from elsewhere. 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.

Equitable Growth round-up

The recent pushes to increase the federal minimum wage to $12 or $15 would result in hikes at the upper bound of, or above the range of, previous increases we’ve seen in the United States. Because we can’t look at the academic research when it comes to these proposals, perhaps we should look at the historical and international comparisons.

The rate at which U.S. workers move to different states and counties has been on the decline for several decades now. This change has significant effects on how workers respond to job losses. And the evidence suggests that this decline in migration is due to changes in the labor market.

Equitable Growth launched a new series this week that looks back at the history of technological change and policy reactions to it in hopes of finding lessons for the future. Read the introduction from Jonathan Moreno.

In the first report in the series, Harvard University historian Matthew Hersch looks at the development of the aerospace industry in Southern California as a case study in equitable growth.

In the United States and other high-income countries, corporations are investing far less than they used to, resulting in increased savings by corporations. These savings and their eventual destination have potentially significant implications for economic growth and stability.

Links from around the web

Isabella Kaminska also takes a look at the decline in corporate investment in high-income countries. She focuses on the role of information technology in decreasing investment, and argues that the move toward tech firms that shoot for monopolies is “shrinking the pie.” [ft alphaville]

Japan has been dealing with the problem of deflation for more than 20 years now. The problem has yet to be solved, and alarmingly it might be spreading. Greg Ip argues that the conditions that led to deflation in Japan are appearing once again in China. [wsj]

After decades when they would have settled in the suburbs, young U.S. workers are increasingly moving to central cities. What’s causing this shift? As Lydia DePillis explains, a new working paper argues that a key driver is the desire for leisure time among more educated workers. [wonkblog]

Upon the release of new data on household debt, several researchers at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York dig into data on auto loans. Among their many insights, the staffers show that auto finance companies are the largest source of subprime auto loans, and their lending is increasing. [liberty street economics]

When it comes to retirement savings plans, defined contribution plans, such as 401(k) plans, dominate the private sector. The public sector, however, is still a bastion for traditional defined benefit pensions. Justin Fox argues that pensions can be great—they just have to be managed well. [bloomberg view]

Friday figure

Figure from “What happened to the job ladder in the 21st century?” by Marshall Steinbaum and Austin Clemens

Must-Reads Found Up to Lunchtime on November 20, 2015


Must-Read: John Authers: Number-Crunchers Lift Lid on Investor Choice

Must-Read: This is what Akerlof and Shiller’s Phishing for Phools is about…

John Authers: Number-Crunchers Lift Lid on Investor Choice: “Retail investors…fatally drawn to chasing performance…

…buying high, selling low… heighten[ing] the peaks and lower[ing] the troughs…. In aggregate, all the money attracted by funds in that era went to funds that could show the strongest ratings (which are largely a function of performance)…. Past performance does not predict future performance. But it utterly controls what the consumer will ultimately buy….

Given a choice between two otherwise identical funds, Americans will take the cheaper one. Europeans will not…. In the US, investment advisers tend to be paid by fee, rather than commission, and have no incentive to advise otherwise…. But Americans are not as smart as all that. High turnover… is a bad idea…. Yet funds with a high turnover in the US tend to attract more than 0.5 per cent more in inflows each month…. Most counter-intuitively, and alarmingly… older than average funds… suffer outflows at a rate of 2.77 per cent of their assets each month….

Ultimately, funds are sold the same way as other branded goods. Marketers spot where the demand is moving, and launch something new that can be hyped. All the interest and selling action focuses on recent launches, while older products are gradually neglected, and watch money ebb out over time. It is not a great way to allocate capital…

Must-Read: Simon Wren-Lewis: Politically Impossible

Must-Read: The writer, BTW, is Chris Giles. In light of this, does the almost-always excellent Financial Times have a significant quality-control problem here?

Simon Wren-Lewis: Politically Impossible: “An article in the Financial Times recently said of me…

…‘He has opposed deficit reduction when the economy was weak and when it was strong.’ Ah yes, this would be the same economist who has suggested the left aims to reduce the current deficit (all current spending less revenue) to zero, that pre-crisis fiscal policy in the Euro periphery should have been much more contractionary, and has championed fiscal councils as a way of eliminating deficit bias.

Should I have demanded a retraction? I didn’t: life is short, maybe it was a kind of joke, or even a misprint, and if not perhaps it said more about the writer than it did about me…. Equally it makes no sense obsessing about the need to reduce deficits in a recession and then turning a blind eye when surpluses are spent in a boom. Unfortunately just that kind of inconsistent thinking became hard-wired in the form of the Stability and Growth Pact (SGP), with its focus on a limit of 3% for deficits. Those who say that all that was wrong with the SGP is that it was not enforced have learnt nothing. This is why we need to move influence away from the Commission and towards independent national fiscal councils.

Must-Read: Megan McArdle: Why Democrats Fixate on Glass-Steagall

Must-Read: The reason to repeal the repeal of Glass-Steagall is that (1) it has not led to increased competition and lower fees in investment banking, and (2) it creates a point of vulnerability at which financiers can make bets with the government’s money. narrow-banking advocate Milton Friedman was especially shrill on this point: that deposit insurance was necessary, but that banks with government-insured deposits should be restricted to buying Treasuries and only Treasuries:

Megan McArdle: Why Democrats Fixate on Glass-Steagall: “Team Steagles… seem[s] to have become a powerful force in the Democratic Party…

…The provisions limiting the entrance of commercial banks into investment activities (and vice versa) were gradually relaxed, and then abolished with Gramm-Leach-Bliley (the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999). Calls to ‘bring back Glass-Steagall’ are, in fact, almost always calls to bring back this one provision…. It would be an amusing and depressing exercise to get any of these candidates in a room with some economists and ask them to explain how Glass-Steagall could have prevented the 2008 crisis. For there is a small problem with the Steagles argument: It’s very hard to think of the mechanism by which the repeal of this rule made any significant contribution to the meltdown….

This is why you don’t hear a lot of experts calling for the return of this rule. Those who do want it reinstated don’t claim that it would have prevented the financial crisis. For example, I quote Raj Date and Mike Konczal of the left-wing Roosevelt Institute, from their paper ‘Out of the Shadows: Creating a 21st Century Glass Steagall’: ‘The loosening of Glass-Steagall prohibitions did not directly lead to the financial crisis of the past few years.’ Why, then, do so many people want it back?  Fighting ‘Too Big to Fail.’… Moral hazard/protecting the taxpayer…. Exotic political economy arguments… [that] are hard to prove or disprove….

Glass-Steagall… is the perfect Washington Issue: a proposal of negligible impact but great popular charm. It is a way for politicians to sound as if they are addressing some major problem without having to go to the trouble of actually doing so. Glass-Steagall’s major appeal is not that it would work, but that it can be explained in under a minute to someone who doesn’t know anything about financial markets…

Must-Note: Macro Advisers Forecasts: 1.9% GDP Growth in Q4

Https macroadvisers bluematrix com sellside EmailDocViewer encrypt 0cd264f3 96b8 4ac5 8004 a8fb218fcae8 mime pdf co macroadvisers id jbdelong uclink berkeley edu source mail

Must-Note: Macro Advisers says: the economy is growing at less than any reasonable estimate of potential output this quarter…

In fact, let’s look at the past eight quarters:

2015Q4: 1.9%
2015Q3: 1.5%
2015Q2: 3.9%
2015Q1: 0.6%

That is a 2.0% growth rate for 2015, after a 2.5% growth rate in 2014, after a 2.4% growth rate for 2013. No signs of growth faster than potential output. No signs of inflation.

Corporate surpluses, savings, and economic growth

Shaking hands by avava, veer.com

While business investment in the United States is growing at a historically weak rate, corporate profits continue to make up a remarkably large share of the economy. The result: Net savings by the U.S. corporate sector has increased significantly since the turn of the century, going from negative to close to 2 percent of our gross domestic product.

This trend isn’t restricted to the United States, however—it’s also happening in the other large developed economies such as Japan, the United Kingdom, and Germany, as Martin Wolf aptly describes in a column for the Financial Times. For those concerned about the pace of future economic growth and perhaps economic stability, the rise of corporate savings has important implications.

As Wolf points out in his column, the increase in corporate savings has significant ramifications for economic growth in two ways. The first effect is that declining corporate investment will reduce the potential growth rate of the economy, as investment is thought to have a strong relationship with productivity growth. The rise of corporate savings surpluses, however, has an effect on “the shape of aggregate demand.”

With all its excess savings, the corporate sector has turned into a net financer of the economy in recent years. These savings have to go somewhere, but government borrowing seems to be an unlikely destination with many governments shooting for balanced budgets. The remaining targets are then the household sector and the rest of the global economy.

It might be a positive development for the United States if the savings are reinvested in the global economy. The United States has long run a trade deficit with the rest of the world, so an increase in savings going abroad would help balance the trade deficit. In a traditional neoclassical model, we might expect this capital to flow from high-income countries to low-income countries where the return on capital is higher. In fact, we’ve seen the opposite of this happen in recent years. The strong U.S. dollar seems to have been an impediment to this process in the past.

When it comes to the household sector, we have to ask which households would end up borrowing these loaned funds. As research from University of California, Berkeley economists Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman shows, the savings rate is much higher for higher-income Americans than for those further down the income ladder. With savings rates hovering around 0 percent for the bottom 90 percent, do we really want to have them save even less? Experience shows that funneling debt toward those particular households poses a big risk.

To return to the question of business investment, Wolf suggests that the government should consider taxing corporations’ retained earnings at a higher rate while allowing for the deductibility of investment and dividends. Given the research on how cutting dividend taxes would affect corporate decision making, it seems likely that deductibility would not boost business investment as intended. Instead, it would increase payouts to high-income shareholders.

This leaves us with two broad options. Either we figure out a way to induce more investment from the corporate sector, or we consider the best use of these savings for the broader economy. In an era of potential secular stagnation, it’s a knotty topic we have to unravel.

Must-Reads Found Up to 7:20 AM EST on November 19, 2015

  • Prime-age female employment in the U.S. and Canada https://equitablegrowth.org/?p=16112
  • Jared Bernstein: Models of the Minimum Wage: “We can introduce some ideas… that comport a bit more with reality…. At the end of the day… when the theory doesn’t match the evidence, trust the evidence…” :: The rationale for a minimum wage is the theory that the low-wage labor market suffers market failures analogous to those of natural monopolies…
  • Miles Corak: Inequality: A Fact, an Interpretation, and a Policy Recommendation: “A common storyline…[:] inequality has not increased… there is little that can be done… effort… fighting inequality diverts attention from more pressing problems…” :: That Miles Corak… [says] ‘a common storyline’ is a measure of… right-of-center echo chamber…”
  • Isabel Sawhill: Where Have All the Workers Gone?: “Among male heads of household… between… 25-54 [nt working], 27 percent say it is because they are ill or disabled…. [But] we excluded from the sample anyone on disability…” :: I really want to see what happens to these numbers in a high-pressure low-slack economy…
  • Gabriel Zucman : GSPP Policy Research Seminar: Wealth Inequality in the United States Since 1913: Evidence from Capitalized Income Tax Data: “The rise of wealth inequality is almost entirely due to the rise of the top 0.1% wealth share…” :: It’s all at the peak…
  • Duncan Weldon: Are the Robots Taking Enough Jobs?: “The next wave of labour-saving technology looks to be replacing human brains, rather than human brawn, and the impact could be far more wide-reaching…” :: Human smiles and human truly creative thought look to remain economically valuable. So learn how to smile!