Topic: Health Care & Welfare

Does Occupational Licensing Make Sense?

The standard argument for occupational licensing - government-imposed limits on who can supply medical, legal, plumbing, and other services - is that such laws protect the public from low-quality provision of these services.

This argument is not convincing on its own: licensing limits the quantity of services provided, raising price, and thus harming consumers. A necessary condition for licensing to make sense, therefore, is that any improvements in service quality outweight the losses from higher prices.

A new study, however, finds that when de-regulation allows nurse practioners to perform more tasks without doctor supervision, the price of well-child medical exams declines (as implied by standard economics), with no “changes … in outcomes such as infant mortality rates.”

In at least this case, therefore, licensure is all cost and no benefit.

Spending Restraint in Arkansas

For the fourth day in a row, the Arkansas House of Representatives has refused to approve the yearly appropriation for its Medicaid program, dubbed the “private-option.” If the legislature continues this refusal and reverses its decision to expand Medicaid under Obamacare, state and federal taxpayers will save billions of dollars, making the Little Rock legislative battle the most important spending fight in the country.

Last spring, Arkansas made headlines for adopting a “free-market” alternative to Medicaid expansion. Instead of expanding using the traditional Medicaid model in which the federal and state government would directly fund enrollees’ care, Arkansas decided to provide subsidies to 250,000 new enrollees, so that they could purchase private health insurance through the bureaucratic exchanges created under Obamacare. By using private insurance, supporters claimed, Arkansas would be able to provide individuals with insurance coverage and protect them from the broken Medicaid system that fails to provide “significant improvements” to enrollees’ health.

Medicaid expansion will cost the federal government $800 billion over the next 10 years if all states expand their qualification thresholds for the program as Obamacare’s architects want. (Currently, only half of the states have obliged.)

Arkansas’ expansion is actually even more expensive than the traditional expansion model envisioned by President Obama and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. According to the Congressional Budget Office, private insurance actually costs 50 percent more than traditional Medicaid coverage. Earlier this month, Arkansas Gov. Mike Beebe, a supporter of the private option plan, acknowledged that the plan costs the federal government—read taxpayers—more. Under the conservative estimates from the state, Arkansas’ expansion will cost $20 billion over the next 10 years.

Arkansas’ actions could affect other states. Following its expansion last year, Iowa, Michigan, and Pennsylvania expanded their Medicaid programs using a private-option model costing federal taxpayers billions more. Defunding Medicaid expansion in Arkansas would likely stop the wave of expansion, saving even more public dollars.

If opponents of the private option are successful, Arkansas will do far more to help federal taxpayers this month than anything coming from Washington.

Gap Pay Raise Follows Rand Not Obama

Clothing retailer Gap Inc. has won praise from the White House in announcing its decision to raise entry-level wages to $9 an hour this year, and $10 next year. President Obama applauded Gap and argued that Congress should follow suit by passing a bill to increase the federal minimum wage from $7.25 an hour to $10.10 by 2016.

But there’s a big difference between a voluntary increase in a market-determined wage rate and a government-mandated minimum wage.

Gap must report to shareholders and make a profit to stay in business; politicians report to voters and must win elections to stay in office. Polls show that the American public strongly support a higher federal minimum wage — but only if it appears to be costless.

President Obama, in promoting a higher minimum wage, argues that it would “lift wages for more than 16 million workers—all without requiring a single dollar in new taxes or spending.” This is the free lunch that politicians love to promise—and it is an illusion.

When the government arbitrarily pushes up wage rates above the competitive level, two things happen: some jobs are lost; and more workers look for jobs but can’t find them, so unemployment of lower-skilled workers increases. These effects are greater in the long run as employers switch to labor-saving technology.

When firms make adjustments in expectation of higher minimum wages (both federal and state), there will be a decrease in the number of jobs for lower-skilled workers (mostly younger, inexperienced, less-educated workers) but an increase in the demand for higher-productivity, skilled workers who complement the new technology.

Gap has already made significant investments in labor-saving technology and recently implemented a “reserve-in-store” computer program that relies on higher-skilled workers whom Gap invests in to enhance their human capital. Gone are the days when high-school dropouts could easily get a job with retailers. As Gap raises its starting wage, there will be more competition for a dwindling number of jobs. More workers will want a job, but fewer workers will be hired, and those that are will be of higher quality.

Glenn K. Murphy, Gap’s CEO, told the company’s employers upon announcing the change in policy, “To us, this is not a political issue. Our decision to invest in front-line employees will directly support our business, and is one that we expect to deliver a return many times over.”

This is free-market, Randian thinking: self-interest is the motivating factor, not altruism.

When President Obama says, “It’s time to pass [the minimum wage] bill and give America a raise,” he is making a promise that can’t be kept: some workers will gain (those who have higher productivity) but others (the least productive workers who most need a job to gain experience and move up the income ladder) will lose.

Indeed, the Congressional Budget Office now tells us that an increase in the federal minimum wage to $10.10 an hour could cost a loss of 500,000 jobs. Those most affected would be low-productivity workers in low-income families—making them poorer, not richer. (If the government promises a wage of $10.10 an hour but a worker loses her job or can’t find one, then her income is zero.) There is no free lunch!

People do what is in their own best interest. Gap may win some friends by increasing entry-level wages and saying this is in tune with company “values,” but unless that business decision is profitable Gap will lose sales, and its shares will drop in value. There is thus a market test of the decision to raise wages.

The government has no business telling private employers what to pay or telling workers they cannot offer their labor services at less than the legal minimum wage, even if they are willing to do so to retain or get a job. The President’s minimum wage is anti-economic freedom and violates personal freedom; Gap’s higher entry wage does neither. This is a case of “the emperor has no clothes!”

Jared Bernstein’s “Tax Reform” Assault on Pensions, IRAs and 401(k)s

The bad habit of defining “tax reform” in terms of fairness or “closing loopholes” sidesteps the most essential task of effective tax policy – namely, to collect taxes in ways that do the least possible damage to incentives for productive effort, investment and entrepreneurship.

The Joint Committee on Taxation list of “tax expenditures” is arbitrary accounting, not economics, and tax expenditures are not necessarily “loopholes.” These estimates do not take taxpayer behavior into account and therefore do not estimate revenues that could be raised by closing the so-called loopholes (e.g., a higher tax on capital gains would shrink asset sales and revenues). Policies that make sense in terms of economic incentives can therefore be portrayed as useless tax subsidies in the purely static accounting of “tax expenditures.”

For example, a recent New York Times article by former vice presidential adviser Jared Bernstein complains that tax deferral for retirement savings is unfair because, “most savings subsidies go to households that would surely save anyway, while almost nothing goes to the households that need help to save.” 

These “subsidies” for high-bracket taxpayers mainly consist of deferring rather than avoiding taxes, which only partly offsets the way savings are double-taxed. Even if higher-income households would actually save the same without 401(k) accounts (which contradicts research), they would still end up with much smaller retirement savings. Dividends and capital gains would then be repeatedly taxed, year after year, rather than being continually reinvested within a tax-deferred pension, IRA or 401(k) account. 

Estimated “subsidies” from tax deferral are deceptive: Instead of having recent dividends and capital gains taxed at a 15-20 percent rate in recent years, distributions from tax-deferred accounts will later be taxed at rates up to 39.6 percent. It’s a subsidy only if you don’t live much past 70.

Bernstein presents a graph showing the top 20 percent getting a 66 percent share of these “subsidies” for pensions and defined-contribution plans while the middle fifth gets only nine percent and the poorest 20 percent just two percent. What these figures actually demonstrate is that (1) people who work full-time for many years have more income to save than those who don’t, and that (2) people who pay no income tax cannot benefit from any policy that reduces taxable income, even temporarily.

There are five times as many workers in the top 20 percent than there are in the bottom 20 percent. To exclude young singles and old retirees, Gerald Mayer examined the work experience of households headed by someone between the working ages of 22 and 62. Average work hours among the poorest 20 percent still amounted to just 1,415 hours a year in 2010, while those in the middle fifth worked 2,771 hours, and the top 20 percent worked 4060 hours.

If Bernstein’s “subsidies” were properly expressed as shares of income, rather than as shares of foregone tax revenue, the differences nearly vanish. The Congressional Budget Office (the undisclosed source of his estimates) shows tax benefits for retirement savings worth only about twice as much to the top 20 percent (2 percent of net income) as to the middle 20 percent (0.9 percent of income). Retirement savings incentives appear to be worth only 0.4 percent of income to the poorest 20 percent, since they rarely owe taxes, yet annual benefits are a poor guide to lifetime benefits. Those in low income groups while they are young commonly move up to higher tax brackets by the time they start saving for retirement.

The alleged unfairness of lower-income households not getting the same dollar tax break as couples earning more than $115,100 (the top 20 percent) could be alleviated by reducing marginal tax rates on two-earner families. But Bernstein instead suggests “closing loopholes that make it easy for wealthy individuals to exceed contribution limits to tax-preferred accounts (as was found to be the case with Mitt Romney), reducing contribution limits for high-income filers, or simple limiting the value of tax breaks for the wealthiest of filers (e.g. allowing them to deduct such contributions at 28 percent instead of 39.6 percent.” None of these schemes would add a dime to the savings of low or middle-income households, of course, and they wouldn’t work.

It is not legal – and therefore not “easy”– to exceed strict contribution limits for high-income taxpayers, and Mitt Romney certainly did not do so.  What Romney did was to roll over qualified retirement plans into an IRA and then earn high compounded returns on very successful investments.  Similarly, albeit on a much smaller scale, I rolled-over a lump-sum pension into an IRA in 1990 when I changed jobs, and that IRA is now 12-times larger thanks to compound interest and bold investments.  Since I never contributed another dollar after 1990, tougher or lower contribution limits would have been entirely irrelevant.  

Bernstein’s final proposal is from the Obama budget – “allowing taxpayers to deduct contributions at 28 percent instead of 38.6 percent.” But that too is irrelevant. Any alleged “loopholes” for retirement savings have nothing to do with itemized deductions for top-bracket taxpayers, who are not allowed to deduct contributions to an IRA.  Failure to include employer contributions as taxable income is not an itemized deduction to begin with, nor is the exclusion from adjusted gross income for contributions to a Keogh retirement plan for the self-employed.  

In the process of giving “tax reform” a bad name, Jared Bernstein uses a sham fairness argument to justify arbitrary and unworkable anti-affluence policies that are irrelevant to any ill-defined problems. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

William Galston’s Not-So-Great Decoupling of Pay, Productivity, and Common Sense

Wall Street Journal columnist William A. Galston says “the Great Decoupling of wages and benefits from productivity [is] the biggest economic story of the past 40 years.”  Wow!  The Biggest Economic Story of the past 40 years!  Imagine that!  I have been researching such data longer than 40 years yet this particular story is so old (and so wrong) I had almost forgotten about it.   

The alleged decoupling of growth of pay from productivity, as Robert Gordon explained in 2009, “compares apples with oranges, and then oranges with bananas.” Median wages for the whole economy were deflated by the consumer price index, which exaggerated inflation and understated real income growth. Rapidly growing health and retirement benefits were often excluded. These muddled measures of real pay, which also failed to adjust for changing household size or hours, were compared to productivity of the nonfarm business sector, not the whole economy. And real output was calculated using GDP deflators that showed much less inflation than the CPI. With those errors, one estimate for the income-productivity gap from 1979-2007 was 1.46 percentage points, but Gordon’s adjustments shrunk that to a negligible 0.16. He also noted that mean and median incomes grew at remarkably similar rates, suggesting inequality did not explain much.

A 2013 study from the London School of Economics likewise found no significant gap between growth of compensation and productivity in the United States or UK (unlike the EU and Japan) if both measures are properly calculated with the same price index. The LSE study concluded that, “the debate around net decoupling in the UK and US is rather a distraction (it is actually more important in Continental Europe and Japan). Obtaining faster productivity growth is a highly desirable policy goal in the current climate of near recession as it will ultimately lead to faster wage growth and consumption.”

Galston tells other stories, such as “mobility has stalled” – which is indefensible nonsense. His allusion to the “past 40 years,” appears based on a Pew Research paper’s pointless claim that the “middle class” constituted a smaller share of adults in 2011 than in the idyllic year of 1971. As Pew Research hesitantly revealed, that is mainly because millions of people moved up – “the upper-income tier [earning more than double median income] rose to 20% of adults in 2011, up from 14% in 1971.”

All this statistical fog is thin camouflage for Galston’s invitation to grant authoritarian politicians and bureaucrats the discretion to somehow “link the tax rates individual firms have to the compensation practices they adopt.” That may well be the worst economic policy idea of the past 40 years, trailing barely behind Nixon’s dictatorial price controls.

Goldilocks, Canada, and the Size of Government

I feel a bit like Goldilocks.

Think about when you were a kid and your parents told you the story of Goldilocks and the Three Bears.

You may remember that she entered the house and tasted bowls of porridge that were too hot and also too cold before she found the porridge that was just right.

And then she found a bed that was too hard, and then another that was too soft, before finding one that was just right.

Well, the reason I feel like Goldilocks is because I’ve shared some “Rahn Curve” research suggesting that growth is maximized when total government spending consumes no more than 20 percent of gross domestic product. I think this sounds reasonable, but Canadians apparently have a different perspective.

Back in 2010, a Canadian libertarian put together a video that explicitly argues that I want a government that is too big.

Now we have another video from Canada. It was put together by the Fraser Institute, and it suggests that the public sector should consume 30 percent of GDP, which means that I want a government that is too small.

My knee-jerk reaction is to be critical of the Fraser video. After all, there are examples - both current and historical - of nations that prosper with much lower burdens of government spending.

IRS Officials Created a New Entitlement Program, Because They Felt Like It

Over at DarwinsFool.com, I summarize a lengthy report issued by two congressional committees on how the Treasury Department, the Internal Revenue Service, and the Department of Health and Human Services conspired to create a new entitlement program that is authorized nowhere in federal law. Here’s an excerpt in which I summarize the summary:

Here is what seven key Treasury and IRS officials told investigators.

In early 2011, Treasury and IRS officials realized they had a problem. They unanimously believed Congress had intended to authorize certain taxes and subsidies in all states, whether or not a state opted to establish a health insurance “exchange” under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. At the same time, agency officials recognized: (1) the PPACA plainly does not allow those taxes and subsidies in non-establishing states; (2) the law’s legislative history offers no support for their theory that Congress intended to allow them in non-establishing states; and (3) Congress had not given the agencies authority to treat non-establishing states the same as establishing states.

Nevertheless, agency officials agreed, again with apparent unanimity, to impose those taxes and dispense those subsidies in states with federal Exchanges, the undisputed plain meaning of the PPACA notwithstanding. Treasury, IRS, and HHS officials simply rewrote the law to create a new, unauthorized entitlement program whose cost “may exceed $500 billion dollars over 10 years.” (My own estimate puts the 10-year cost closer to $700 billion.)

The full post includes details some pretty stunning examples of how agency officials were derelict in their duty to execute faithfully the laws Congress enacts.