Economics in Plain English » Standard of Living

Models of Economic Growth and Development

Jason Welker — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 02:28:36 +0000

As we study economic development in year 2 IB Economics, we examine different models for economic growth. Growth in GDP is not the only determinant of economic development, which in order to be measured effectively must account for human welfare determinants such as life expectancy, literacy rates, child mortality rates, distribution of income, and so on. However, it has been shown throughout history that economic growth, or the increase in real output and income, correlates directly with improvements in development factors like those above.

The reason? Increases in national income usually mean at least some levels of improvement in access to basic necessities for the average citizen in a developing country. Also, higher incomes mean more savings, which means greater access to capital for investment by entrepreneurs. More investment leads to greater productivity and rising incomes for those who join the emerging industrial and service sectors that usually accompany economic growth. Furthermore, rising incomes mean more tax revenue for governments, whose spending on public goods like education, health care, and infrastructure result in real improvements in standard of living for not just the emerging upper and middle classes, but the poor as well.

Of course, the following models can be observed to varying degrees among the world’s developing economies today. Some of these models will fail to play out if the institutional and political environment fails to create a stable atmosphere for savings and investment. What you should notice, however, is the underlying importance of savings in all three models. Poor countries suffering from low savings and, even worse, capital flight, are doomed to a cycle of poverty, where funds for investment leading to productivity increases are never made available due to instable institutions like banking and politics. To put a poor country on a path towards economic growth and development, a strategy is needed. Such strategies will be covered in a later post. For now, let’s look at the models:

Harrod-Domar Growth Model:

The model suggests that the economy’s rate of growth depends on:

the level of saving
the productivity of investment i.e. the capital output ratio

The Harrod-Domar model was developed to help analyse the business cycle. However, it was later adapted to ‘explain’ economic growth. It concluded that:

Economic growth depends on the amount of labour and capital.
As LDCs often have an abundant supply of labour it is a lack of physical capital that holds back economic growth and development.
More physical capital generates economic growth.
Net investment leads to more capital accumulation, which generates higher output and income.
Higher income allows higher levels of saving.

Lewis Structural Change (dual-sector) Model:

Many LDCs have dual economies:

The traditional agricultural sector was assumed to be of a subsistence nature characterised by low productivity, low incomes, low savings and considerable underemployment.
The industrial sector was assumed to be technologically advanced with high levels of investment operating in an urban environment.

Lewis suggested that the modern industrial sector would attract workers from the rural areas.

Industrial firms, whether private or publicly owned could offer wages that would guarantee a higher quality of life than remaining in the rural areas could provide.
Furthermore, as the level of labour productivity was so low in traditional agricultural areas people leaving the rural areas would have virtually no impact on output.
Indeed, the amount of food available to the remaining villagers would increase as the same amount of food could be shared amongst fewer people. This might generate a surplus which could them be sold generating income.

Those people that moved away from the villages to the towns would earn increased incomes:

Higher incomes generate more savings.
Increased savings meant more fund available for investment.
Increased investment meant more capital and increased productivity in the industrial sector, higher wages, more incentive to move from low productivity agriculture to high productivity industry, the circle continues…

Rostow’s Model – the 5 Stages of Economic Development:

In 1960, the American Economic Historian, WW Rostow suggested that countries passed through five stages of economic development.

According to Rostow development requires substantial investment in capital. For the economies of LDCs to grow the right conditions for such investment would have to be created. If aid is given or foreign direct investment occurs at stage 3 the economy needs to have reached stage 2. If the stage 2 has been reached then injections of investment may lead to rapid growth.

Income inequality as a Market Failure

Jason Welker — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 09:39:53 +0000

The prevalence of income inequality in free market economies indicates that inequality may be the result of a market failure. Those who are born rich are more likely to become rich, while individuals who are born poor are more likely to live a life of relative poverty. In a “free” market, it is believed, all individuals possess an equal opportunity to succeed, but due to a mis-allocation of resources in a purely market economy, this may not always be the case.

The resources I refer to here are those required for an individual to escape poverty and earn a higher income. These include public and merit goods that those with high incomes can afford to consume, while those in poverty depend on the provision of from the state, including:

Good education
Dependable health care
Access to professional networks and the employment opportunities they provide

Whenever a market failure exists, it can be argued that there is a role for government in regulating the market to achieve a more optimal distribution of resources. When it comes to income inequality, government intervention typically comes in the form of a tax system that places a larger burden on the rich, and a system of government programs that transfer income from the rich to poor, including welfare benefits, unemployment benefits, healthcare for low income households, public schools and support for economic development in poor communities.

Many politicians and some economists like to argue that income inequality is not as evil as many people make it out to be, and that greater income inequality can actually increase the incentive for poorer households to work harder to get rich, contributing to the economic growth of the nation as a whole. Allowing the rich to keep more of their income, in this way, leads more people to want to work hard to get rich, as they will be able to enjoy the rewards of their hard work.

Another common argument is that higher income inequality leads to social and economic disruptions that can slow economic growth and bring an economy into a recession or a depression, since the middle and lower income groups in the nation will not benefit from a relatively equal share of the nation’s output, and over time will see their living standards drop and their overal productivity and contribution to national output decline.

The debate over inequality and what government can or should do about it is at ther root of many other economic debates today. A recent study by the Political Economy Research Institute of the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, provides support for those who support the second argument above. Here are some of the main discoveries from the study, “Searching for the Supposed Benefits of Higher Inequality: Impacts of Rising Top Shares on the Standard of Living of Low and Middle-Income Families”.

Discoveries of the study:

Some believe that increase inequality leads to more growth, others argue that it leads to less growth.

A more interesting question is whether rising income inequality leads to a higher standard of living for everyone in society, or whether standards of living decline for those in the middle as the percentage of total income earned by the top 10% increases.

The study found that the higher the percentage of income earned by the top 10%, the incomes of those in the middle and bottom of the income distribution actually decreases. Not just the percentage of total income, but the actual incomes of these groups falls as the rich get richer.

The popular belief is that reducing taxes on the rich increases the amount of investment in the economy, creating more jobs and helping increase incomes of the middle and lower income households. This theory is sometimes referred to as “trickle down” economics, as the increased incomes and wealth at the top will “trickle down” and raise the incomes of the rest of society as well.

However, actual data shows that a 10% increase in the share of total income earned by the top 10% of income earners leads to a 2% decline in the incomes of households in the middle of the income distribution (based on data for the period between 1979 and 2005).

It’s not just that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, rather that the rich getting richer makes the poor (and the middle income earners) poorer. This is a breakthrough discovery.

Possible explanations:

The rich contribute to growth abroad, rather than at home: Rich households’ higher incomes allow them to consume more domestic output and imported goods and services, but it also allows them to save more, which sometimes translates into more investment. But more investment does not always translate into domestic economic growth, since investment is now global. A rich American saving more does not mean American firms will have access to cheaper capital, as domestic savings may fuel investment in emerging markets or elsewhere abroad. Foreign investment resulting from savings among rich Americans counts as a leakage from America’s circular flow of income, leaving less income within America for the middle and low income earners. Essentially, much of the income earned by the rich is saved abroad, contributing to employment and growth overseas, reducing incomes of the middle class at home.
Reduced support for the provision of public goods: When examining living standards, more than just income must be considered, but also access to education, provision of health care and other public goods such as public safety and security. Richer households are less interested in things like public schools and social welfare programs, as they do not rely on these for their own well-being. Therefore, the richer the top 10% become, the greater their incentive to work against efforts to fund public education, public health and public safety. The underprovision of these social welfare enhancing goods by govenrment further widens the gap between the living standards of the richest and the middle class. Economist Robert Reich refers to this phenomenon as “the secession of the successful”.
Wage competition reduces incomes in the middle: Business owners, who make up a large percentage of the richest households in America, increase their own incomes to the extent that they can drive down the wages they pay their employees. In this way a higher share of national income is enjoyed by a smaller proportoin of society. The minimum wage has barely increased over time, and workers have less bargaining power as fewer workers than ever are members of labor unions; this has allowed business owners to pay lower wages over time, concentrating an increasing share of national income in business profits, and less and less in wages for workers.

In the video below, the study’s author shares some of the findings discussed above. Watch the video and respond to the discussion questions that follow.

Discussion Questions:

Summarize the argument against a government taking measures to redistribute its nation’s income to reduce the level of inequality between the rich and the poor.
Summarize the argument for a government reducing inequality.
Popular belief holds that “a rising tide lifts all boats”. In other words, if the total income of a nation is increasing, it does not matter if the rich are enjoying a larger percentage of the higher income than the poor and middle, because everyone is likely to be better off than if total income were not growing at all. Does the study discussed above support this popular view? Why or why not?
What measures can a government take to assure that higher national income leads to higher standards of living for everyone in society, including the middle class and the poor? Why might the highest income earners be opposed to such attempts by government?
Should government intervene to reduce the level of income inequality in society?

How do you support low income workers to reduce inequality? – A Singapore Case Study

Andrew McCarthy — Sun, 09 Jan 2011 03:12:11 +0000

I have lived in Singapore for two years now and am always interested in the nuances of the city state’s economy. In some measures Singapore has the one of the highest levels of Gross Domestic Product per capita in the world. As measured using Purchasing Power Parity, Singapore is ranked 7th in the world with $53,900 GDP per capita

: Marina Bay Sands – Singapore – World’s Most Expensive Standalone Casino at SG $8 Billion – credit (me)

Singapore also has a high, and growing level of income inequality which has been associated with the form of rapid economic growth. In 2009 Singapore was ranked as having the second highest level of income inequality in developed countries, with a Gini Coefficient score of 0.425. Hong Kong was 1st and USA 3rd. In most rapidly developing economies (China, Brazil, India) strong economic growth is leading to growing income inequality. The gains from growth are not being shared equally between all citizens and the rich continue to get richer at the expense of the poor. Here are some economic indicators from Singapore.

During 2010 Singapore’s Gross Domestic Product expanded by 14.7%. This is the fastest rate of economic growth in the world.
Since 1989 it’s GDP per capita has risen from $16,000 to $48,000.
Total Gross Domestic Product in Singapore Dollars has increased from $56 Billion in 1989 to $265 Billion.
The bottom 10% of the population now account for only 5% of the national income, compared to the top 10% of people who account for 49% of the income.

Each of the above statistics support the economic goals of Singapore except for the last bullet point. Singapore believes in inclusive growth and attaches a high degree of importance on the ideals of social cohesion. These statistics are a challenge to the goals of the country, which aims to allow all families to live in dignity and with material self sufficiency.

Therefore one possible way to increase the income of the lowest people is to introduce the concept of a minimum wage. Currently the free market determines the market wage. For some occupations such as cleaners, constructions workers and domestic helpers the market is awash which cheap labour from neighbouring countries such as the Philippines, Indonesia, India and Bangladesh. This drives down the market wage. The average domestic live in helper in Singapore would make $120 a week and construction workers slightly more. These workers also have the lowest bargaining power and are often unable to negotiate for higher wages. Thus free market wage seems to disadvantage low income workers in Singapore.

Introducing a Minimum Wage:

The minimum wage is a wage floor. In Singapore, employers would not be allowed to pay their employees a rate below the minimum wage and this presumes the minimum wage was binding and set above the prevailing market rates. Some would call this a living wage and would be set to enable citizens to enjoy a basic standard of life and subsistence.

The negative aspects of the minimum wage legislation would be an increase in unemployment. After the introduction of the minimum wage the market demand for workers would fall to LD. At a higher wage firms have less incentive to hire workers. The other important feature is that Labour Supply would increase at the level of the new minimum wage. More workers would be attracted into the workforce. This therefore creates a disequilibrium where Labour Demand does not equal Labour Supply. In the Labour Market this is known as unemployment. In Singapore potential foreign investors could be less willing to invest in a country with higher labour costs and the nations competitiveness with other economies could fall. After the introduction of minimum wages in Japan (1959), South Korea (1988) and Taiwan (1956) researches found no evidence of a fall in foreign investment or economic competitiveness.

Positive aspects of introducing a minimum wage?

To reduce poverty: To help reduce poverty for the bottom 20% of households in Singapore, a binding minimum wage set above the market wage would lift incomes. The lifting of incomes should also reduce the level of income inequality for low income households.
Taxes and Benefits: If workers begin to earn higher wages then tax receipts should increase. At the same time the level of financial support for such families will likely fall as they become more self sufficient. This could also help reduce government spending. Both of these effect will likely have a positive impact on the government budget.
The effect on worker productivity: Some economists believe that the increased wage might improve labour productivity. Workers may respond to their higher wage rate by working harder, possibly as a result of worrying about losing their job now that the increased wage rate has made it a more ‘sought after’ job. Employers may force through productivity improvements. Some workers will work shorter hours and achieve a greater work life balance and hopefully be more productive during these hours at work.

: Workers…. (count 7) fixing the road outside my street this week – Credit (me)

Market interventions are obvouisly not the only way to improve the incomes of low income households. Singapore currently does many small things to improve the quality of life for low income households. In my opinion in the long run the economy needs to think of other ways to increase incomes of low income households so that Singapore holds the value of social cohesion and does not become a infamous country of unequal incomes and extremes of wealth and poverty.

Subsidized Housing and Grants for first home buyers – HDB Scheme
Free education from Kindergarten to Secondary School.
Subsidized health care
Various financial assistance schemes including the Workfare Income Supplement

Resources and Background :

Minimum Wage Theory – S-Cool UK | Economics
“Don’t knock the minimum wage yet” | Tommy Tan – see commentary here (The Straits Times, A32, November 11th 2010)
CIA Factbook | Singapore Overview

Discussion Questions:

Describe the kind of tax system which could be developed to reduce income inequality?
Outline the difference between income and wealth?
What is the more concerning problem for governments, the inequality of wealth or income? Explain.
Evaluate the methods available to government to reduce income inequality.

Excellence and teacher pay: A New York charter school is not the only school paying teachers $100,000+!

Jason Welker — Fri, 03 Sep 2010 18:28:14 +0000

Next Test – Value of $125,000-a-Year Teachers – NYTimes.com

A New York City charter school is experimenting with paying teachers nearly triple the national average teacher salary of public schools. The article below describes the result:

So what kind of teachers could a school get if it paid them $125,000 a year?

An accomplished violist who infuses her music lessons with the neuroscience of why one needs to practice, and creatively worded instructions like, “Pass the melody gently, as if it were a bowl of Jell-O!”

A self-described “explorer” from Arizona who spent three decades honing her craft at public, private, urban and rural schools.

Two with Ivy League degrees. And Joe Carbone, a phys ed teacher, who has the most unusual résumé of the bunch, having worked as Kobe Bryant’s personal trainer.

“Developed Kobe from 185 lbs. to 225 lbs. of pure muscle over eight years,” it reads.

They are members of an eight-teacher dream team, lured to an innovative charter school that will open in Washington Heights in September with salaries that would make most teachers drop their chalk and swoon; $125,000 is nearly twice as much as the average New York City public school teacher earns, and about two and a half times as much as the national average for teacher salaries. They also will be eligible for bonuses, based on schoolwide performance, of up to $25,000 in the second year…

The school received 600 applications. Mr. Vanderhoek interviewed 100 in person.

It’s amazing to me that a school in NYC that pays $125,000 a year and expects teachers to work year round gets so much attention, while some international schools have been paying teachers nearly as much for decades to work a regular school year. Yet so many American teachers seem unaware of the career opportunities available at international schools! A salary of $100,000 is not unheard of in international schools, and often times that income is tax free (at least the majority of it, since it is considered “foreign earned income” by the IRS).

In economics we study how scarce resources are allocated by supply and demand in the market place. Demand for highly skilled, qualified teachers is huge in all kinds of schools, public, private, charter and international schools alike. But only once an American school like this New York charter school comes along and offers to pay teachers a salary more than double the national average (and then receives nearly a hundred applications for every opening) do we begin to read about teacher pay in the news and reflect on the roll it plays in attracting top notch, expert educators. From one economics teacher’s perspective, it should come as no surprise at all that when a school offers a higher salary it will attract better teachers and thereby improve the quality of the education it provides.

International schools have known this simple fact for years. Unlike the American public school system, which from state to state essentially resembles the “monopsonistic employer” model (meaning each state has a “monopoly” of sorts on the hiring of teachers), the market for international teachers is highly competitive. In most big cities, even, there are several international schools competing to attract the best educators from the limited supply available. And in a particular country, for instance China, there are dozens of private international schools, all seeking to offer the best quality education in order to increase demand for enrollment, competing against one another to hire the best teachers they can.

The result of the competition between international schools for student enrollment is increased competition for skilled, qualified teachers. Add to this the fact that year after year there end up being shortages of qualified international teachers and you end up with the perfect recipe for teachers like myself and all the colleagues I’ve worked with over the years, upward pressure on the salaries and benefits packages offered by international schools.

The lesson here is clear from my perspective. Increased competition among schools for student enrollment will lead to increased competition among schools for better teachers, and therefore better teacher pay. The NYC charter school set out with a clear vision in mind for achieving students success. Attract the best teachers and we’ll provide the best education. And in order to achieve this vision, it followed the most basic of economic principles, articulated so eloquently by Adam Smith himself:

Whoever offers to another a bargain of any kind, proposes to do this: Give me that which I want, and you shall have this which you want, is the meaning of every such offer; and it is in this manner that we obtain from one another the far greater part of those good offices which we stand in need of.

The bargain being offered to teachers in this case is an attractive salary, and all the schools in question are asking for in return is excellent teaching. “In this manner” schools obtain from teachers a commitment to excellence and teachers obtain from schools a salary that rewards them for this commitment. Society’s need for excellent education and teachers’ need for a living wage are met. But public schools go against this basic tenet of market doctrine when the monoposony that is the state public school system pays teachers not based on their achievement, training, excellence or results but on their years of service. The lack of competition for student enrollment leads to a failure of the incentive system for attracting good teaches, and what schools find themselves with is a burnt out, underpaid, disgruntled work force and test scores and student achievement that you’d expect to follow.

I hope this charter school succeeds. I hope the students’ scores surpass those of their public school peers. I hope this not because I like to see the old model of education fail, but because I would love to see a new model, based on the simple market principle that individuals respond to monetary incentives, succeed. I can say from experience that the competition among international schools for the limited supply of skilled teachers benefits all the stakeholders in question: teachers are paid better, the schools that pay the most attract the best teachers and thereby attract the greatest demand for enrollment. The market has worked! If the New York charter school succeeds, how can this be ignored. How can America’s other public schools not admit that to improve education, competition for students and teachers must be embraced.

Foreign Oil for i-Pods: Both Sides Win!

Steve Latter — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 17:16:11 +0000

More misleading economic statements from uninformed people who have never taken an economics course!

What about, you say?

I’m glad you asked!

I often read and hear in the American press that the United States is creating a giant wealth transfer by buying oil from other countries. Those “wealth transfer” words imply to the typical citizen that somehow our U.S. money supply is leaving our country, never to return again, and somehow our country is pooer after the transaction than if we had produced the oil within our own country.

Yes, the other country becomes wealthier but it has nothing to do with the US currency we send them, for, after all, the US dollars are only useless paper in their own economies as the US dollars cannot be spent in their own economy, but rather those same US dollars can be used to gain access to the US goods and services that those countries covet! The US also becomes financially better off due to the “trade” as the US can aquire our culturally, covetable and inexpensive oil to fuel our cars and heat our homes, in return for the various US products and services traded to the countries from which we imported the oil. In effect, we have “traded”, just like the old western cowboys & indians, US goods for oil, and both countries are better off!

Let me clear about one thing, however; I am fairly confident that it is NOT in our best homeland security interest in purchasing such a large share of oil purchases from countries like Saudi Arabia and Venezuela, whose loyalty to our country is certainly questionable. Luckily, the U.S. produces 40% of its own oil consumed and the other 60% consumed is imported from many different countries. Canada and Mexico are the two largest import countries, which is pretty darn safe.

However, ignoring the aforementioned security issue, when we buy from any of these countries, both countries benefit equally and there is NO transfer of wealth. When the U.S. buys oil from another country those U.S. dollars paid on the oil purchase are immediately returned to the United States and are spent almost immediately in our country since the other country cannot use our dollars in their country. What is really happening is that both countries’ citizens GAIN (not lose!) equally as we are, in essence, trading one product for another for both countries to enjoy!

Let’s use an example. Let’s say the U.S. buys 1000 barrels of oil from Saudi Arabia. At today’s oil price per barrel of $75 that would mean the U.S. would pay Saudi Arabia $75,000 and Saudi Arabia would then, in turn, be forced to turn around and use the paper ($75,000 USD!) on say, a bunch of iPods from Apple. Yes, the Saudi’s are listening to “I Kissed a Girl” by Katy Perry with their IPods hidden under those smart head robes they wear! Ladies and gentlemen: that is why they call it trade: the essence of the transaction is that we have traded some of our iPods for some oil to fuel our cars and heat our homes. Both of us have gained! Katy Perry is hot on the charts and the Saudi’s are boogying in the streets, as US citizens can now drive freely to 7-Eleven for a Big Gulp and stay warm in the winter with the oil received in return.

Also, think of it this way: when an American buys a gallon of gas the money is, ultimately, going to an American business such as Apple! All spending of US dollars is spent back into our economy, and all spending of Saudi dollars (actually they call their currency the “dollar” also but it doesn’t look like ours!) benefit the Saudi economy.

Yes, trade is mutually beneficial. I would rather a warm home this winter and forego another Katy Perry song!

Questions for Discussion:

1. Have you ever realized why they call it “trade”? That each country cannot use the other country’s currency so, in essence, there is a simply a trade of only products and services.

2. The US has a large trade deficit with China and Japan. Why is China and Japan holding on to US dollars and not spending it back into the US? Have they thrown the US dollars away?

3. Do you believe that free trade is a win-win always? If not, why not? Why do nations interfere (tariffs, quotas, etc.) with trade if it is so beneficial?

Surprise! Product prices have been falling for decades!

Steve Latter — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 15:27:51 +0000

I wonder how many people in countries like Switzerland, Brazil, Canada, Russia, and China, and the United States would be surprised to learn that prices of products and services in their countries have become much less expensive over the years.

Say what? You must be crazy, you say! Prices are rising way too fast!

Yes, most citizens see their purchases as becoming more expensive when, in actuality, things are becoming less expensive. Of course, the paradox is that although nominal prices (the actual price tag) are, in fact, increasing, nominal income (the average wage or salary) has been growing faster. This is a topic that in economics is called “real income” or a measurement that compares a nation’s income growth relative to the growth in prices that the same income buys.

Let’s take some specific facts for the United States:
In the United States real median household income grew from $41,318 to $50,811 from 1970 through 2006 for a total percentage gain of 23% (source: Pew Research Center). Both of the aforementioned median household incomes are stated in 2008 or current dollars which makes the comparison valid. Median household income is an attempt to quantify the progress that the “middle American” family or typical family has made. So, in short, the median household in America can buy 23% more with their income today than they could in 1970. In other words, relative prices are lower to income.

If we look at the same United States income data over the same period for real average household income, there is real income growth of nearly 60%. The higher growth (60%) in real incomes for the average household versus the median (middle) growth rate (23%) is explained by the fact that much of the growth in United States’ real incomes has accrued disproportionately to the college educated & entrepreneurs driving up real income growth rates much faster for the average than the median or middle household. (Hint: continue your education!)

Now let’s get back to the main premise of the title of this blog and the opening assertion that prices are lower than ever. What we are really saying is that you have to benchmark price increases to income increases to really understand whether things are becoming more expensive. The vast majority of products & services are cheaper today in all nations than they have ever been before, which helps explain, excluding the effects of the current recession, why more citizens than ever before can afford to own their own houses, drive more and better cars, and are likely to have cable, cell phones, and computers. The reason we are led to believe differently is because we are victims of our own human nature, which often causes us to focus on the problem areas (rising prices) and not the benefits (incomes that are rising faster). Most citizens’ focus expands out to the last dollar of their incomes and they quickly notice those select products that are rising faster than others like health care, gasoline prices, and education! Hey, even gasoline prices are not at an all relative price high. If gasoline prices in the United States are restated for inflation, or set to comparable 2009 dollars, they are $2.60 per gallon today vs. $3.17 in 1981 and $3.50 in 1918!

Now, you may say to yourself that statistics can lie or mislead and you are sure in your gut that things are getting more expensive relatively. You can try to validate that incorrect “gut feeling” by examining whether your country’s middle class is enjoying less or more products and services. “Real income” really is just a measurement of the quantity and quality of products and services that you have. For example, the average American household has larger homes, more cars, more air conditioning, more gadgets, and better healthcare & prescription drugs than, say, 20 years ago.

But let’s end this blog with a concern. Although everything noted above is accurate, the pace of real income growth has been relatively slow over the last 10 years, especially for the middle class in the United States. Most of that growth in real income mentioned above has occurred up until this current decade. For the last 10 years, median family income growth in the U.S. has been very small and the average income growth has been higher but below the U.S. historical experience. There are many reasons for this slowdown in real income growth, but three big reasons are that

the U.S. has now had two recessions this decade (2001 and 2007-current, versus our historical average of only 1 per decade), and
energy and health care prices have risen much faster, and
foreign labor competition and technology advancement has kept the uneducated/unskilled U.S. workers real income relatively stagnant. More than ever before, a good education is the ticket to your economic future!

Discussion Questions:

Inflation is bad, right? Well, what if average prices rise by 2% a year but average incomes rise by 3%. What happens to real income in this situation? Is the average household better or worse off in such a scenario?
How have trade and globalization contributed to rising real wages in America and Swizerland?
How have trade and globalization contributed to falling nominal wages in America and Switzerland?
How do improvments in technology contribute to rising real wages in both developed and developing economies? What about health and education?
What types of policies can government pursue to help raise the real wages of the nation’s workers?

Economics: The 180 Degree Science!

Steve Latter — Sun, 30 Aug 2009 14:29:34 +0000

Now is that time of year when thousands of high school and college students across the world will be taking their very first economics course. Perhaps it will be a basic, high school introductory economics’ course, or perhaps an even more challenging AP or IB economics’ course. Or perhaps you are a freshman or sophomore in college taking an introductory macroeconomics or microeconomics course.

Whatever your situation, you will soon read that all introductory economic text book authors make the point, usually in their respective text’s first chapter, that a primary benefit of studying economics is that it aims to transform one into a more effective and influential citizen by enabling one to better understand and conclude on the economic positions and promises of those running for public office. The underlying logic is that a citizen or voter that is well-versed in basic economic principles will be a smarter citizen and more likely to vote for the political candidate or referendum that will deliver the greatest economic gain for the citizens of the locality, state, and/or nation. In fact, this “economics for citizenship” reason is why a growing number of states now require completion of a basic economics course as a requirement for high school graduation.

In my classroom, I informally call the study of economics “the 180 degree science” because as the student studies this social science for the very first time they often develop conclusions that are precisely the opposite (hence, the “180 degrees”) of what they had originally believed before taking their first economics course.

For example, here are two “180 degree moments”, which are applicable to the United States’ economy, that you may well learn in your first year economics’ course:

1. Pre-Econ Course or Uninformed View: “We don’t make anything anymore in America. America’s manufacturing prowess is in a state of constant decline. It seems like almost everything bought and used in the U.S. is made in China”

Post-Econ Course and 180 Degree View: Right before the recession hit in 2007, the U.S. was manufacturing approximately 2.5 times more in dollar value than China and is still today the largest manufacturer in the world. The dollar value of manufactured goods in the United States, restated for price level changes so the comparison is accurate, is up over 50% for the last 13 years ending in June of 2007, just prior to the recession! Yes, it is true that the U.S. has lost several million jobs in manufacturing over that same time period, but that is primarily due to rising manufacturing productivity (think machines & technology replacing humans), where the U.S. can now produce more valuable manufactured products than ever before freeing up those displaced manufacturing workers who now have found or must find employment in other more labor-intensive service-related businesses.

Moreover, the US has maintained its percentage share of rising global manufacturing product over that same aforementioned time period, whereas other countries, such as Japan and Germany, have actually decreased their percentage share of global manufactured product. More specifically, in 2006 U.S. manufacturing revenue, profits, exports, and productivity per employee reached their all time peak! Of course, with the current recession and the regression of the U.S. automobile industry, manufacturing levels are now below the levels of 2006. According to government statistics, manufacturing still accounts for slightly over a third of our economic activity and the U.S. will continue to grow in production value, although manufacturing will continue to decline as a percentage of overall economic activity as the United States is growing faster in services than in manufacturing.

2. Pre-Econ Course or Uninformed View: “It is patriotic for U.S. citizens to “buy American” so that we can help our own economy. When we buy foreign products (i.e., exports), in lieu of American products, we hurt our U.S. economy as we lose American jobs and incomes. I hope the recently passed stimulus bill monies will be spent entirely on U.S. products and services.”

Post-Econ Course and 180 Degree View: The U.S. will benefit the most economically if Americans buy what they consider to be the very best product, in terms of price and quality, regardless of whether it is a foreign-produced product or an American-produced product. One of the greatest “ah-ha” moments in all of economics is when an economics’ student or citizen learns for the first time that every time a U.S. buyer purchases a foreign product (i.e., an “import”) that those same U.S. dollars spent on the foreign product circle back to a U.S.- based company, not a foreign company. Yes, I am telling you that when you (or Wal-Mart, for example) buy Chinese shirts, your same U.S. dollars spent quickly end up in the hands of, say, an Apple, Microsoft, IBM, or General Electric to maintain or increase U.S. employment, profits, and stock prices!

Let me try to explain this concept in more detail so that I may actually be able to convince you of this amazing “180 degree” revelation. I always say the more accurate slogan should be “Buying American is Un-American”, since it creates a weaker America!

Let’s say that the United States (we’ll say Wal-Mart) decides to buy some shirts costing $400 from a Chinese shirt manufacturer, in lieu of buying similar shirts from, say, a shirt manufacturer in Elon, North Carolina (USA). The first key point is that when Wal-Mart buys the shirts from China for $400 it can only pay China with US dollars. Why? Because Wal-Mart has only US dollars! It has no Chinese currency (Yuan). It literally drains its bank account of US dollars that are transferred/paid to China! The second key point is that when China receives that same $400 US dollars for the shirts, China cannot, unfortunately, spend any of the $400 in its own economy since only the Yuan is accepted as a medium of exchange in China! China is now forced to either throw the U.S. currency away (not advised!), or immediately spend the money back to the USA (advised!).

In summary, China has initially traded a product (shirts!) for paper (US dollars!), and those US dollars cannot be spent in China. For China to receive any value at all for the shirts it sent to America, China must now spend the $400 back into the US economy for, say, a few i-Pods from Apple (USA). Cutting through to simplicity, in essence, it’s almost as if Wal-Mart (USA) just paid Apple (USA) $400 directly! Yes, the economic “punch line” is that all spending by the domestic nation on foreign products (imports), in turn, are spent immediately back to the domestic nation increasing or maintaining that domestic nation’s employment, income, and standard of living.

And, yes, let’s not forget about that Elon, North Carolina shirt maker that did not get the original $400 from Wal-Mart in our above example! Any good economy promotes competition and I will be excited to see if that North Carolina shirt manufacturer can “raise their game” (increase productivity and/or quality), and hopefully get the next shirt contract from Wal-Mart! If not, well, that North Carolina firm may just have to close down. But remember the key point is that the $400 spent for the Chinese shirts went to Apple, in lieu of the Elon, North Carolina shirt manufacturer. If Wal-Mart would have “bought American” by buying from the Elon shirt manufacturer, even though the Chinese shirts were preferable, Wal-Mart would have prevented the more effective U.S. business (Apple, in this example) from getting your U.S. dollars by giving them to the less efficient Elon manufacturer. In short, you would have contributed to American inefficiency and mediocrity, hurting our country! And that is un-American!

Now, you may be thinking the following if you have a little economics’ background: “But the US has a growing trade deficit with China, so China may not immediately buy those i-Pods from Apple for $400. And, you are correct, but that is also not a problem for either the United States or China. What China is really doing right now is deciding to temporarily save or invest a minority percentage of their US dollars received from U.S. import purchases. Said another way, China is not buying as many US i-Pods as the US is buying Chinese shirts and, of course, we call that situation the US trade deficit which immediately seems to speak “problem”. But it is really not as big a problem as most people think! China is still spending their “saved” US dollars back into the US economy, but in different ways. China is saving and investing some of those US dollars directly into the United States economy by building plants in America, buying US stock to fund American companies’ expansions, and temporarily saving some of their dollars, for future US purchases, by buying US bonds to help the US government pay for other US government initiatives necessitating borrowing. Eventually, China will sell these US bonds and be forced to use those U.S. dollars to buy those i-Pods or build more plants in America to employ more Americans!

I decided to highlight this particular “180 degree moment” because of the fact that the recently passed $800 Billion U.S. stimulus bill has some “buy American” provisions within it. Based on my intuition, I believe that over 95% of adult Americans believe that these “buy American” clauses somehow help our economy more so than if the stimulus bill was silent on “buy American”, thus allowing stimulus money to be spent on foreign-produced products as well. Yes, it is an economic principle that if U.S. citizens “buy American” driven solely by patriotism (and not because they think the product is superior) the American economy actually becomes weaker as the U.S. dollars spent out of patriotism on that American company are, therefore, unintentionally withheld from another more efficient and deserving American company.

In summary, when citizens of any country in the world buy the product that is best for them based on a combination of quality and price, they will be taking the most patriotic action possible to help their own country they love so much! If a domestic citizen sees the foreign product as a better alternative to the domestic product, buy it! Your money spent will immediately find its way back through the “trade loop” to another business within your country!

Of course, this is why all economists from around the world know that international trade, and not protectionism, helps a country’s standard of living and promotes efficiency and rising standard of livings!

Well enough for now. I could go on and on with more 180 degree moments relating to areas such as standard of living, unemployment, the minimum wage, gasoline taxes, and many others. But we’ll discuss some of those in class and I will cover others through this blog site. For now, I just really hope you look forward to and work hard in your economic course so that, you too, will become a more informed and influential citizen as you begin to see your nation’s economy, and our global economy, in a whole new light!

Discussion Questions:

1. Do you believe that politicians will promise and enact policy that seems on the surface to be beneficial to a nation, but are actually harmful to that nation?

2. After reading this blog do you begin to see how the huge declines in manufacturing employment are more driven by leaps in productivity (machines and know-how)? How else could we be producing more manufacturing value each year if employment is decreasing?

3. What would happen to a nation’s “standard of living” if the government passed a law requiring its citizens to only buy their own domestic products? Why?

4. Do you personally believe you will make your own country’s standard of living grow the fastest if you buy the best product available, whether an import (foreign) or a domestic product?

Regressive or progressive taxes: Which road to follow towards fiscal discipline?

Jason Welker — Thu, 28 May 2009 12:14:14 +0000

Once Considered Unthinkable, U.S. Sales Tax Gets Fresh Look – washingtonpost.com

Here in Switzerland I enjoy the luxury of having to pay a relatively small federal income tax of 9.6%. In the US, at my current income level, I would be paying a 25% federal income tax. On the other hand, everything I buy here in Switzerland, from food to clothes to train tickets and bike parts, costs me an additional 7.6% of value added tax. If a product is imported, chances are there is also an additional 20% import tariff. In other words, what I save coming in (because of the low direct tax) I lose going out (through high indirect taxes).

The incentive, therefore, is to save as much of my income as possible. I shop much less than I would in the US where indirect taxes are much lower, but when I do shop prices are much higher. Much of Switzerland’s government revenue comes from the value added tax and other indirect taxes, which means households keep much more of their earned income.

In the United States, where the government has not seen a balanced budget since 2001, there has been much talk about creating a national sales tax to help raise revenue to pay for many of the social plans that the Obama administration wants to pursue, such as national health care. VATs and sales taxes are regressive, which means more of the tax burden is born by low income households compared with high a direct, income tax, which is progressive, meaning the higher a household’s income, the greater percentage it pays. But with budget shortfalls expected to reach $4 trillion over the next four years, new sources of tax revenue are needed.

“Everybody who understands our long-term budget problems understands we’re going to need a new source of revenue, and a VAT is an obvious candidate,” said Leonard Burman, co-director of the Tax Policy Center, a joint project of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution, who testified on Capitol Hill this month about his own VAT plan. “It’s common to the rest of the world, and we don’t have it.”

The surge of interest in a VAT is testament to the extraordinary depth of the nation’s money troubles. While some conservatives have long argued that a consumption tax would provide a simpler and more efficient alternative to the byzantine U.S. income tax code, this time it’s all about the money.

To counter claims that a national sales tax is regressive, advocates point out that such a tax would allow the federal government to lower income tax rates for low income Americans, giving them more disposable income to spend on goods and services, which would be more expensive because of the VAT.

Another option the government should consider is a tax on greenhouse gas emissions. Currently, Obama is advocating a carbon permit market, which would be less effective at generating income for the government as permits, once they are issued or auctioned to industry, are bought and sold by firms, creating revenue for companies and not the government. A carbon tax, on the other hand, would create new tax revenue for the federal government and help reduce the negative externalities causing global warming and encourage development of alternative “green” methods of production.

In the short-term, it is unlikely that the US government will legislate any significant new taxes. Carbon taxes have been ignored by the Obama administration and Congress, under the argument that during a recession any new tax on industry might just break the nation’s manufacturing and energy sectors’ backs. A VAT is just as unpopular, for the reason that any policy raising consumer prices puts even greater burden on already strapped household incomes. Tradeable carbon permits are popular for the reason that they appear to be a “market based” approach to reducing greenhouse gas emissions; but Congress is talking about putting a price ceiling on carbon permits of $28 per ton, a price at which the incentives to reduce emissions among firms is minimal.

America’s long period of strong growth, low savings, and deficit financed government spending will necessitate belt-tightening in the near future as ultimately the government will have to start financing its budgets through tax revenues, not the issuing of new debt. Carbon taxes, higher marginal income taxes, or a national sales tax are all options the Obama administration can choose from. For now, it appears it’s choosing none of these, and instead selling more bonds to the public, foreigners, and the Fed, increasing the moneys supply in the hope that households and firms begin spending once more. The path towards fiscal discipline is a hard one to get started on, especially during a recession when no new taxes are politically viable.

Discussion Questions:

What make’s a sales tax regressive if everyone has to pay, say, 10% on top of the regular sales price of a good or service?
How does the US government finance its massive budgets when its revenue from taxes don’t even come close to equaling the amount of spending?
Why is it important for a country, in the long-run, to achieve a balnced budget?
What would you prefer to do: pay a higher income tax or a higher sales tax? What are the pros and cons of direct versus indirect taxes?

3 million job openings! Good news… or is it?

Jason Welker — Mon, 04 May 2009 17:04:36 +0000

Help Wanted: Why That Sign’s Bad – BusinessWeek

This week’s cover story in Business Week magazine tells an interesting story about unemployment in America. Listen to the podcast or follow the link above to read more of this story:

Surprising statistic: In the midst of the worst recession in a generation or more, with 13 million people unemployed, there are approximately 3 million jobs that employers are actively recruiting for but so far have been unable to fill. That’s more job openings than the entire population of Mississippi.

Sound like good news? It’s not. Instead, it’s evidence of an emerging structural shift in the U.S. economy that has created serious mismatches between workers and employers. People thrown out of shrinking sectors such as construction, finance, and retail lack the skills and training for openings in growing fields including education, accounting, health care, and government. At the same time, the worst housing bust in decades has left the unemployed frozen in place. They can’t move to get work because they can’t sell their homes.

In IB and AP Economics we teach that there are three types of unemployment an economy may experience, ranked roughly in order from the least undesirable to the most undesirable (from a macroeconomic perspective):

Frictional unemployment: This accounts for people who are “in between jobs” or fresh out of college looking for their first jobs.
Structural unemployment: This is caused by the changing structure of an economy. As America’s manufacturing sector shrinks and its education and health care sectors grown, those whose skills lie in manufacturing become structurally unemployed.
Cyclical unemployment: This is also called “demand-deficient” unemployment because it is caused by a fall in aggregate demand or overall spending in the economy.

America today is clearly experiencing all three types, but due to the particular circumstances of the recession, the American worker is finding it it harder than ever to match his skills with an appropriate job. Below are some of the industries with the most and the fewest job openings today:

Most openings:

Education
Health care
Government
Energy (such as wind, oil, natural gas)
“Analytics” (i.e. business data analysis by firms such as IBM)

Fewest openings:

Construction
Manufacturing

Unfortunately for the large numbers of unemployed construction and factory workers, the kinds of skills required to work in the fields with the most job openings are prohibitively different from those learned in their previous industries. In addition to a mismatch of skills between the industries in which jobs are being lost and those in which labor is in demand, there is also a geographic mismatch in the labor market. Below are the states with the least and the most job openings:

Most job vacancies (states with large energy sectors: oil, natural gas and windmills)

North Dakota
Wyoming

Least job vacancies (states with large manufacturing and construction sectors)

North Carolina
California
Michigan

Historically, the geographic factor has not posed an issue to American workers, and when jobs opened up in one part of the country, Americans would pack up and move where necessary to find work. Today, however, with the collapse of house prices, more and more Americans find themselves stuck with a house they can’t sell in a part of the country where they can’t find a job.

To paraphrase the podcast above, “the US in danger of looking like Europe. The European job market has been described as ‘sclerotic’; people don’t respond to want ads because of the generous long-term unemployment benefits offered by European governments. Europeans have historically been geographically immobile due to nationalist ties to their home countries.” Today, the US job market reflects some of the same “sclerosis” as that of Europe.

America is facing the perfect storm of unemployment. At the same time that the economy is undergoing its most significant structural change since the Industrial Revolution brought millions of American workers from the farm fields into factories, it is facing the most significant decline in private sector spending (consumption, investment and exports) since the great depression. Put this together with the relative immobility of the American worker caused by the housing crisis, and unemployment has climbed to its highest level in three decades.

This interesting story ends with a glimmer of hope for the American worker:

To fight this sclerosis, the White House is using $3.5 billion of the stimulus for training, while boosting support for community colleges. Classes for factory workers seeking entry-level health-care careers have shown some success.

The truth is, displaced workers may have to move down a few rungs as they switch careers because their skills are irrelevant in their new roles… Many laid-off Wall Street financial engineers still haven’t absorbed that, says Fred Wilson, a partner in Union Square Ventures, a New York venture capital firm. “For them to take a job that pays a lot less, they have to make a meaningful change in their lifestyle. And that is an issue.”

Employers need to bend as well, recognizing that the candidates they’re seeking may not exist. Mark Mehler, co-founder of CareerXRoads, a staffing strategy consulting firm in Kendall Park, N.J., tells employers: “You’re hiring potential….You’ve got to train them.”

A mismatch of work and workers is never a good thing. But smart policy—combined with realism on the part of employers and job seekers—can minimize the disruption.

Discussion Questions:

In what way may structural unemployment be a sign of a healthy economy, rather than a sick one?
Part of the Obama stimulus package includes increased benefits for unemployed Americans. How may this pose an obstacle to reducing unemployment in America?
Historically, the natural rate of unemployment in most European economies has been higher than that of the United States. Why is this?
Do you think America’s NRU will return to its historic level (4-6%) when the economy eventually recovers from the current crisis? Why or why not?

“Buy American” is Un-American (The U.S. Stimulus Package)

Steve Latter — Sat, 07 Mar 2009 19:13:51 +0000

One of the greatest “ah-ha” moments in all of economics is when an economics’ student or citizen learns for the first time that every time a domestic buyer purchases a foreign product or import that those same U.S. dollars spent on the foreign product go to a U.S.-based company, not a foreign company. Yes, I am telling you that when you (or Wal-Mart) buy Chinese shirts, your same U.S. dollars spent quickly end up in the hands of, say, Apple, Microsoft, Garmin, or General Electric to increase U.S. employment, profits, and U.S. stock prices!

I decided to write this particular blog because of the fact that the recently passed $800 Billion U.S. stimulus bill has some “buy American” provisions within it. Based on an intuitive hunch, I believe that over 99% of adult Americans believe that these “protectionist” clauses somehow help our economy. Yes, the vast majority of U.S. adults believe that it is clearly more advantageous to “buy American” in order to keep the money or wealth within America in order to increase U.S. employment, profits, and U.S. stock prices. In true economic fact, however, if U.S. citizens “buy American” solely out of patriotism (and not because they think it is a superior product) they actually HURT America because the U.S. dollars spent out of patriotism on that American company are, therefore, unintentionally withheld from another more efficient and deserving American country via the “trade loop”.

Let me try to explain this “trade loop” in more detail so that I may actually be able to convince you of this amazing “180 degree” revelation: “Buy American” is Un-American

Let’s say that the United States (we’ll say Wal-Mart) decides to buy many shirts costing $400 from a Chinese shirt manufacturer, in lieu of buying those same shirts from, say, a shirt manufacturer in Elon, North Carolina (USA). The first key point is that when Wal-Mart buys the shirts from China for $400 it can only pay China with US dollars. Why? Because Wal-Mart has only US dollars! It has no Chinese currency (Yuan). It literally drains its bank account of US dollars that are transferred/paid to China! The second key point is that when China receives that same $400 US dollars for the shirts, China cannot, unfortunately, spend any of the $400 in its own economy since only the Yuan is accepted as a medium of exchange in China! China is now forced to either throw the U.S. currency away (not advised!), or immediately spend the money back to the USA (advised!).

In summary, China has initially traded a product (shirts!) for paper (US dollars!), and those US dollars cannot be spent in China. For China to receive any value at all for the shirts it sent to America, China must now spend the $400 back into the US economy for, say, a global positioning system (GPS) from FleetMatics out of Waverly, Massachusetts (USA). Cutting through to simplicity, in essence, it’s almost as if Wal-Mart (USA) just paid FleetMatics (USA) $400 directly!

Yes, the economic “punch line” is that all spending by the domestic nation on foreign products (imports), in turn, are spent immediately back to the domestic nation increasing the domestic nation’s employment, income, and standard of living. (Note; this is also shown and reported in a nation’s balance of payments schedule if you are skeptical about what you are reading!)

And, yes, let’s not forget about that Elon, North Carolina shirt maker that did not get the original $400 from Wal-Mart in our above example! Any good economy promotes competition and I am excited to see if that North Carolina shirt manufacturer can “raise their game” (increase productivity and/or quality), and hopefully get the next shirt contract from Wal-Mart! If not, well, that North Carolina firm may just have to close down. But remember, the key point, the $400 spent for the shirts went to Fleetmatics in Waverly, Massachusetts, in lieu of the Elon, North Carolina shirt manufacturer. If you would have “bought American” even though the Chinese shirts were preferable, you would have prevented the more effective U.S. business in Waverly from getting your U.S. dollars by giving them to the less efficient Elon manufacturer. In short, you would have contributed to American inefficiency and slowing productivity, hurting our country! And that is un-American!

Now, you may be thinking the following if you have a little economics’ background: “But the US has a growing trade deficit with China, so China may not immediately buy that GPS system from FleetMatics for $400. And, you are correct, but that is also not a problem for either the United States or China. What China is really doing right now is deciding to temporarily save or invest a minority percentage of their US dollars received form U.S. import purchases. Said another way, China is not buying as many GPS’ as the US is buying shirts and, of course, we call that phenomenon the US trade deficit which immediately seems to speak “problem”. But it is really not as big a problem as most people think! China is still spending their “saved” US dollars back into the US economy, but in different ways. China is saving and investing some of those US dollars directly into the United States economy by building plants in America, buying US stock to fund American companies’ expansions, and temporarily saving some of their dollars, for future US purchases, by buying US bonds to help the US government pay for other US government initiatives necessitating borrowing. Eventually, China will sell these US bonds and be forced to use those U.S. dollars to buy that GPS system or build more plants to employ more Americans!

How Much Does One Need to be Rich?

Steve Latter — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 22:49:06 +0000

CHICAGO, January 7, 2008 – How much money does it take to be considered rich? It turns out that $1 million just doesn’t cut it, anymore.

In fact, rich today requires at least $5 million, according to a new survey of affluent households, defined as those with investable assets of $500,000 or more. When asked how much money it takes to be rich, 45% chose $5 million, 25% selected $25 million, and 8% picked $100 million, according to the research by Millionaire Corner (http://www.millionairecorner.com/index.php), a newly launched website powered by Spectrem Group. Only 22% said $1 million is enough to be rich.

Achieving such wealth – and holding onto it for generations – is the topic of a new book by Spectrem’s Catherine S. McBreen and George H. Walper, Jr. titled “Get Rich, Stay Rich, Pass It On: The Wealth Accumulation Secrets of America’s Richest Families” (http://getrichstayrich.net/). Published this month by Portfolio and available in bookstores now, the book is based on years of research in addition to interviews with ordinary individuals who were able to amass enough wealth to pass on to future generations. “All you really need is to know how to use the same wealth-building tools Carnegie and du Pont and all the other progenitors of sustainable fortunes used,” McBreen and Walper write. “They created the model but they didn’t patent it. It’s available for your use, and this book is the operating manual.”

The authors found that the proper mix of entrepreneurial activities and income-producing real estate is the key to achieving building perpetual wealth. “Get Rich, Stay Rich, Pass It On” walks readers through not only the theory but the practice of building sustainable fortunes. It not only lays out the model, but provides exercises to help readers bring their own finances into focus and determine what they need to do to develop perpetual wealth of their own.

* * *

The data on how much it takes to be rich are based on 253 telephone interviews conducted in December 2007, with a margin of error of plus or minus 6.2 percentage points. Interviews were conducted with the financial decision-makers in households with $500,000 or more in investable assets.

The importance of incentives in achieving poverty alleviation: Venezuela vs. Brazil

Jason Welker — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 10:50:00 +0000

Managing Globalization: To reduce poverty, money isn’t everything – International Herald Tribune

Two developing countries: Venezuela and Brazil. Two ideologies underpinning economic growth and development: command in Venezuela versus free market in Brazil. Which system has worked better for the people of these two large South American countries?

How much can governments do to fight poverty? In South America, a couple of answers are emerging in the growing economies of Venezuela and Brazil. Both governments have publicly pledged billions of dollars to raise living standards – but have they succeeded?

Overall income is moving upward in both countries, if for different reasons. Venezuela is riding the black tide of high-priced oil, while Brazil’s relatively firm economic policies have built confidence in its business prospects among both locals and foreigners.

The president of Venezuela, Hugo Chávez, has portrayed himself as an ardent socialist and a disciple of Fidel Castro. Reducing inequality is fundamental to his agenda, whether by dividing up Venezuela’s oil wealth or, as he has obliquely suggested this month, through land reform. His consolidation of executive power has brought Venezuela closer to a centrally planned economy and, as such, has given him the opportunity to invest heavily in social programs.

But identifying the results isn’t easy. The poverty rate in Venezuela was about 50 percent when Chávez’s presidency began in 1999, according to the government’s own figures. Since then, roughly equal numbers of people have fallen into and out of poverty at various times, with a spike to more than 60 percent in 2003 and a drop below 40 percent in 2005…

Rodríguez also questioned whether Chávez’s programs could be completely effective because of the way they were managed. Some of the world’s most successful initiatives for improving the well-being of the poor, he said, linked families’ benefit payments to useful actions like their children’s attendance in school or visits to the doctor. In Venezuela, he said, the link is to political loyalty instead.

“The level of political polarization has become so high that not only is loyalty to the regime the key determinant of your access to benefits, it is also the key determinant of your capacity to be involved in the administration of those benefits to others,” Rodríguez said.

One example of this problem was a program intended to improve literacy. “The government had no system of accountability to monitor performance other than the reports of its own administrators,” Rodríguez said. “When program administrators learned that it was more important to show loyalty to the regime than to effectively run the program, any incentives that they had to administer resources efficiently, from a social point of view, disappeared.”

In Venezuela, president Chavez’s socialist inspired, command policies, paid for by the sale of expensive oil to the rest of the world have led to benefits primarily for those citizens willing to show political loyalty to Chavez and his party. Hard work and productivity is not rewarded as much as loyalty and support for the government. This system of incentives leads to some poor outcomes. The result? Only mediocre improvements in poverty rates, literacy, employment and health of the people.

In Brazil, where free market principles underlie much of the economic development policies, monetary benefits for development workers and the families they serve are linked not to political affiliation but to actual behavior of households and government employees. The result, not surprisingly, has been real improvements in education, health, and poverty levels amongst Brazilians.

Meanwhile, in Brazil, progress appears to have been more widespread. Figures compiled last year by Rômulo Paes de Sousa of the Ministry of Social Development and Fight Against Hunger, covering the period from 1999 through 2004, painted a rosy picture: School attendance was up, while illiteracy was down. Life expectancy was up, but hospital visits were down. Employment was up, and child labor was down.

Again, however, it’s difficult to say with certainty where the credit should go… [perhaps] to the simple fact that Brazil’s monetary benefits for families are indeed linked to actions like attendance in school, prenatal care and childhood vaccinations?

The lesson here? In a command economy like Venezuela’s, in which the government decides how resources are to be allocated, it appears that real improvements in people’s lives are not as important as political loyalty. Because most people involved in economic development work for the government, they focus on making themselves appear more dedicated and loyal to president Chavez, in order to make sure they get paid more and promoted up the ladder.

In Brazil’s free market economy, on the other hand, rewards are based on performance, not political loyalty. Brazilians have enjoyed access to a wider variety of efficiently run development programs than Venezuelans, despite Hugo Chavez’s pledge to alleviate poverty. Correct incentives explain why the market system is more efficient and effective than a command system, and the examples of Venezuela and Brazil illustrate this observation quite nicely

Discussion Questions:

Why do command economies fail efficiently allocate resources to where they are needed the most?
What does Brazil do that Venezuela does not that has led to real improvements in people’s lives?

International Trade Made Simple

Steve Latter — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 00:30:55 +0000

Is international trade really as good for a nation’s standard of living as economists say? And, what the heck is comparative advantage anyway? And what about the foreign currency market and those confusing supply & demand curves? Yes, the quest to understand the economic benefits of international trade is enough to make any citizen or first-year economic student vomit, tremble, get a headache, or at least curse.

Having been an AP Economics’ teacher for 8 years now, I must candidly admit that it took me a few years of study and research to try to reduce international trade to pure simplicity and understanding. Let me give it a shot below. I love simplicity.

The average “Joe Citizen” in almost any country in the world is suspicious of trade, and rightfully so, since he reads or observes factories being closed, jobs lost, and the feeling that somehow his country is going down the toilet as his own home fills up with foreign-made products. Unfortunately, what Joe Citizen does not understand is that the money his own nation is spending for those foreign products (imports) is spent right back into the pockets of his own country, increasing employment and income.

Let’s take a single, real-world, international trade example being careful to accurately explain the whole economic story:

Let’s say that the United States (we’ll say Wal-Mart) decides to buy several shirts costing $400 from a Chinese shirt manufacturer, in lieu of buying those same shirts from a shirt manufacturer in Elon, North Carolina (USA). As a US AP Economics’ teacher I am one of about only 47 Americans in Fairfax County Virginia, which not coincidentally ties to the number of AP Students I taught this year, that quickly understand that the decision to purchase the shirts from China, in lieu of the US manufacturer in North Carolina, is actually BETTER for America and will make my home country better off in the long run! What? Mr. Latter, are you Benedict Arnold, the American traitor, reincarnated?

Let me explain how the US benefits (and China too!) in simple terms ignoring foreign currency transactions, which will just confuse the discussion and cause the student to lose sight of what is really happening:

The first key point is that when Wal-Mart buys the shirts from China for $400 it can only pay China with US dollars. Why? Because Wal-Mart has only US dollars! It has no Chinese currency (Yuan). It literally drains its bank account of US dollars that are transferred/paid to China!

The second key point is that when China receives that same $400 US dollars for the shirts, China cannot, unfortunately, spend any of the $400 in its own economy since only the Yuan is accepted as a medium of exchange in China! China is now forced to either throw the currency away (not advised!), or immediately spend the money back to the USA (advised!).

In summary, China has actually traded a product (shirts!) for paper (US dollars!), and those US dollars cannot be spent in China. For China to receive any value at all for the shirts it sent to America, China must now spend the $400 back into the US economy for, say, a global positioning system (GPS) from FleetMatics out of Waverly, Massachusetts (USA). Cutting through to simplicity, in essence, it’s almost as if Wal-Mart (USA) just paid FleetMatics (USA) $400 directly for the shirts!

Yes, the “punch line” is that all home-currency spending by the domestic nation on foreign products (imports), in turn, are spent right back to the domestic nation increasing the domestic nation’s employment, income, and standard of living. (Note; this is shown in a nation’s balance of payments schedule which always nets to zero, but, yuk, who cares about that right now with summer coming!)

And, yes, let’s not forget that Elon, North Carolina shirt maker that did not get the original $400 from Wal-Mart in our above example! Our nation loves competition (ready for the Olympics?) and I am excited to see if that North Carolina shirt manufacturer can “raise their game” (increase productivity), and hopefully get the next shirt contract from Wal-Mart or some other firm! If not, well, that North Carolina firm may just have to close down.

If you are still reading this post at this point, you may be thinking the following if you have a little economics’ background: “But the US has a growing trade deficit with China, so China may not immediately buy that GPS system from FleetMatics for $400”. And, you are correct, but that is also not a problem for either the United States or China. What China is really doing right now is deciding to temporarily save or invest a minority percentage of their US dollars received back into America in lieu of buying US products. Said another way, China is not buying as many GPS’ as the US is buying shirts and, of course, we call that phenomenon the US trade deficit which immediately seems to speak “problem”. But it is really no problem at all! China is still spending their “saved” US dollars back into the US economy, but in different ways. China is saving and investing some of those US dollars directly into the United States economy by building plants in America, buying US stock to fund American companies’ expansions, and temporarily saving some of their dollars, for future US purchases, by buying US bonds to help the US government pay for the war in Iraq, the war against terrorism, and several other US government initiatives necessitating borrowing. Eventually, China will sell these US bonds and buy that GPS system or build more plants to employ more Americans!

Now one last thing. Promise! Let’s get back to why trade is really so economically advantageous to any nation that pursues it. And by advantageous, I mean how it increases our incomes and standards of living. In one word, the answer is “productivity”. If we go back to the original example of the US buying shirts from China and China taking the US dollars to buy the GPS, we remember that the shirt manufacturer from North Carolina was “left out in the cold” because Wal-Mart did not buy the shirts from them. We can logically conclude that perhaps some Chinese manufacturer of GPS systems was “left out in the cold” because some Chinese business elected to buy from FleetMatics in the USA, and not the Chinese GPS manufacturer. Wow, I love global competition! What a great way to incent businesses in both the USA and China to compete against each other and increase their productivity and conserve our nations’ scarce resources, increase our choice, and lower our costs!

Discussion Questions:

Which basic economic principles underly the emergence of international trade as a global economic force.
Who are the winners and losers of trade between the US and China as explained above?
Why do you think free trade is such a controversial topic among certain groups of Americans an other Western nations’ people?

“Opulent in elegance. Bountiful in spirit”

Jason Welker — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 01:15:22 +0000

It’s Friday morning here in Shanghai. My AP students are in the middle of their Macro Unit 2 test on Aggregate Demand and Aggregate Supply. I’m reading SAS’s weekly Parent Talk newsletter that I handed out to my homeroom this morning, and on the back cover is an advertisement for the housing compound across the street from school, “Rancho Santa Fe”.

I just had to post this to my blog, as I think it captures well the trajectory that rich, suburban, Shanghaites are heading as Shanghai and the other Eastern provinces continue to develop and get rich.

“Success has many stages.

Acquiring a definitive territory counts as the ultimate one.

Embracing the best nature and humanity have to offer.

Rancho Santa Fe Phase 3 is a magnum opus of a villa residence.

Opulent in elegance. Bountiful in spirit.

The grandeur lies not only in heritage, but the entirety of all that is perfect.”

I hope you enjoyed this as much as I did. Happy Friday!

No related posts.

China: formerly the world’s factory, now a nation of consumers…

Jason Welker — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 15:00:17 +0000

Economics focus | From Mao to the mall | Economist.com

China, long acknowledged as the world’s factory, could suffer if falling demand for its exports in the US results in a decline in aggregate demand and GDP here as some economists believe it will. But not all economists agree on the importance of exports to China’s domestic economy:

The increase in net exports (exports minus imports) has never been the main source of China’s growth. It contributed two to three percentage points to annual GDP growth between 2005 and 2007, whereas domestic demand (consumption and investment) added eight to nine percentage points.

But the latest figures show that exports have become even less important as a driver of growth. The World Bank’s latest China Quarterly Update suggests that net exports contributed only 0.4 percentage points to GDP growth in the year to the fourth quarter of 2007 (see left-hand chart). Overall GDP growth slowed only modestly (to 11.2%) because of faster growth in domestic demand, which contributed an impressive 10.8 percentage points.

In other words, the China of today depends on exports for its economic well-being far less than the China of yesterday; rather, today’s China is a nation of spenders. Many forces are at play here, but two that have a significant impact are slowdown in consumption and aggregate demand in the US and the weak dollar, which combined to reduce China’s trade surplus (meaning exports from China are declining while imports from the rest of the world increase):

So if exports are making up less of China’s GDP now than in years past, then what accounts for the biggest slice of China’s GDP pie? Investment, long China’s largest component of GDP, may have slipped to second place for the first time last year, as Chinese households have opened their wallets to spur growth in 2007 to 11.4%:

Mark Williams, an economist at Capital Economics, a London-based research firm, calculates that in 2007 consumption accounted for a bigger slice of GDP growth than investment for the first time in seven years. Government restraints on bank lending caused investment growth to slow slightly, whereas consumer spending picked up.

These figures are good news for more than just Chinese consumers, who clearly are enjoying access to more goods and services than ever before, a sign that economic growth has led to real improvements in quality of life for those Chinese lucky enough to participate in the thriving market economies of the rich eastern provinces. Also happy about the rise of Chinese consumption, however, is the American government and the domestic firms whose interests they often represent.

A consumption-focused Chinese middle class will increase demand not just for China’s output, but for foreign output as well, hopefully leading to a more balanced trade between China and its trading partners including the US. Higher levels of domestic consumption in China will lead to rising price levels and corresponding increases in wages, reducing the international competition for manufacturing jobs that has led to the “off-shoring” of so many American factory jobs.

Of course, the wage competitiveness in China will assure its dominance in manufacturing for the foreseeable future, but for those American firms still manufacturing products in the US, rising wages and price levels in China may improve the chance that some jobs threatened by globalization will remain in the US for a while longer. The weak dollar also bodes well for US manufacturers, who will enjoy increased exports to China, which may in fact help fend off a US recession in 2008.

As I’ve mentioned in both my IB and AP Economics classes repeatedly in the last year, a slowdown in exports from China might be just what is needed to fix the most dire macroeconomic problem faced by China today: inflation (estimated at over 7% in January of this year!) And even if a US recession and a weak dollar strike a substantial blow to China’s net exports, it appears that this nation of spenders will be able to keep its economy afloat just fine in the future, without having to depend on consumers from the rest of the world.