Does the Economy Self-Correct? – Welker’s Wikinomics Page

The debate in Washington over Obama’s fiscal stimulus package, which has now been re-written by both the House and the Senate, is ultimately one of the validity of orthodox economic theories. By voting for a nearly $1 trillion government spending bill, the Obama administration and Congress are clearly taking the position that an economy in recession will either not be able to correct itself, or will take too long to self-correct, thus the government is needed to accellerate the recovery process.

Washington’s stimulus package presents students and teachers of economics with an all too rare opportunity to put to the test the two competing hypotheses of macroeconomics: the Demand-side Theory versus the Supply-side Theory.

At the core of the long-running macroeconomic debate is the simple question, “Does the economy self-correct in times of recession?” The supply-side theory, attributed to the “classical” economists dating back to Adam Smith and David Ricardo, argues that the answer to this question is YES. The rationale between this laissez faire approach to macroeconomics is the following:

1. Falling demand in an economy means less output by firms, forcing them to lay off workers.
2. As inventories build up due to their inability to sell their output, firms will be forced to lower their prices, putting downward pressure on the price level in the economy (deflation).
3. High unemployment and falling prices eventually lead to workers in the economy being willing to accept lower wages.
4. Weak demand for commodities such as oil and minerals put downward pressure on raw material and energy prices faced by firms.
5. Falling wages and raw material prices mean more potential for profits for firms in various enterprises, even as overall demand in the economy is weak. Firms begin hiring workers at lower wages, and increase production to take advantage of lower input costs. Overall supply of goods and services in the economy begins to increase due to lower costs faced by firms in all sectors.
6. The downward spiral caused by weak aggregate demand, rising unemployment, falling prices for output, falling wages and commodity prices, is eventually reversed and turns into an upward spiral as firms hire more workers, employ more resources, creating more income and spending, moving the economy towards recovery and economic growth.

The supply-side theory of self-correction (so called because recovery results due to an outward shift of aggregate supply) outlined above depends on the downward flexibility of wages. If wages do NOT fall, as some demand-siders propose, then the idea that firms will eventually begin to hire more workers is busted, and unemployment will only continue to increase as overall demand remains weak.

Today, there is some evidence that wages in the United States may in fact be downwardly flexible.

GM Slashing 10,000 White-Collar Jobs, Cutting Pay – washingtonpost.com

…the base pay of higher-level U.S. executives will be lowered by 10 percent, while other salaried employees will face cuts of between 3 and 7 percent.

General Motors employees are beginning to accept lower wages. Rising unemployment, especially in the white collar sector, mean that the number of highly educated and skilled American workers unable to find work will grow as corporate layoffs continue.

A “shovel-ready” stimulus package from Washington may indeed help to “create or save” 3 million jobs, as Obama claims, but it is the self-correcting nature of markets due to flexible commodity prices and wages that will ultimately contribute to a recovery of the US economy. As prices of commodities fall, combined with lower wages for white collar workers and deflation in the overall economy, firms will find it profitable to begin employing resources at their lower costs, putting people back to work, stimulating spending through market forces.

Fiscal stimulus may accellerate the recovery process, but the threat it poses is the same threat posed by all forms of government intervention in the free market: that the nearly trillion dollars will go towards satisfying the priorities of politicians rather than the wants and needs of society as a whole, resulting in a misallocation of the nation’s resources towards goods, services, and infrastructure projects that are chosen by legislators, not the market itself. Stimulus is needed, but only the right kind. The recognition by politicians and the media that markets may also self-correct is also needed. News like GM’s wage cuts may sound dire, but the underlying implication of falling wages may be a sign that the US economy is already on the path to recovery, even before Washington has spent a single dollar on stimlus.

“Anger”, more so than “fear”, is perhaps the most often expressed emotion by U.S. citizens, Congressmen, and media analysts when discussing the proposed $700B federal bailout of the U.S. financial system. “Anger” is the primary emotion because the $700B will be put at risk by the American taxpayer to bailout the very same financial institutions that have become increasingly reckless and greedy regarding their investing and borrowing practices.

In America, especially over the last two weeks, the discussion of a bailout to save our financial system and economy from ruin has become logically intertwined with a concurrent discussion of Chief Executive Officer (CEO) compensation packages. Many are outrgaged, especially in light of the horrendous financial results and excessive risk taking, when finding out about the lucrative CEO compensation packages consisting of base pay, bonuses, stock options, and termination (severence) pay.

Let’s analyze this topic by comparing the compensation packages of basketball superstar Kobe Bryant and recently fired AIG CEO Martin Sullivan.

In 2007, Kobe Bryant earned $20 million dollars playing basketball for the Los Angeles Lakers while Martin Sullivan earned $14 million dollars in 2007 running AIG, one of the largest insurance companies in the world.

In 2006, Bryant also earned $20 million for the year, whereas Sullivan earned $27 million as AIG’s financial performance was much stronger in 2006 versus 2007, causing Sullivan’s 2006 incentive-based compensation to be higher than 2007.

Now the big one: Sullivan’s 2008 termination or severence pay upon his firing as AIG CEO was $47 million dollars (two years pay)! Pretty nice “goodbye present” for Sullivan given the fact that AIG failed causing its owners (the stockholders) and potentially our country (taxpayers via bailout) to be crushed! Although Bryant has no termination or severence bonus built into his contract, his contract is guaranteed through 2011 which is somewhat similar to Sullivan’s “severence deal” in that Bryant is guaranteed payment should he be injured.

Thus, both compensation packages (Bryant and Sullivan) are somewhat similar in dollar amount, but beg the question: Is anyone worth that much money?

So the primary question of this blog is to discuss whether private market compensation, should be somewhat controlled or limited by governmental law, and if so, how.

Let’s start with Bryant.

If we passed a law taking the position that Bryant’s salary could not exceed $5 million per year, he would likely go play in Europe where European contracts are becoming more competitive and similar to U.S. contracts. Even if Bryant did stay with the Lakers, despite the new law, at $5 million per year, the $5 million savings (reduced salary) would go to the Lakers owner, Jerry Buss, so Buss would be making $5 million more at Bryant’s expense. In summary, we would have passed a compensation limiting law taking money from Bryant and giving it to the owner! Through the study of economics we ultimately understand that Bryant is, in essence, being paid by you and I whenever we see him at the arena (ticket prices) or watch him on TV (ad revenues). Ultimately, Bryant gets $20 million because we, not Buss, pay him $20 million! This is the private market at work, where voluntarily owners (Buss) pay their employees (Bryant) what they believe they are worth. Said one last way, Buss pays Bryant $20 Million per year because Buss thinks he can make more profit than if he doesn’t and loses Bryant to another team.

Let’s go to Sullivan now.

If we passed a law limiting executive salaries to some arbitrary number, say $5 million per year, the same thing would happen that happened to Bryant. The Harvard & Yale MBAs would not pursue American companies but would go to work at Canadian, European and Asian companies whose compensation would be “free market”. The U.S. would lose its best talent and our companies would become mediocre, fail at an increasing rate, and our standard of living would deteriorate as our leadership quality would deteriorate. It is the CEO that is at the helm of companies helping American businesses to produce an average 10.4% return for their owners (stockholders).

Now we get to the toughest question which is “should CEOs be paid a multi-million dollar severence payment after they have failed and been fired?” The obvious answer seems to be no! But sometimes, what appears to seem to be the obvious answer becomes less obvious in a free market. Any smart, Harvard or Yale MBA knows that they have a 50/50 chance of failing and being fired within their first 3 years as CEO. Statistics bear this out as CEOs are fired all the time as it is easier to fire the CEO than all of the employees. Large firms need the best talent and a talented CEO knows that sometimes their companies fail quickly often for reasons beyond their control no matter how talented they are. Thus, CEOs demand an “insurance payment” called severence pay to compensate them for their high risk and rate of failure. Once the CEO fails it becomes increasingly difficult to get that next CEO job as their reputation in the market place sours. Thus, a CEO looks at the entire compensation package (salary, incentives, and severence) when deciding where to work. If the risk is too high (dedicating their life to their business in lieu of their families) relative to the reward, they will take their talents elsewhere or to a new career.

What is my suggested government solution regarding trying to protect shareholders from excessive executive compensation? I suggest that our government only pass new law to increase ”disclosure requirements” on executive compensation to provide a better ”check and balance” on the Board of Directors who set the pay and severence amounts for the CEOs. The Government (SEC) should not get involved, in my opinion, with compensation limits or restrictions on severence pay, but they should pass a new law to provide greater visibility for the owners (stockholders) on their CEO’s (and other key management) compensation. For example, even though today all executive compensation is publicly accessible by the owners by examining publicly filed documents, the Government could pass new legislation making it mandatory for companies to send an annual letter directly to its owners (stockholders) outlining only their CEO’s and Board’s compensation.

But , please Government, be careful and don’t do anything stupid like setting maximums for CEO compensation.

Discussion Questions:

1. In your opinion, should the Government limit CEO salaries to some maximum? What about their severence payments, should they be limited? If so, how would you set the maximum amount?
2. Is it fair that Kobe Bryant makes more than a police offer? Why or why not?
3. What specific action should the Government take, if any, regarding executive compensation?

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. 

U.S. companies are rethinking manufacturing in China – Sep. 11, 2008

As the US presidential campaign trudges ever forward, both Obama and McCain have had much to say about “job creation” in the USA. Elaborate plans aimed at retraining workers displaced by globalization, arming them with 21st century skills that will enable them to thrive in our advanced economy, and assure that the hardships imposed by free trade are minimal and all Americans have the skills they need to find employment. These are good goals for America, but even as they preach their job creation plans across the country, right under the candidates’ noses jobs are being created thanks to the invisible hand of the market economy.

Talk of a reverse migration of manufacturing from China to the U.S. has been buzzing across union halls and factory floors, corporate boardrooms and Wall Street.

The cost of shipping outsourced goods from China to U.S. customers has doubled in just two years thanks to high oil prices, and labor costs in China are rising sharply.

“There’s a shortage of technical and managerial talent,” reports Anand Sharma, CEO of TBM Consulting Group. “To attract managers Chinese companies are talking about salary increases of 15% to 30% year-over-year.”

The phenomenon of jobs being “in-sourced” to America after a decade or two of being done by Chinese workers may seem surprising. Certainly, wages are still lower in China than in the US labor market. This is true, however, the demand for highly skilled labor in China is driving wages up higher and higher, due to its relative scarcity in a country where reliable, well-educated factory managers are nearly fully employed by the thousands of foreign and Chinese firms operating plants there. Competition among producers means the only way to attract new managers is to continually offer higher wages. This leads to a form of “wage-spiral inflation” where rising costs lead to higher priced output.

Despite its much smaller work force, the percentage of American workers with the managerial and technical skills needed to run a plant is much higher than in China, and the weak manufacturing sector growth in the US has meant relative wages between the US and China are closer than ever before.

Take into consideration the rising cost of fuel and the fact that China’s economy is producing at or beyond full employment, and it becomes clear why manufacturing certain products in China has become less attractive to American firms. To be sure, not all manufacturing jobs are being “in-sourced” back to the US. As Chinese wages climb and skilled labor becomes more scarce, the giant’s Asian neighbors are beginning to enjoy the re-allocative effects of the “invisible hand”.

…plenty of manufacturers will continue looking for ever cheaper places to produce. In fact, as the cost of doing business in China rises, many companies – including Chinese firms – are shifting their production to less expensive markets, such as Vietnam.

Discussion questions:

1. What is the “invisible hand” referred to in the post above?
2. How do higher wages in China benefit Americans? How do they harm Americans?
3. Some critics of free trade argue that multi-national corporations exploit workers in developing countries. Does the article above illustrate give an example of exploitation? Discuss…

FT.com / Columnists / Wolfgang Munchau – Inflation and the lessons of the 1970s

It seem that everyone’s speculating about the US economy today. Recession or no recession, that is the question. The economy has even surpassed the Iraq War as the number one issue in the US presidential race! John McCain, who has publicly admitted that economics is not his strong suit, may just find himself in trouble in a general election where the most important concern among voters is the economic situation.

So what IS that situation, anyway? Is the US in a recession? In other words, has real gross domestic, or total output in the US economy, actually declined over the last six months? Technically, the answer is no. My fellow blogger, Steve Latter, explains this clearly here. What is true, on the other hand, is that the current situation shares many similarities to the global economic slowdown that did occur in the 1970s.

In 1973 OPEC, the newly formed oil cartel consisting at the time of only Arab states, reduced its output of oil and cut off exports to the United States in response to US support of Israel in the Yom Kippur War, in which the Israelis officially occupied the Palestinian territories of the West Bank and Gaza and seized the Golan Heights from the sovereign nation of Syria. To punish the US for its position on this conflict, OPEC cut off supplies of oil to the west, driving gas and energy prices upwards by 70%, triggering a supply shock characterized by a decline in total output and an increase in both unemployment and inflation, a phenomenon known as stagflation: a macroeconomic policy maker’s worst nightmare.

Recently the world has seen a similar (albeit of a different cause) rise in the price of oil and energy prices. Today the rise in energy prices is driven primarily by rising demand, rather than reduced supply (since the 1970s the OPEC cartel has grown to include many non-Arab nations, making it harder to achieve collusion to restrict output and drive up oil prices). Global demand for oil has risen steadily, driven ever higher due to rapid growth in China and other developing nations, and exacerbated by the falling value of the dollar, the currency in which oil prices are denominated.

The supply shocks of today have combined with falling aggregate demand in the US due to weak consumer spending to slow real growth rates to nearlry 0%. So technically, the US has avoided a recession, but the effect on American workers and consumers may be just as painful as the real recession of the 1970s. In order to prevent the “r” word from becoming a reality today, central banks (including the US Fed) have eased money supplies, lowering interest rates, fueling even greater increases in the price level.

…the global weighted average inflation rate will be 5.4 per cent this year, while the global money market interest rate is currently only 4.3 per cent. This means that global short-term real interest rates are negative – at a time when inflation is rapidly accelerating. As monetary policy has been excessively accommodating for more than a decade, inflationary pressures have built up in the global economy.

Central bankers like Ben Bernanke have to make tough decisions sometimes, weighing the trade-off between unemployment and inflation, and determining their monetary policies based on whatever they deem to be the “lesser of two evils”. Rising energy prices have forced firms to cut either cut back their production and raise the price of their products, both actions that result in less overall spending and output in the economy. Falling house prices have led consumers to cut back their own spending, further reducing demand for firms’ output. These factors have all pushed the unemployment rate from around 4.8% a year ago to 5.1% today, which combined with an estimated additional 3-5% of American workers having dropped out of the workforce, (referred to by the Department of Labor as “discouraged workers”) paints a pretty ugly picture of the reality for the American worker today.

The harsh reality of the weak labor market has led Mr. Bernanke and the Fed to pursue an expansionary monetary policy aimed at avoiding further increases in the unemployment rate and decreases in the GDP growth rate. Expansionary monetary policy means lower interest rates, with the goal being increased consumption and investment, both factors that could worsen the inflation problem already experienced thanks to the global supply shock. Evidence indicates that the inflation problem, even in the US where slow growth usually leads to lower price levels, is not going away:

In the US, a survey-based measure of inflationary expectations recently showed an increase to more than 5 per cent. I would estimate there are now several hundred basis points of difference between the current Fed funds rate and an interest rate that would be consistent with price stability in the medium term.

…meaning the Fed, in its attempt to avoid recession and rising unemployment, has created a condition where real interest rates are actually negative, a highly inflationary condition. All this wouldn’t be so bad if wages in the US were rising along with the price level. This however, does not appear to be happening:

The main difference between the situation in the 1970s and now is today’s absence of wage inflation, which explains why absolute inflation rates are a little more moderate. I guess this is probably because of some combination of deregulated labour markets and globalisation. But the lack of wage-push inflation is not necessarily good news. Falling real wages mean falling disposable income and tighter credit conditions mean less borrowing for consumption.

Rising prices for energy, transportation and food have put American households in a tough situation. In the past, periods of inflation have often been characterized by rising wages, meaning the full brunt of nominal price level increases was not entirely born by the American worker. Today, on the other hand, a recession has thus far been avoided, but the combination of record numbers of “discouraged workers”, rising unemployment and inflation may make the pain of our current economic situation just as real as recessions of the past.

In the words of billionaire investor and economic sage Warren Buffett just today:

“I believe that we are already in a recession… Perhaps not in the sense as defined by economists. … But people are already feeling the effects of a recession.”

“It will be deeper and longer than what many think,” he added.

Discussion Questions:

1. What is the difference between nominal and real GDP? Which must decline in order for the economy to be in a recession?
2. What impact do rising energy prices have on the behavior of individual firms?
3. Why are low interest rates likely to make the inflation problem even worse?

Yes, but it’s a bit more complicated than it might seem at first. This podcast looks at the impact of the falling dollar on the aerospace industry, in which manufacturing for the industry’s largest firms is sourced to hundreds of smaller companies each with factories in countless countries from North America to Europe to Asia.

The recent fluctuations in the US dollar exchange rate has wreaked havoc for firms located in the US and trying to compete in this competitive market. In some cases, the outcome has been positive, but as you’ll hear, not always.

Listen to this podcast then discuss the questions below:

Weak Dollar Can Bode Well for Manufacturers [ 5:18 ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (3)

Discussion Questions:

1. How has the weaker dollar helped the Connecticut firm Kamatics?
2. How has Kamatics been hurt by the weaker dollar?
3. Why do fluctuations in the dollar make “business more unstable”?
4. How does the impact of currency swings become more ambiguous “as the economies of the world become more intertwined”?
5. Why did EchoAir stop manufacturing products in Romania? What impact would a revaluation of the Chinese Yuan have on EchoAir’s current manufacturing decisions?

FT.com / World – American dream hit by dollar’s decline

Ever wonder if there was a connection between the strength of a country’s currency and the flow of immigrants into that country? No? Me neither… but interestingly it appears that there is a direct relationship between these variables. The weaker a country’s currency, the fewer immigrants cross its borders to find work. Here’s why:

Migrant workers are choosing to move to Europe, Australia or Canada instead of the US in order to protect the purchasing power of the money they send home to their families, according to one of the world’s leading experts on remittances.

The shift is a result of sharp falls in the value of the US dollar against other international currencies, many of which have been boosted by the rise in commodity prices.

This news may make some American’s happy, since it could mean more opportunities for the American workers who may have lost their jobs during the current recession. This, however, may not be the case. It turns out that much of the decline in immigrant workers is in high skilled fields for which demand for workers in the US remains high even in times of recession. According to the article, “the trend was especially notable among skilled workers, such as doctors, nurses and information technology specialists”.

A decline in the inflow of high skilled workers may actually make Americans worse off. I have blogged about the shortage of American workers in fields such as engineering, software design, and natural gas rig technicians,and I don’t think many Americans would argue that health care in America is already too cheap, so I suspect that more doctors and nurses would be desired.

A weak dollar has many effects on America. In some ways, it makes the country better off. As I have blogged about here, a weak dollar should lead to more balanced trade, a boom for US manufacturers, and an increase in exports, all related, of course, to the relative decline in prices of US goods to foreign consumers. But a weak dollar may in fact do more harm than good, one reason for which is explained here: skilled foreign workers whose talents are in strong demand in the US are moving more and more to European markets to find work.

Anti-immigration hawks may be cheering, but American consumers may start rearing as high-skilled labor shortages drive up wages and prices in the markets Americans most depend on today: health care, energy and technology.

Powered by ScribeFire.

At Charter School, Higher Teacher Pay – New York Times

A New York charter school opening this year will start teachers’ pay at $125,000. The school’s creator and principal believes that quality teachers, not technology, are what will lead to results for students at his school.

The school’s creator and first principal, Zeke M. Vanderhoek, contends that high salaries will lure the best teachers. He says he wants to put into practice the conclusion reached by a growing body of research: that teacher quality — not star principals, laptop computers or abundant electives — is the crucial ingredient for success.

“I would much rather put a phenomenal, great teacher in a field with 30 kids and nothing else than take the mediocre teacher and give them half the number of students and give them all the technology in the world,” said Mr. Vanderhoek, 31, a Yale graduate and former middle school teacher who built a test preparation company that pays its tutors far more than the competition.

This is certainly an interesting experiment. American schools have struggled for decades to improve results through the implementation countless programs and policies. Lately, one emphasis has certainly been on technology; but this article makes an interesting point: all the technology in the world won’t make a difference if it’s not in the hands of an excellent teacher.

The best basketball players in the NBA make millions more than the average ones. The most skilled doctors are rewarded with the highest salaries. Top lawyers earn hundreds (if not thousands) of dollars an hour while one from a third rate law school toils for $65,000 a year in a county prosecutor’s office. So what’s different about teaching? Why do all teachers in a particular district with a particular number of years experience get paid the same salary? Could you ever imagine all the lawyers in a particular city making identical salaries? The idea is absurd. Clearly the top law firms will pay for the top lawyers, which in turn enables that law firm to achieve the best possible results for its clients.

Yet the vast majority of teachers in America find themselves stuck in a system rooted in an outdated belief in equity, egalitarianism, fairness, whatever you want to call it, where pay is based not on talent, ability, skill, expertise, and all the attributes that determine one’s pay in a competitive labor market like medicine, law, and professional sports; rather the older you are and the more time you’ve “served”, the greater your financial reward. Is it a coincidence that America is known for its cutting-edge medical field, its skilled litigators, and world-class professional athletes. Could someone describe to me the reputation of American public schools? No? I understand, it’s a depressing subject.

In economics we teach the importance of incentives, which when used properly encourage individuals to improve their human capital in as many ways as possible. In other words, if I am rewarded for excellence, I will strive for excellence in my profession. The only incentive in education, it seems, is to grow old and gray, because that’s how I will make more money. Easy for teachers whose only goal is to make it to retirement, right? Without a doubt. Effective for students in a society falling ever further behind other countries in academic achievement? Hardly.

Ironically, some of the teachers most skilled in the application of new technologies and versed in the latest pedagogies are those who grew up learning with those technologies in their own education in a constructivist, student-centered environment. In other words, the youngest, most tech-savvy, who just happen to earn the lowest salaries (practically subsistent in some parts of the country).

Mr. Vanderhoek may be proven wrong. Perhaps it is more technology, more standardized tests, more powerful teachers’ unions, that America’s children need to begin achieving the results that Indian, Chinese, Singaporean, Korean, Japanese, even European students are achieving in the maths, sciences, and other subjects. But if he’s right, then $125,000 (2.5 times the national average for public school teachers) may prove to be just what’s needed attract the kinds of teachers that can achieve results. What if this school does succeed? Will it matter? Or will America’s public schools forever reward teachers not for performance and qualifications, but simply for getting older?

Powered by ScribeFire.

You Are What You Spend – New York Times

Fact: The richest 20% of Americans earn 15 times the income of the bottom 20%.

Fact: The richest 20% of Americans only consumer 4 times as much as the poorest 20%.

Question: Why don’t the richest 20% consume 15 times as much as the poorest 20%?

The author of this NYT opinion piece claims that the gap between America’s rich and poor is not as stark as the income figures suggest. While before tax income of the top 20% is around $150,000, the poorest 20% earn only around $10,000. Clearly these numbers indicate an enormous income gap in America.

However, when it comes to consumption, the poor consume an average of $18,000 on everything from food to housing to entertainment to transportation. The richest 20%, on the other hand, consume an average of only $70,000, less than half their before-tax income.

So the question is, is standard of living based on our income, or on our consumption? If it’s income, then there’s certainly a huge gap in standard of living between the rich and poor. But if we believe it’s consumption, then the gap is narrowed dramatically. The author claims the latter:

To understand why consumption is a better guideline of economic prosperity than income, it helps to consider how our lives have changed. Nearly all American families now have refrigerators, stoves, color TVs, telephones and radios. Air-conditioners, cars, VCRs or DVD players, microwave ovens, washing machines, clothes dryers and cellphones have reached more than 80 percent of households.

Continue Reading »

Recently, in AP Economics, we have been learning about Labor markets; in IB Economics we’ve been focusing on the benefits and costs of international trade and global economic integration. As students of market economics, it is ingrained in us that economic liberalization, the freeing of markets, enabling resources to be allocated based on the price mechanism; these are all are good things. Removing barriers to the free movement of products and resources across national and political boundaries should eventually result in greater world output, and subsequently increases in living standards and wealth for the citizens of all free trading countries.

Nations will produce the products for which they have a comparative advantage, and trade with their neighbors for those products for which they don’t. Resources will flow from markets in which they are in low demand to those where they are in high demand. Prices in both product and resource markets will rise and fall, allocating scarce resources to the markets where they are needed most.

So why, in an era where the benefits of free trade and free flow of productive resources seem so visible around the world, do Americans seem so susceptible to views like those exhibited in the video below:

Continue Reading »