Edition: U.S. / Global

Business Day



Jacob Lew, Mary Jo White and Dunbar’s Number

DESCRIPTION

Simon Johnson, former chief economist of the International Monetary Fund, is the Ronald A. Kurtz Professor of Entrepreneurship at the M.I.T. Sloan School of Management and co-author of “White House Burning: The Founding Fathers, Our National Debt, and Why It Matters to You.”

Jacob J. Lew, the president’s nominee for Treasury secretary, and Mary Jo White, the nominee for chairwoman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, are making financial reformers nervous. The issue is not so much their track record, because neither has worked directly on financial-sector policy issues; it is much more about whom they know.

Today’s Economist

Perspectives from expert contributors.

Specifically, how many people do they know and trust outside the financial sector, away from the sphere of influence of the very large banks? More pointedly, when it comes to thinking about financial-sector policy, who exactly is in their inner circle?

Nobody knows a huge number of people, at least not well. In the language of anthropology and biology, the limit to a person’s social network is known as Dunbar’s Number – which is 147.5, although people often round it to 150. Our brains do not support the interactions required by larger social groups.

More precisely, the predicted size for most human groups, based mostly on the characteristics of our brains, is 100.2 to 231.1 people. For details and caveats, look at Robin Dunbar’s 1993 paper, “Co-evolution of neocortical size, group size and language in humans,” published in Behavioral and Brain Sciences (Issue 16, Pages 681-735). Or just think about the number of people you know well and would rely on for advice, particularly with complex and sensitive issues. When you get to know new people, you often lose track of your previous close colleagues or even good friends.

And what applies to ordinary mortals most definitely applies to the people elected or appointed to run the country. Whenever the world gets complicated – for example, because the financial sector has turned nasty – policy makers need trusted sources and established confidants in order to figure out which way is up and what needs to be done.

If most financial experts you know work at, for example, Citigroup, then you are more likely to see the financial world through their eyes. What is good for Citi (and its executives) will, in your mind, become close to what is good for the United States.

One of the most serious concerns about Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner was that even though he had never worked in a bank, his social network was full of bankers, mostly because of his time at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and his close connection with Robert Rubin, a former Treasury secretary and then a director of and senior adviser to Citigroup. In this network, many of Mr. Geithner’s deepest financial-sector connections appear to have been with people who were working at Citigroup in 2007-8. (See, for example, a 2009 article by Jo Becker and Gretchen Morgenson.)

This observation lines up remarkably well with the devastating critique of Mr. Geithner in Sheila Bair’s book, “Bull by the Horns.” The main concern of Ms. Bair, former chairwoman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, is that Mr. Geithner was too close to Citigroup and saw the world as its senior executives did.

As Treasury secretary, Mr. Geithner hired people from Citigroup – particularly people who had worked closely with Mr. Rubin (in government or in the private sector or both). Now Mr. Lew, a Citi alum with a central position in the Rubin network, is on the verge of becoming Treasury secretary. How likely is Mr. Lew to confront the risks created by unstable global megabanks? Does he personally know anyone who is concerned about the damage that Citigroup is likely to do in the future – or even has a critical view of what it has done in the past?

While Ms. White’s reputation as a prosecutor is second to none, as a defense lawyer she represented executives at several of the largest banks and knows many prominent financial-sector executives. Her husband, John W. White, now a corporate lawyer, had a senior role at the S.E.C. when Christopher Cox was its chairman, a time when the S.E.C. was aiding and abetting excessive deregulation at every opportunity; Ms. White will need to step aside in actions against companies her husband has advised. To whom will Ms. White turn when she wants to understand how to make the financial sector safer?

If confirmed, Mr. Lew and Ms. White face formidable policy agendas. They need to demonstrate both an impressive grip of the details of what works in financial sector reform, as well as the ability to ignore a great deal of whining and to resist other pressure from the megabanks.

The most prominent and urgent case-in-point is that regulators need to complete the Volcker Rule. Mandated by the Dodd-Frank financial reform legislation, this rule will limit the risk-taking of very large banks.

The hitch at this point is primarily the S.E.C. All kinds of excuses can be and have been offered. These have no merit. Congress passed Dodd-Frank more than two years ago, and the regulators have issued draft rules and considered all the comments imaginable. The banking side of the equation – the Federal Reserve, the F.D.I.C. and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency – is on board. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission will not stand in the way. Everyone is waiting for the S.E.C. to pull the trigger.

If Ms. White cannot get the S.E.C. unstuck, the issue will fall to Mr. Lew, who as Treasury secretary is chairman of the Financial Stability Oversight Council. The legislative intent of Dodd-Frank on this point is clear; I’ve confirmed this by asking legislators what they intended. If a single regulator gets hung up on an issue, the oversight council can override that regulator – to prevent the kind of impasses and lacunas that previously created vulnerabilities in the regulatory system.

Even Mr. Geithner, not the world’s most dynamic reformer, used the power of the oversight council to press the S.E.C. forward on changing the rules for money-market funds. (Interestingly, the Fed has long wanted these rules changed – and Mr. Geithner’s social network obviously includes some top Fed officials.)

Is Mr. Lew willing to push the S.E.C. – perhaps by supporting Ms. White in a forceful fashion – on issuing and implementing the Volcker Rule? Hopefully, this will be a central question in both their confirmation hearings (with the Senate Finance Committee for Mr. Lew and the Senate Banking Committee for Ms. White).

Senator Elizabeth Warren, Democrat of Massachusetts, writing recently for Politico, made the most important point: the administration will only get serious about financial reform when it appoints officials with different attitudes – and, I would say, different social networks – from those who were at Treasury and the S.E.C. over the last four years.

“Personnel is policy,” people in Washington often remark. The next round of appointments, including those at the deputy and under secretary level, is very important. At this point, I am not optimistic about who will get these jobs.

Is the second Obama administration hiring people who understand and can implement financial reform? Or is it again merely promoting people whose social networks are disproportionately tilted toward the big Wall Street banks?


The Health Care Law and Retirement Savings

DESCRIPTION

Casey B. Mulligan is an economics professor at the University of Chicago. He is the author of “The Redistribution Recession: How Labor Market Distortions Contracted the Economy.”

Because of its definition of affordability, beginning next year the Affordable Care Act may affect retirement savings.

Today’s Economist

Perspectives from expert contributors.

Employer contributions to employee pension plans are exempt from payroll and personal income taxes at the time that they are made, because the employer contributions are not officially considered part of the employee’s wages or salary (employer health insurance contributions are treated much the same way). The contributions are taxed when withdrawn (typically when the worker has retired), at a rate determined by the retiree’s personal income tax situation.

Employees are sometimes advised to save for retirement in this way in part because the interest, dividends and capital gains accrue without repeated taxation. In addition, people sometimes expect their tax brackets to be lower when retired than they are when they are working.

These well-understood tax benefits of pension plans will change a year from now if the act is implemented as planned. Under the act, wages and salaries of people receiving health insurance in the law’s new “insurance exchanges” will be subject to an additional implicit tax, because wages and salaries will determine how much a person has to pay for health insurance.

While much about the Affordable Care Act is still being digested by economists, they have long recognized that high marginal tax rates lead to fringe benefit creation. And the Congressional Budget Office has concluded that the act will raise marginal tax rates.
Read more…


Polls vs. Markets

Who should be believed? The markets or the consumer-confidence polls?

FLOYD NORRIS
FLOYD NORRIS

Notions on high and low finance.

The Conference Board reported Tuesday that the preliminary January figure for consumer confidence in the United States had plunged to its lowest level in more than a year, with a decline in expectations leading the way.

The stock market has done very well in January.

The consumer confidence numbers are based on answers to only five questions, three of them calling for forecasts six months out. Those determine the expectations index.

All those forecasts — on business conditions, on employment and on personal income — got worse this month. People are more negative about the first two than at any time since October 2011, a time when talk of a double-dip recession was widespread and the stock market had done a summer swoon. But the income forecast is where confidence seems to have plunged the most. Read more…


Inflation, Rare Coin Variety

FLOYD NORRIS
FLOYD NORRIS

Notions on high and low finance.

Who says a dollar doesn’t hold its value?

A 1794 silver dollar sold at auction last week for $10,016,875, according to Stack’s Bowers Galleries, an auction house.

It says that set a record for any coin, easily passing the 2002 record price of $7,590,020 for a 1933 double eagle, a $20 gold piece.

The 1794 silver dollar sold at auction for $10,016,875.Stack’s Bowers Galleries The 1794 silver dollar sold at auction for $10,016,875.

It also reports that a 1792 “half disme” — worth five cents when issued — sold for $1,145,625, and a 1793 one-cent coin sold for $998,750.

The gain in price for that silver dollar amounts to a little more than 1 billion percent, but the half disme went up more than 2 billion percent and the penny climbed almost 10 billion percent. It makes the double eagle’s climb of almost 38 million percent sound puny.

But this is an example of the wonders of compound interest. The double eagle was only 69 years old when it was sold. That was a compound annual gain of 20.5 percent.

By contrast, the compound annual gains for the other coins — each more than 200 years old — are 7.6 percent for the dollar, 8.0 percent for the half-dime and 8.7 percent for the penny.


Outsourcing, Insourcing and Automation

DESCRIPTION

Bruce Bartlett held senior policy roles in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations and served on the staffs of Representatives Jack Kemp and Ron Paul. He is the author of “The Benefit and the Burden: Tax Reform — Why We Need It and What It Will Take.”

One problem that economists always have in analyzing the economy is separating cyclical effects, which are temporary, from structural effects, which have long-term implications. In real time, it is almost impossible to separate the two, yet the distinction is important because policies to deal with the wrong problem may be ineffective or even counterproductive.

Today’s Economist

Perspectives from expert contributors.

This is especially a problem when analyzing the labor market. If the central problem is a lack of aggregate demand, then the vast bulk of the unemployed are jobless through no fault of their own. This macroeconomic problem requires a more expansive monetary and fiscal policy.

But if the problem is structural, increasing aggregate demand is unlikely to reduce unemployment and is more likely to raise the rate of inflation.

Structural unemployment is much more difficult to deal with. Workers may require extensive retraining because the businesses and industries that employed them no longer exist, and their skills no longer have the value they once did.
Read more…


Labor Sees Bright Spots in Membership Trends

The American labor movement received some bitter news last week when the Bureau of Labor Statistics released its annual report on union membership – it showed a 398,000 overall decline in union membership, with the percentage of workers in unions dropping to 11.3 percent, the lowest rate in nearly a century.

But some union leaders saw some important silver linings in the gloomy report — especially the surprisingly strong growth in labor’s ranks in California. The bureau reported a jump of 110,000 in the number of union members in California, to 2.49 million (meaning that in the 49 other states, the overall loss was 508,000 members).

“There is a significant organizing consciousness among unions in California that I haven’t seen in other parts of the country,” said Kent Wong, director of the Labor Center at the University of California, Los Angeles. “And a major factor in California’s success is there has been a very aggressive attempt on the part of many unions to organizing immigrant workers.”

The jump in union membership in California is tied to the one other bright spot for unions in the bureau’s report. While union membership among whites fell by 547,000 last year (to 11.3 million), union membership among Latinos jumped by 156,000 last year (to 1.98 million) while increasing for Asian-Americans by 45,000 (to 668,000) — although the percentage of Asian-American workers in unions actually dropped, to 9.6 percent, as the overall number of Asian-Americans employed jumped sharply.
Read more…


The Uneven Progress of Equal Opportunity

Nancy Folbre, economist at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

Nancy Folbre is an economics professor at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. She recently edited and contributed to “For Love and Money: Care Provision in the United States.

The central theme of President Obama’s inauguration speech was equal opportunity and its refrain, “Our journey is not complete.”

Today’s Economist

Perspectives from expert contributors.

He never referred directly to equal opportunity in employment, perhaps because his very election testifies to certain progress since the Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlawed discrimination on the basis of race and sex.

But looking at the United States labor force as a whole, how broad has that progress actually been? Lack of systematic data on workplace segregation over time has long made that question difficult to answer. Recently, however, the  Equal Employment Opportunity Commission made available to researchers a rich legacy of private-sector employer reports known as the EEO-1 survey.

These data star in “Documenting Desegregation,” a new book by the sociologists Kevin Stainback and Donald Tomaskovic-Devey, which analyzes the trajectory of change in workplaces from 1964 to 2005 in careful detail. Their narrative reveals a jagged and uneven process of change driven by political mobilization, electoral outcomes and personnel-department practices, as well as specific legislative actions.
Read more…


A Place That Makes New York Real Estate Look Cheap

Think it’s expensive to buy a home in New York? Try moving to China.

Sources: International Monetary Fund, using CEIC Data; 8th Annual Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey; national statistical offices; and I.M.F. staff estimates. Note: Data for cities in mainland China (in red), Tokyo, and Singapore are calculated as the price of a 70-square-meter home divided by average annual pretax household income; data for other cities are the median house price divided by median pretax household income, as reported by Demographia. Sources: International Monetary Fund, using CEIC Data; 8th Annual Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey; national statistical offices; and I.M.F. staff estimates. Note: Data for cities in mainland China (in red), Tokyo, and Singapore are calculated as the price of a 70-square-meter home divided by average annual pretax household income; data for other cities are the median house price divided by median pretax household income, as reported by Demographia.

That chart comes from the International Monetary Fund (and was brought to my attention by Torsten Slok, the chief international economist at Deutsche Bank). It shows the ratio of house prices to annual household income: that is, how many years’ worth of income it would take to buy the typical house in a given city.

CATHERINE RAMPELL
CATHERINE RAMPELL

Dollars to doughnuts.

As you can see, the median house price in New York was equal to 6.2 years’ worth of the median pretax household income in 2011. The most comparable data we have for an array of Chinese cities — shown in red above — suggests that homes in New York are a steal compared to those in urban parts of the Middle Kingdom.

The Chinese data (which use a slightly different metric: the price of a 70-square-meter home divided by average annual pretax household income) show that in Shanghai it would cost 15.9 times the typical household income to buy a standard home. In Beijing, the ratio is even higher, at 22.3.

Real estate prices are so high in China, Mr. Slok explains, because people have few options for parking their savings.

The savings rate is phenomenally high in China. The consumer banking sector, however, is not nearly as built out as those in most developed countries, partly because the Chinese government restricts entry of foreign service-providing companies like financial institutions. So people have been investing their savings in a local sector that has had big returns — real estate — chasing home prices ever higher.

I should note, by the way, that housing prices in China began to fall in 2011 as the government tried to curb speculative real estate investment. Home prices then picked up again in the middle of last year and continue to rise.


New-Home Sales Soar — and Remain Low

New-home sales rose 20 percent in 2012, the government said Friday. That is the largest annual gain since 1983.

The year 2012 was the third-slowest year in terms of new-home sales since the government began tracking the number in 1963.

FLOYD NORRIS
FLOYD NORRIS

Notions on high and low finance.

So it goes in the housing market these days. As my column in Friday’s paper noted, the housing market these days is not good. But it is getting better at an impressive rate.

The government estimated that 367,000 new homes were sold last year, up from 306,000 a year earlier. That year was the worst ever. The second worst was 2010. The fourth worst was 2009.

The five highest years were from 2002 through 2006, with 2005 the best. Sales in 2012 were less than 30 percent of that record level. Read more…


Reader Response: Medicare Options and Quality of Care

DESCRIPTION

Uwe E. Reinhardt is an economics professor at Princeton. He has some financial interests in the health care field.

My post last Friday explored the quality of care rendered Medicare beneficiaries under private Medicare Advantage plans and under the traditional, government-run Medicare program.

At the end of the post, I invited readers to apprise me of any study on the subject that my own search of the surprisingly thin literature on this issue might have missed.

Today’s Economist

Perspectives from expert contributors.

One reader was kind enough to alert me to such a paper, although he also had not come upon it by a general Internet search. It is a paper by Bernard Friedman, H. Joanna Jiang, Claudia A. Steiner and John Bott, titled “Likelihood of Hospital Readmission after First Discharge: Medicare Advantage vs. Fee-for-Service Patients” and published in the November 2012 issue of the health policy journal Inquiry.

The authors estimate the likelihood of a hospital readmission within 30 days of discharge from a 2006 database maintained by the Agency for Health Care Research and Quality. As I noted in my previous post, such readmissions have come to be known as one dimension of “quality,” with higher rates denoting lower quality.

Without adjusting their estimates for the age and health status of Medicare beneficiaries in the two options, the authors find a slightly lower likelihood of readmission under Medicare Advantage plans than under traditional Medicare. They note, however, that Medicare Advantage enrollees tend to be younger and less severely ill. After controlling for age and health status, enrollees in the Medicare Advantage plans are found to have “a substantially higher likelihood of readmission.”

The authors are well known and respected in the research community. Their approach is thoughtful and sophisticated and their findings persuasive. But they come to the opposite conclusion reached by the studies cited in my previous post.

So, to paraphrase Alexander Pope, who shall decide, when doctors (here, health services researchers) disagree, and soundest casuists doubt, like you and me? Read more…