After I got past the introductory rehash of decline of marriage laments, this NYTimes article got me thinking of a slightly different way to frame the issue that, as Robert Samuelson puts it, "marriage has lost much of its pecuniary pull."
In earlier times, men and women both brought something to the table: women, shut out of the workplace, needed financial support, and men, in theory, needed children and the attendant child care, creating the conditions for mutually beneficial relationships.
These days, women have better adapted to the changing workscape, well men have lost ground. What neither gender has adapted to is the changing household composition. Men and women can both bring financial support to the table, while it is largely still women who must bring the childrearing.
The traditional narrative from the right is that the welfare state has created marriage disincentives, which may be true, but when taking into account the basic structure of self-interest engendered by the new economy, it hardly seems plausible that this accounts for the decline, or can be expected to solve it with a simple change in welfare policy.
Monday, April 15, 2013
Friday, March 22, 2013
Unemployment Among Female Veterans
I'm looking into data on veterans today, and came across a piece of information that seems to be absent from most of mainstream reporting. The media frequently notes that the unemployment rate for Gulf War II veterans plummetted between 2011 and 2012, falling from 12.1% to 9.9%--still too high, but a stunning decrease in my view given the stickiness of unemployment overall these last 4 years. However: the unemployment rate for female veterans actually increased, from 12.4% to 12.5% according to the BLS. While yes, men still make up the vast majority of the veteran population, this statistic is troubling for a number of reasons:
- The unemployment rate for women was significantly higher for women than for men in both 2011 (+0.4%) and 2012 (+3.0%);
- Female veterans are being left behind in the veterans jobs recovery;
- This represents 37,000 women across the country.
Friday, January 11, 2013
GLAESER: Why government spending cuts won’t kill too many jobs. “[T]he U.S. is far enough along in its recovery that it can begin balancing its books. An impressive new series of papers has estimated the impact of public spending on jobs during the recession, and concluded that we can make moderate budget cuts without sending the economy into a tailspin…If we cut only $50 billion, this should mean 400,000 fewer jobs, and possibly less if the effect of public spending on employment is weaker today than it was during the recession. That's a serious loss, but if private-sector job creation continues at its current annual rate of 1.9 million a year, private-sector growth could offset that loss in less than three months.” Edward Glaeser in Bloomberg.
Doesn't the multiplier estimate job loss across the economy, including the private sector? So if there are 400,000 fewer jobs, some of those will be lost in the private sector (federal contractors, for instance, or companies that had benefitted from cut government programs) and therefore the private sector won't be creating jobs at its current annual rate of 1.9 million
Doesn't the multiplier estimate job loss across the economy, including the private sector? So if there are 400,000 fewer jobs, some of those will be lost in the private sector (federal contractors, for instance, or companies that had benefitted from cut government programs) and therefore the private sector won't be creating jobs at its current annual rate of 1.9 million
Tuesday, January 8, 2013
Vermont: The Most Politically Interesting State
Add "Most Politically Interesting State" to Vermont's long list of accolades. Among our many quirks: we are home to two-member State House districts, the only state capital without a McDonald's, and the only Socialist member of the U.S. Senate. Our State House passed the first Marriage Equality law and the first Single-Payer Healthcare law in the Union. Democrats usually run as candidates for both the Vermont Democratic Party and the Vermont Working Families Party. In spite of our progressive reputation, we have a split ticket with a Democratic governor and a Republican lieutenant governor. Our Lt Govs are in fact quite interesting: our current Lt Gov races stock cars at Thunder Road, and our previous Lt Gov is a commercial pilot. Vermont also has a fairly prominent secessionist movement including the Second Vermont Republic and a Vermont Independence Party that convened in the State House (free of charge--it's the People's House afterall) this fall to celebrate Vermont independence from the "US Empire." On the wonkier side of things, the newly elected state auditor recently got into a policy debate over a Livable Wage Ordinance (which he authored) with a young small business owner in the local foods industry--in the comments section of a local blog! Even Bill McKibben chimed in on the thread to say, "I love Vermont." And of course, "the Great State of Vermont will not apologize for its cheese!"
Further Reading:
Further Reading:
- Five VT Towns vote to impeach Bush: http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-250_162-1381497.html
- Fun Fact: The Almanac of American Politics says that our single U.S. Rep, Peter Welch, got married at the setting of the Stratford Inn in the show "Newhart." While Welch did get married at the Norwich Inn, and Newhart is supposed to take place near Dartmouth, the external shots of the Inn are actually of the Waybury Inn in East Middlebury, Vermont.
- Vermont was one of two states to go for Alf Landon over FDR in the 1936 Presidential Election, spawning the riff on Maine's hithertofore reputation as a Bellweather, "As Maine, so goes Vermont."
- Update: We got a shout out in Daily Kos! "It's important to remember that the definition of a Some Dude operates on a sliding scale. If you're running for dogcatcher (an elected position in Duxbury, VT!), no one's a Some Dude."
Friday, December 7, 2012
Implicit Taxation
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/05/poverty-should-have-risen/
A provocative piece, but not the right way to approach the safety net in my opinion. By Mulligan's logic, there is no floor for how low someone's living standard can go--they will always be bearing a portion of the loss. I think the trick for minimizing disincentives is not only getting the floor right, but also creating an economic pathway so that the choice at the margin isn't between living at the poverty line and living just above it, but rather, living at the poverty line and advancing substantially beyond it.
A provocative piece, but not the right way to approach the safety net in my opinion. By Mulligan's logic, there is no floor for how low someone's living standard can go--they will always be bearing a portion of the loss. I think the trick for minimizing disincentives is not only getting the floor right, but also creating an economic pathway so that the choice at the margin isn't between living at the poverty line and living just above it, but rather, living at the poverty line and advancing substantially beyond it.
Tuesday, November 6, 2012
Romney Tax Plan Musings
From http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-05/why-voters-should-fear-romney-s-tax-plan.html
"True, any across-the-board tax cut would give more money to the rich in dollar terms, because they pay most of the taxes in the first place. But Romney’s plan goes further. It would reduce the amount the richest Americans pay relative to their income more than for anyone else. Specifically, the richest fifth would go from paying 26 percent of their income in taxes to 22 percent. The middle fifth would go from 16 percent to 15 percent. The tax burden on the poor would rise."
I wonder if there's any kind of credible evidence as to whether the rise in job creation made by lowering the burden on those rich job creators by 15% would offset the disincentive to work created by raising taxes on the working poor...or maybe we don't really care if the poor would work less because wages would rise for the rest of us as labor demand catches up with/outstrips labor supply.
Also unclear if the tax burden rising on the poor takes into account benefits. That is, some analysts treat the benefits phase-out as an additional "tax" on the poor. If you look at it that way, the tax burden on the poor would increase even more dramatically, as the EITC and other benefits are scaled back. On the other hand, there wouldn't be as much of a penalty to working created by losing one's benefits, because there would be fewer benefits to lose under a Romney budgetary regime.
"True, any across-the-board tax cut would give more money to the rich in dollar terms, because they pay most of the taxes in the first place. But Romney’s plan goes further. It would reduce the amount the richest Americans pay relative to their income more than for anyone else. Specifically, the richest fifth would go from paying 26 percent of their income in taxes to 22 percent. The middle fifth would go from 16 percent to 15 percent. The tax burden on the poor would rise."
I wonder if there's any kind of credible evidence as to whether the rise in job creation made by lowering the burden on those rich job creators by 15% would offset the disincentive to work created by raising taxes on the working poor...or maybe we don't really care if the poor would work less because wages would rise for the rest of us as labor demand catches up with/outstrips labor supply.
Also unclear if the tax burden rising on the poor takes into account benefits. That is, some analysts treat the benefits phase-out as an additional "tax" on the poor. If you look at it that way, the tax burden on the poor would increase even more dramatically, as the EITC and other benefits are scaled back. On the other hand, there wouldn't be as much of a penalty to working created by losing one's benefits, because there would be fewer benefits to lose under a Romney budgetary regime.
Monday, November 5, 2012
Why I'm Voting For Barack Obama
The Economy
I think Obama has done a better job handling the economy than Romney or a Republican would do. While it has been a disappointingly slow recovery, I believe that when comparing the US to itself historically and to other international fiscal crises, we have met or outperformed expectations. While we can never know the counterfactual, I believe there is better evidence for Keynesian policies than there is for the vague trickle down, confidence-restoring argument Republicans make about conservative economic policy. Just look at Europe's austerity measures.
In addition to being bad for our social fabric, I believe that poverty and inequality take a toll on growth. I trust Democratic policies to be better for the middle class and for economic growth. (Links to a partisan site but a relatively well-researched article--here's a less lefty piece on tax rates and economic growth.)
Furthermore, I think Obama's prioritization of education and Race to the Top is important for our recovery, and I don't trust Romney to protect Title I spending or any spending at the federal level. Further reading: http://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/2012/08/29/where-unemployment-is-highest-education-is-a-big-part-of-why/
Deficit Reduction
I also believe that the Romney/Ryan plan for addressing the deficit would hurt the economy and disproportionately burden the poor (not to mention the math is dubious at best). I support some kind of Bowles Simpson agreement for long-term deficit reduction, and especially the part of Bowles Simpson that states that the whole plan presupposes significantly lower unemployment and higher growth than we currently have, and therefore unemployment and growth should be addressed before austerity measures. While some might say I've drunk the Paul Krugman Kool-Aid, I consider myself more of a technocrat than a total lefty on budget issues.
I am encouraged by the recent action of the Fed (which was endorsed even by the more hawkish members of the board) to tie interest rates to other indicators of economic health, specifically inflation and unemployment. I support a dual mandate of the Fed, to control inflation while at the same time using its powers to promote full employment. I would like to see a deficit reduction package along these lines, addressing unemployment and growth targets first, then tackling our long-run debt problem. Further reading: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/09/20/low-rates-until-unemployment-hits-5-5-a-fed-official-gives-his-plan-for-liftoff/
I think the Republicans beating the drum against spending on things like NPR is fear-mongering and distracting from the real problem at hand--addressing health care costs and to a lesser extent social security entitlements. Further reading: http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3772&wpisrc=nl_wonk
Nevertheless, here's something from the other side, if you must: http://scholar.harvard.edu/mankiw/files/optimal_taxation_in_theory.pdf I remember a while back reading something I think from AEI about the corporate tax rate, and I keep going back and forth on that. I'm intrigued by how the Europeans do it--that is, our taxation scheme is actually more progressive than theirs (due to the regressive VAT), but they make up for it and then some on the spending side, for an overall more progressive redistribution. Then again, this: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/02/business/questions-raised-on-withdrawal-of-congressional-research-services-report-on-tax-rates.html?src=me&ref=general&_r=0
Health Care
No one thinks the ACA is perfect. It has some mixed evidence--expanded (private) coverage, but debatable effects on premiums. But I believe health care is the biggest threat to the US's long-run fiscal solvency, and I believe the ACA is a credible start to addressing that. This "robbing Medicare" argument is BS; I'm not an expert, but health policy wonks of all stripes support Medicare Advantage reform as a cost saving mechanism. Unlike Hillarycare, Obamacare got insurers, hospitals, doctors, seniors, and the chamber of commerce together in an unholy marriage, which is no small feat. The Gipper himself signed health care reform (Medicare Catastrophic, 1988) into law, but it was later repealed as seniors revolted against premiums that were actually tied to their ability to pay.
Republicans argue that we need reform, but not this reform, but what Romney is offering a) will probably not work; b) be inhumane; c) comes with very high stakes (you can weigh the pros and cons), and d) is highly unlikely to get the support needed to pass--as is always the case with healthcare reform.
The Environment
I mean, do I really even need to go there? I think the government has been and always will be in the business of picking winners and losers, and I'd rather they pick a Solyndra and a failed battery supply chain than do nothing to address the market failure that is our climate problem. If we can't price carbon appropriately, than supporting the nascent renewables industry is the next best thing, as they face barriers to entry like you'd expect in an energy market. That's not to say there aren't trade-offs, for the economy in the short term and the environment in the long run (fracking, anyone? I actually will take the lower carbon emissions over a tee-totaling attitude towards natgas extraction--I just trust the Dems to regulate it better.)
Social Issues
I mean, I really don't need to go here. I believe in a woman's right to choose, and even though a lot of this policy will be carried out at the state level, 1) court appointments and 2) srsly cnat vote for these ass jackets zomg legitimate rape what.
Foreign Policy
Yeah, he made some missteps on Israel early on, but I"ll take Hillary over some warmongering John Bolton any day.
But Don't Listen to Me...
Read the WaPo endorsement.
Maybe if You Were Voting for This Kind of Republican...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/09/21/where-are-the-pro-market-republicans/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/09/21/the-13-most-interesting-congressional-campaign-proposals/
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/09/romney-47-percent-rankles-conservative-policy-wonks.php
But You're Not.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-25/moderate-romney-wouldn-t-make-it-past-inauguration-day.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/10/04/which-romney-will-voters-get/
I think Obama has done a better job handling the economy than Romney or a Republican would do. While it has been a disappointingly slow recovery, I believe that when comparing the US to itself historically and to other international fiscal crises, we have met or outperformed expectations. While we can never know the counterfactual, I believe there is better evidence for Keynesian policies than there is for the vague trickle down, confidence-restoring argument Republicans make about conservative economic policy. Just look at Europe's austerity measures.
In addition to being bad for our social fabric, I believe that poverty and inequality take a toll on growth. I trust Democratic policies to be better for the middle class and for economic growth. (Links to a partisan site but a relatively well-researched article--here's a less lefty piece on tax rates and economic growth.)
Furthermore, I think Obama's prioritization of education and Race to the Top is important for our recovery, and I don't trust Romney to protect Title I spending or any spending at the federal level. Further reading: http://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/2012/08/29/where-unemployment-is-highest-education-is-a-big-part-of-why/
Deficit Reduction
I also believe that the Romney/Ryan plan for addressing the deficit would hurt the economy and disproportionately burden the poor (not to mention the math is dubious at best). I support some kind of Bowles Simpson agreement for long-term deficit reduction, and especially the part of Bowles Simpson that states that the whole plan presupposes significantly lower unemployment and higher growth than we currently have, and therefore unemployment and growth should be addressed before austerity measures. While some might say I've drunk the Paul Krugman Kool-Aid, I consider myself more of a technocrat than a total lefty on budget issues.
I am encouraged by the recent action of the Fed (which was endorsed even by the more hawkish members of the board) to tie interest rates to other indicators of economic health, specifically inflation and unemployment. I support a dual mandate of the Fed, to control inflation while at the same time using its powers to promote full employment. I would like to see a deficit reduction package along these lines, addressing unemployment and growth targets first, then tackling our long-run debt problem. Further reading: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/09/20/low-rates-until-unemployment-hits-5-5-a-fed-official-gives-his-plan-for-liftoff/
I think the Republicans beating the drum against spending on things like NPR is fear-mongering and distracting from the real problem at hand--addressing health care costs and to a lesser extent social security entitlements. Further reading: http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3772&wpisrc=nl_wonk
Nevertheless, here's something from the other side, if you must: http://scholar.harvard.edu/mankiw/files/optimal_taxation_in_theory.pdf I remember a while back reading something I think from AEI about the corporate tax rate, and I keep going back and forth on that. I'm intrigued by how the Europeans do it--that is, our taxation scheme is actually more progressive than theirs (due to the regressive VAT), but they make up for it and then some on the spending side, for an overall more progressive redistribution. Then again, this: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/02/business/questions-raised-on-withdrawal-of-congressional-research-services-report-on-tax-rates.html?src=me&ref=general&_r=0
Health Care
No one thinks the ACA is perfect. It has some mixed evidence--expanded (private) coverage, but debatable effects on premiums. But I believe health care is the biggest threat to the US's long-run fiscal solvency, and I believe the ACA is a credible start to addressing that. This "robbing Medicare" argument is BS; I'm not an expert, but health policy wonks of all stripes support Medicare Advantage reform as a cost saving mechanism. Unlike Hillarycare, Obamacare got insurers, hospitals, doctors, seniors, and the chamber of commerce together in an unholy marriage, which is no small feat. The Gipper himself signed health care reform (Medicare Catastrophic, 1988) into law, but it was later repealed as seniors revolted against premiums that were actually tied to their ability to pay.
Republicans argue that we need reform, but not this reform, but what Romney is offering a) will probably not work; b) be inhumane; c) comes with very high stakes (you can weigh the pros and cons), and d) is highly unlikely to get the support needed to pass--as is always the case with healthcare reform.
The Environment
I mean, do I really even need to go there? I think the government has been and always will be in the business of picking winners and losers, and I'd rather they pick a Solyndra and a failed battery supply chain than do nothing to address the market failure that is our climate problem. If we can't price carbon appropriately, than supporting the nascent renewables industry is the next best thing, as they face barriers to entry like you'd expect in an energy market. That's not to say there aren't trade-offs, for the economy in the short term and the environment in the long run (fracking, anyone? I actually will take the lower carbon emissions over a tee-totaling attitude towards natgas extraction--I just trust the Dems to regulate it better.)
Social Issues
I mean, I really don't need to go here. I believe in a woman's right to choose, and even though a lot of this policy will be carried out at the state level, 1) court appointments and 2) srsly cnat vote for these ass jackets zomg legitimate rape what.
Foreign Policy
Yeah, he made some missteps on Israel early on, but I"ll take Hillary over some warmongering John Bolton any day.
But Don't Listen to Me...
Read the WaPo endorsement.
Maybe if You Were Voting for This Kind of Republican...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/09/21/where-are-the-pro-market-republicans/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/09/21/the-13-most-interesting-congressional-campaign-proposals/
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/09/romney-47-percent-rankles-conservative-policy-wonks.php
But You're Not.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-25/moderate-romney-wouldn-t-make-it-past-inauguration-day.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/10/04/which-romney-will-voters-get/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)