Category: Economics

We Need a Good Recession

“I believe if the credit markets are not functioning, that jobs will be lost, that our credit rate will rise, more houses will be foreclosed upon, GDP will contract, that the economy will just not be able to recover in a normal, healthy way.” – Ben Bernanke, Fed Chairman, Sept. 23rd, 2008

“that our American economy’s arteries, our financial system, is clogged and if we don’t act the patient will surely suffer a heart attack — maybe next week, maybe in six months, but it will happen.” – Hank Paulson, Secretary of the Treasury, Sept. 23rd, 2008

Even before testimony concluded yesterday on Capitol Hill, reports with headlines like “Bernanke: Recession Certain in Absence of Bailout” and “Bush Administration Tells Congress to Act Quickly or Risk Recession” hit the wire services. Both Ben Bernanke and Hank Paulson stated clearly that a recession would occur if the proposed $700 Billion dollar bailout plan were not enacted. Similar threats of recession were used earlier this year when President Bush and Congress enacted a tax rebate stimulus program.

Let me ask a simple question: why is everyone so afraid of a recession? Recessions and boom times are both natural parts of the business cycle in market economies, and the United States experienced twenty recessions (including the Great Depression) in the 20th century alone. Economic downturns, with the associated bankruptcies and layoffs, help trim inefficient investments made at the peak of economic cycles, thus paving the way for the next round of economic growth.

The alternative to business cycles can be found in state-controlled economies, where inability to reallocate capital to new enterprises slows overall economic growth dramatically. Governments presiding over market economies also attempt to tamper with business cycles, and while intervention may soften the landing in a recession, it may also delay the recovery. Japan’s “lost decade” of the 90’s, where poor economic growth was the norm, resulted after Japan’s incredible economic boom of the 80’s. The extraordinary length of Japan’s recovery stemmed partly from the Japanese government’s inability to allow corporate and bank bankruptcies progress at the rate needed to clear out bad loans and start a new economic cycle.

The US would do well to heed Japan’s allegory. Ideally, any intervention in the financial markets should enable orderly collapse and restructuring of businesses overridden with bad debt. No one gains in a financial panic, but an unwinding of the excesses of the US housing bubble is inevitable. Creative Destruction is at the heart of the business cycle, it’s at the heart of the American economy, and it will be necessary in this cycle as well. Let’s not make it take longer than necessary.

Posted on by praveenghanta 4

Mortgages and Health Insurance: The Biggest Subsidies of Them All

Economists decry government subsidies, because they distort the market and cause inefficiencies, thus wasting taxpayers’ money and decreasing overall economic growth. Taxpayers and advocacy groups rightly decry government subsidies to corporations as pork-barrel spending.

Where then is the indignation regarding the two biggest subsidy programs of them all?

I’m talking about the home mortgage interest deduction and the employer health insurance deduction. The home mortgage interest deduction subsidizes homeowners at the rate of $100 billion per year, while employer health insurance is similarly subsidized at $250 billion per year. These subsidies carve a large hole in government revenue, which could otherwise be used to reduce the deficit or reduce taxes for everyone.

Both subsidies also have a more insidious effect – they raise prices for both homes and medical care, thereby making it harder for those with low incomes to afford either one. The mortgage deduction lowers the effective cost of a house for all buyers, thus increasing demand and raising prices. The net effect of the subsidy is to cause Americans to live in bigger houses than they otherwise would, without raising rates of home ownership significantly. Similarly, the employee health care deduction raises the cost of health care for everyone, and causes Americans to spend more on health care than they otherwise would.

Neither deduction is designed to help those with the greatest difficulty in getting a home or health insurance. Lower income families can’t afford the down payment required to avail themselves of the mortgage tax break, and most low-paying jobs don’t provide health care as a benefit.

These subsidies are popular because they target middle and upper-income America, but that doesn’t make them any more effective than much-maligned corporate subsidies. $350 Billion is a lot of money, and should either be given back to ALL American taxpayers, or spent paying for the deficit, recent wars, or other priorities.

Posted on by praveenghanta 6

What People Make III: Career ROI is as important as salary

What is the purpose of higher education? While a minority of college students have enough wealth to study as a hobby, college students generally view college as a step towards a career, with higher earnings potential as one motivation. But while a four-year college education generally has the same price tag regardless of degree, an individual’s future earnings potential vary widely depending on the degree chosen. Here is a partial ranking of careers, ranked by NPV and rate of return (details on the methodology at bottom):

Career ROI Rankings:

Career Average Salary NPV After-tax earnings (lifetime) Rate of Return
1. Law $124,230 $188,000 $4,825,000 15%
Attorneys rank high on the list since their education is complete just three years after college, and they can step right into six-figure salaries.
2. Computer Science $83,160 $184,000 $3,534,000 19%
Computer science grads start work immediately after college with salaries above 50k, giving them the fastest payback on their investment. Lifetime earnings potential is lower than in some professional fields, however.
3. Pharmacy $98,960 $168,000 $3,885,000 16.2%
Pharmacists typically must complete a six year program before starting work, but high demand for pharmacists enables them to move directly into $90k per year positions upon graduation.
4. Medicine $179,000 $151,000 $5,908,000 12.9%
Doctors have always enjoyed good incomes, but their educational investment is so high that it reduces their educational ROI more than is commonly realized.
5. Accounting $69,500 $148,600 $3,151,000 17.9%
Accountants can start work right after college, and their pay increases considerably once they’ve completed their CPA certification.
6. Airline Pilot $148,410 $125,000 $3,578,000 14.25%
Airline pilots must work for years at low paying regional air or charter jobs before making it to a major carrier, but the final payoff is a relatively high salary and reasonable working hours.
7. Nursing (RN) $62,480 $100,000 $2,633,000 16.3%
Nurses can finish training in as little as three years, and earn relatively good salaries right from the start, with job prospects virtually anywhere in the country.
8. Architecture $73,650 $54,000 $2,839,000 12.3%
Architects have decent salaries in the long run, but they must first complete a five year Bachelor’s program, and then spend several years as interns before becoming full-fledged architects.
9. Graphic Design $45,340 $24,850 $2,125,000 11.6%
Graphic Designers can start work right after finishing college, but competition for positions is high, keeping salaries down.
10. Teaching (K-12) $52,450 -$10,100 $1,986,000 9.4%
Teachers are not particularly well compensated in the US, and since their starting salaries are particularly low, the NPV of an investment in a teaching career is actually negative.
11. English (PhD) $60,000 -$14,000 $2,301,000 9.3%
At the bottom of the rankings are Humanities majors. If an English or Humanities PhD candidate tells you that they didn’t go into it for the money, they’re not lying: this career path has a negative return on investment in income terms.

Annotated spreadsheet with all calculations: HTML | XLS with formulas

Law, Computer Science, and Pharmacy majors take top honors in terms of career ROI, while (perhaps not surprisingly) artists, teachers, and Humanities professors come out on bottom. Doctors and airline pilots are further down the list than one might suspect, principally because they spend so many years in training before achieving high compensation.

Definition of Terms:

NPV: This is the Net Present Value of the student’s investment in education, based on a 10% discount rate. 10% is a common rate of return expected for long-term investments, and it helps provides a fair benchmark of the value of each career path.

IRR: This is the Internal Rate of Return of the educational investment. IRR tends to favor shorter time horizons, so shorter educational paths like computer science are rewarded when measured via IRR.

Lifetime Earnings: This is a simple sum of the lifetime after-tax earnings of each career path from age 18 through age 65.

More info on Methodology:

All salary data was taken from the BLS May 2007 Occupation Employment and Wages Estimates. College was assumed to cost $20,000 per year (this sounds low, but is an average for public and private colleges, after all scholarships, grants, and student work are taken into account). Professional school costs, and graduate and resident stipend data were sourced variously, and are noted in the spreadsheet. Inflation at 2% and progressive taxation were also accounted for in the calculations.

The rate of return for each field was calculated by determining the IRR for each field, taking into account the cost of college and measuring total after-tax gains from age 22 to age 65. The NPV of each career path was also calculated with a discount rate of 10%. Finally, lifetime after-tax earnings were calculated as a simple sum to provide another measure of earnings potential.

Posted on by praveenghanta 6

Obama & McCain: Here’s a real way to reduce gas prices!

Oil prices have continued their steady march, breaking through $135/barrel (which implies gas around 4.25) and climbing. As noted previously, the fundamentals driving oil prices higher are steady growth in global demand for oil combined with flat supply – an Econ 101 recipe for higher prices. What’s a presidential candidate to do about the situation? John McCain and Hillary Clinton both expressed strong support for a repeal in summer gas taxes; Barack Obama chose not to hop on the bandwagon, but offered no immediate alternative. So what can we do in the short term in this regard?

First, eliminate the use of heating oil in American homes. Heating oil and diesel fuel are essentially the same product, so heating oil demand directly impacts the price of diesel and gasoline. Replacing oil heating with gas heating would replace demand for imported oil with demand for natural gas that is produced primarily in the US and Canada.

Eight million homes in the US still use heating oil, and it accounts for roughly 2% of all oil demand in the US. Since oil prices are decided at the margin, a 1% drop in demand could significantly impact price. A $4000 tax credit would convince most heating oil users to switch immediately, and would send a strong signal to gas utilities to expand their service areas. If four million homes switched to gas overnight, this would cost taxpayers $16 Billion in one-time tax credits, about the same as two summers of the McCain/Clinton tax holiday plan. But the additional natural gas demand would be manageable, and the market signal of reduced oil demand would have swift impact.

Second, buy out old gas guzzlers and crush them. Since new vehicles are much more efficient on average, buying old junkers that get less than 20mpg would be an efficient way to reduce oil demand, while potentially helping poorer consumers to find new transportation. For example, offering $2000 per inefficient old car would enable many drivers to retire their old vehicles and move to new, efficient vehicles by using the money as a down payment. 10 million cars could be retired by spending $20 billion, and if each 15mpg vehicle were replaced with a 25mpg vehicle, 210,000 barrels per day of consumption could be eliminated.

Replacing oil heat and getting rid of old gas guzzlers may sound wonkish, but together these ideas could reduce US oil consumption nearly 5%. Unlike many plans under discussions, these steps are feasible and can be implemented today. Of course, these are only steps in a larger energy plan – but it’s better than many of the steps that politicians are currently advocating!

Calculations:

8 million homes * 730 gallons per year / 42 gallons per barrel / 365 days = 381,000 barrels per day

Converting 200,000 bpd of heating to natural gas requires 7 BCF (billion cubic feet) per week of natural gas. Since this consumption is wintertime only, it’s probably closer to 20 bcf per week, which is large, but not unsustainable, given that the US draws roughly 100 BCF per week from storage during the winter.
For cars, if each old 15mpg car is driven 12,000 miles per year, it consumes 800 gallons per year, compared to 480 gallons for the same distance in a 25mpg car. This equates to a savings of 3.2 billion gallons per year, which is equivalent to 210,000 barrels/day.

Posted on by praveenghanta 5

Can Fuel Efficiency Save Us From Peak Oil?

With gas prices rising daily, Americans are focusing on energy issues of late, and Peak Oil is beginning to enter the common lexicon. Peak oil represents the moment of peak oil production on Earth, after which oil production will plateau and eventually decline. This does not mean that poof – one day the oil is all gone! Rather, it means that oil production growth will slow, and eventually become negative, causing ever higher oil prices until or unless demand also declines.

Many prognosticators now believe that an oil production peak is imminent or has already occurred. While optimists predict production growth for decades to come, and pessimists believe that oil production will soon crash, many forecasts suggest that oil production will soon plateau for a period before beginning to decline. This will indeed be the case if new oil exploration projects just manage to replace declining production in aging fields.

Can the world economy continue to grow if constrained by oil production of 85M barrels per day? The EIA (Energy Information Administration) has estimated that oil demand will grow to 120M barrels per day by 2025, with two-thirds of this total expected to be used for motor transport. These estimates are created using estimates of growth in total vehicle ownership and usage. But what about fuel efficiency? Worldwide vehicle fuel efficiency averages around 20 mpg today; what if this number could be doubled by 2030 using the latest technologies? Doubling worldwide fuel efficiency would reduce demand in 2030 from 120M barrels/day to 80M barrels/day, enabling significant growth in worldwide vehicle usage while keeping oil demand below current consumption! This assumes no fuel efficiency gains in industrial and other oil uses.

Hybrid cars on the market today get in excess of 40 mpg, and new innovations like the Toyota Prius plugin modification (100+ mpg) and the coming VW Golf diesel hybrid (70mpg) push the boundaries much further. Buses, trucks, and other large vehicles are also joining the party, with major shippers like Fedex and UPS acquiring efficient vehicles for their fleets. The lifespan of the average vehicle is 16 years in the US today, so it will take time for high oil prices to cause a worldwide fleet turnover. But the the market signal of high oil prices is unmistakable, with manufacturers like Ford announcing cutbacks in SUV production and a focus on smaller vehicles. And if fuel efficiency can get us from today to 2030, that buys a lot of time for an economic transition to more long-term energy sources.

Posted on by praveenghanta 1

Affording the American Dream, Then and Now

How many people do you know that can afford the American Dream? In the post-war America of the 50’s, the modern notion of the American Dream crystallized: families aspired to a single family home, an automobile (or two), and modern comforts like a television, refrigerator, and washing machine. These seem like modest goals now, until you consider that in the fifties, most families got by on a single income! What percentage of households today can afford a median-priced house, two cars, and common comforts on a single income, and how does that compare to yesteryear?

According to the Economic Policy Institute, the median family budget for a family of four was around $40,000 in 2004, including all major household expense categories and taxes paid. The EPI family budget must be adjusted for inflation, and to account for ownership of a home and two cars. Excluding housing and transportation, the EPI median budget would be roughly $33,000 in 2007 dollars. Two low-cost Honda Civics would add another $12,000 per year, and $1600 per month would pay for a US-median $200,000 house, for a total budget of $64,000 per year. The EPI family budget excludes entertainment, consumer electronics, vacations, and other discretionary spending. Padding the budget to $70,000 might account for these expenses. A family breadwinner making $70,000 per year is in the 88% percentile, making it clear why most families now get by on two incomes.

While it’s difficult to reconstruct an accurate family budget for 1950 using available data, data on the change in housing prices and median incomes can be used as a starting point. Median home values rose 151% from 1950-2000, and in 1950 a single family home cost only $53,000 in 2007 dollars. Median income was around $22,000 in 2007 dollars. This equates to roughly $4800 per year in mortgage, taxes, and insurance, or almost 75% less than in the modern example. The 1950’s earner would thus have to earn 2.5 times the median income to afford the American dream budget of $55,000. If one car is excluded (since few families at the time had two cars), this ratio drops to 2.2 times median income.

In 2007, an individual would have to earn 2.7 times the median income of $26,000 to afford the American dream. This ratio is higher than it was in 1950, and most of the difference can be explained by rising home prices, particularly in the last decade. At the same time, the ratio isn’t significantly higher, and even in the 50’s the idealized American dream was only affordable by a small percentage. Why then do many today feel the 50’s and 60’s were such better times? Perhaps, as this blog suggests, it’s because we’re working harder today to afford consumer lifestyles and modern luxuries, rather than sacrificing comfort for family time.

Posted on by praveenghanta 0

How much will gas cost in 3 months?

This question is actually fairly easy to answer. If we look at wholesale gasoline futures prices, we can see with pretty good accuracy what wholesale gasoline will cost in a month or two. It takes a couple of weeks (or longer) for wholesale gasoline to make it to your local gas station, so that we can look out and see mid summer gasoline prices today.

Take a look at Bloomberg’s Energy Prices page, and you’ll see that NYMEX gasoline futures are trading at just under 3 dollars (297 cents) as of April 18th, 2008.

On average, federal and state governments add another 47 cents in taxes to this figure. The federal government adds 18.4 cents in taxes, and each state’s total gas tax is listed here.

Gasoline storage, distribution, marketing, and retail markup add a bit more than 10%, or 30-35 cents to the final price.

All told, that means that $3.80 regular unleaded is on the way for the summer in low tax states, with gas just over $4 in California, Nevada, and other states with higher gas taxes.

But don’t think I’d have it any other way – just as in the late 70’s, high gas prices will be Americans’ best incentive to ditch their gas guzzlers and start conserving.

Posted on by praveenghanta 3

Why are Oil Prices so High? An Energy Primer

10/21/2008 Update:Supply and Demand have now driven prices down significantly, as fears of a global depression, and reduced driving worldwide, have led to decreased use of oil. How significant was speculation in the runup to $147 oil? Certainly it played a part, just as speculation played a part in the dot com boom and the housing bubble. But oil is still up 700% from its lows around the turn of the century, and that’s due to the fundamentals explained further below.

05/22/2008 Update: As this article has become far and away my most-read, and since oil is now cruising towards $140 a barrel, I thought an update was deserved. For those without the time to explore the links below, oil is rising for a simple reason: oil production has not risen significantly since 2005, while demand for oil worldwide continues to rise rapidly. The simple law of supply and demand is moving oil prices up, and no number of Congressional hearings will change that.

With news of crude oil prices topping $110/barrel today, it’s no surprise that the price of gasoline and oil are once again on people’s minds. As an introduction, here are a few links on the global transportation energy (oil) situation today, and on various risks that we might face in the future.

What is Peak Oil? – This Wikipedia article on peak oil outlines the notion that oil production must someday hit a peak, since oil is a finite resource drawn from Earth’s crust.

Export Land Model – Jeffrey Brown, an independent oil geologist, and others at The Oil Drum provide insight into the effects of a simultaneous plateau or drop in oil production coupled with rapidly rising oil consumption in oil exporting countries. The ELM is a simple model that graphically illustrates some of the forces driving energy prices rapidly higher.
Read the full entry (271 words) …

Posted on by praveenghanta 3

GDP Doesn’t Matter, GDP Per Capita Does

It’s 2008, and it looks like the US (and the globe?) may be headed for recession. Even if the economy doesn’t actually enter a recession (defined as two quarters of negative GDP growth), it will enter a period of slower growth during 2008. Just how much will that slower growth affect the US worker and population at large? While GDP measures the size of the total economy, it’s GDP per capita, the slice of GDP that an “average” American has, that really matters. While GDP per capita doesn’t take into account income inequality and other measures that impact individual well-being, it does a much better job of measuring how economic growth is impacting our lives over time.
Read the full entry (399 words) …

Posted on by praveenghanta 5

US Healthcare – Where does all the money go?

The Census Bureau recently released the results of its 2006 Services Industry Survey, which shed light in particular on where US healthcare dollars are spent:

Census Bureau Press Release: “Doctors and Dentists Account for 27 Percent of $1.6 Trillion in Health Care Revenue”

Full tabular data on US healthcare spending in 2006

The second link provides some detail on where US health care spending goes. It’s worthwhile to note that $117 Billion in Social Assistance is included, with line items like children’s daycare, community housing assistance, and other rolled into the overall Health Care and Social Assistance category. Without Social Assistance, health care spending is actually 1.45 trillion, or 11% of US GDP.
Read the full entry (500 words) …

Posted on by praveenghanta 3