Tag Archives: union

The unseen costs of Amazon’s HQ2 Site Selection

Earlier this year Amazon narrowed down the list of potential cities to site its second headquarters. Applicants are now waiting out the selection process. It’s unclear when Amazon will make its choice, but that hasn’t stopped many from speculating who the likely contenders are. Varying sources report Atlanta, Boston, and Washington D.C. at the top of the list. The cities that didn’t make the cut are no doubt envious of the finalists, having just missed out on the potential for a $5 billion facility and 50,000 jobs. The second HQ is supposed to be as significant for economic growth as the company’s first site, which according to Amazon’s calculations contributed an additional $38 billion to Seattle’s economy between 2010 and 2016. There is clearly a lot to be gained by the winner.  But there are also many costs. Whichever city ends up winning the bid will be changed forever. What’s left out of the discussion is how the bidding process and corporate incentives affect the country.

Although the details of the proposals are not made public, each finalist is likely offering some combination of tax breaks, subsidies, and other incentives in return for the company’s choice to locate in their city. The very bidding process necessitates a lot of time and effort by many parties. It will certainly seem “worth it” to the winning party, but the losers aren’t getting back the time and effort they spent.

This practice of offering incentives for businesses has been employed by states and localities for decades, with increased usage over time. Targeted economic development incentives can take the form of tax exemptions, abatements, regulatory relief, and taxpayer assistance. They are but one explicit cost paid by states and cities looking to secure business, and there is a growing literature that suggests these policies are more costly than meets the eye.

First, there’s the issue of economic freedom. Recent Mercatus research suggests that there may be a tradeoff to offering economic development incentives like the ones that Amazon is receiving. Economists John Dove and Daniel Sutter find that states that spend more on targeted development incentives as a percentage of gross state product also have less overall economic freedom. The theoretical reasoning behind this is not very clear, but Dove and Sutter propose that it could be because state governments that use more subsidies or tax breaks to attract businesses will also spend more or raise taxes for everyone else in their state, resulting in less equitable treatment of their citizens and reducing overall economic freedom.

The authors define an area as having more economic freedom if it has lower levels of government spending, taxation, and labor market restrictions. They use the Fraser Institute’s Economic Freedom of North America Index (EFNA) to measure this. Of the three areas within the EFNA index, labor market freedom is the most affected by targeted economic development incentives. This means that labor market regulation such as the minimum wage, government employment, and union density are all significantly related to the use of targeted incentives.

Economic freedom can be ambiguous, however, and it’s sometimes hard to really grasp its impact on our lives. It sounds nice in theory, but because of its vagueness, it may not seem as appealing as a tangible economic development incentive package and the corresponding business attached to it. Economic freedom is associated with a series of other, more tangible benefits, including higher levels of income and faster economic growth. There’s also evidence that greater economic freedom is associated with urban development.

Not only is the practice of offering targeted incentives associated with lower economic freedom, but it is also indicative of other issues. Economists Peter Calcagno and Frank Hefner have found that states with budget issues, high tax and regulatory burdens, and poorly trained labor forces are also more likely to offer targeted incentives as a way to offset costly economic conditions. Or, in other words, targeted development incentives can be – and often are – used to compensate for a less than ideal business climate. Rather than reform preexisting fiscal or regulatory issues within a state, the status quo and the use of targeted incentives is the more politically feasible option.

Perhaps the most concerning aspect of Amazon’s bidding process is the effect it has on our culture. Ideally, economic development policy should be determined by healthy economic competition between states. In practice, it has evolved into more of an unhealthy interaction between private interests and political favor. Economists Joshua Jansa and Virginia Gray refer to this as cultural capture. They find increases in business political contributions to be positively correlated with state subsidy spending. Additionally, they express concern over the types of firms that these subsidies attract. There is a selection bias for targeted incentives to systematically favor “flighty firms” or firms that will simply relocate if better subsidies are offered by another state, or potentially threaten to leave in an effort to extract more subsidies.

None of these concerns even address the question of whether targeted incentives actually achieve their intended goals.  The evidence does not look good. In a review of the literature by my colleague Matthew Mitchell, and me, we found that of the studies that evaluate the effect of targeted incentives on the broader economy, only one study found a positive effect, whereas four studies found unanimously negative effects. Thirteen studies (half of the sample) found no statistically significant effect, and the remaining papers found mixed results in which some companies or industries won, but at the expense of others.

In addition to these unseen costs on the economy, some critics are beginning to question whether being chosen by Amazon is even worth it. Amazon’s first headquarters has been considered a catalyst for the city’s tech industry, but local government and business leaders have raised concerns about other possibly related issues such as gentrification, rising housing prices, and persistent construction and traffic congestion. There is less research on this, but it is worth considering.

It is up to each city’s policymakers to decide whether these trade-offs are worth it. I would argue, however, that much of the evidence points to targeted incentives – like the ones that cities are using to attract Amazon’s business – as having more costs than benefits. Targeted economic development incentives may seem to offer a lot of tangible benefits, but their unseen costs should not be overlooked. From the perspective of how they benefit each state’s economy as a whole, targeted incentives are detrimental to economic freedom as well as our culture surrounding corporate handouts. Last but not least, they may often be an attempt to cover up other issues that are unattractive to businesses.

What else can the government do for America’s poor?

This year marks the 20th anniversary of the 1996 welfare reforms, which has generated some discussion about poverty in the U.S. I recently spoke to a group of high school students on this topic and about what reforms, if any, should be made to our means-tested welfare programs.

After reading several papers (e.g. here, here and here), the book Hillbilly Elegy, and reflecting on my own experiences I am not convinced the government is capable of doing much more.

History

President Lyndon Johnson declared “War on Poverty” in his 1964 state of the union address. Over the last 50 years there has been some progress but there are still approximately 43 million Americans living in poverty as defined by the U.S. Census Bureau.

Early on it looked as if poverty would be eradicated fairly quickly. In 1964, prior to the “War on Poverty”, the official poverty rate was 20%. It declined rapidly from 1965 to 1972, especially for the most impoverished groups as shown in the figure below (data from Table 1 in Haveman et al. , 2015). (Click to enlarge)

poverty-rate-1965-72

Since 1972 the poverty rate has remained fairly constant. It reached its lowest point in 1973—11.1%—but has since fluctuated between roughly 11% and 15%, largely in accordance with the business cycle. The number of people in poverty has increased, but that is unsurprising considering the relatively flat poverty rate coupled with a growing population.

census-poverty-rate-time-series-2015

Meanwhile, an alternative measure called the supplemental poverty measure (SPM) has declined, but it was still over 15% as of 2013, as shown below.

poverty-rate-time-series

The official poverty measure (OPM) only includes cash and cash benefits in its measure of a person’s resources, while the SPM includes tax credits and non-cash transfers (e.g. food stamps) as part of someone’s resources when determining their poverty status. The SPM also makes adjustments for local cost of living.

For example, the official poverty threshold for a single person under the age of 65 was $12,331 in 2015. But $12,331 can buy more in rural South Carolina than it can in Manhattan, primarily because of housing costs. The SPM takes these differences into account, although I am not sure it should for reasons I won’t get into here.

Regardless of the measure we look at, poverty is still higher than most people would probably expect considering the time and resources that have been expended trying to reduce it. This is especially true in high-poverty areas where poverty rates still exceed 33%.

A county-level map from the Census that uses the official poverty measure shows the distribution of poverty across the 48 contiguous states in 2014. White represents the least amount of poverty (3.2% to 11.4%) and dark pink the most (32.7% to 52.2%).

us-county-poverty-map

The most impoverished counties are in the south, Appalachia and rural west, though there are pockets of high-poverty counties in the plains states, central Michigan and northern Maine.

Why haven’t we made more progress on poverty? And is there more that government can do? I think these questions are intertwined. My answer to the first is it’s complicated and to the second I don’t think so.

Past efforts

The inability to reduce the official poverty rate below 10% doesn’t appear to be due to a lack of money. The figure below shows real per capita expenditures—sum of federal, state and local—on the top 84 (top line) and the top 10 (bottom line) means-tested welfare poverty programs since 1970. It is from Haveman et al. (2015).

real-expend-per-capita-on-poverty-programs

There has been substantial growth in both since the largest drop in poverty occurred in the late 1960s. If money was the primary issue one would expect better results over time.

So if the amount of money is not the issue what is? It could be that even though we are spending money, we aren’t spending it on the right things. The chart below shows real per capita spending on several different programs and is also from Haveman et al. (2015).

expend-per-cap-non-medicaid-pov-programs

Spending on direct cash-assistance programs—Aid for Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)—has fallen over time, while spending on programs designed to encourage work—Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC)—and on non-cash benefits like food stamps and housing aid increased.

In the mid-1970s welfare programs began shifting from primarily cash aid (AFDC, TANF) to work-based aid (EITC). Today the EITC and food stamps are the core programs of the anti-poverty effort.

It’s impossible to know whether this shift has resulted in more or less poverty than what would have occurred without it. We cannot reconstruct the counterfactual without going back in time. But many people think that more direct cash aid, in the spirit of AFDC, is what’s needed.

The difference today is that instead of means-tested direct cash aid, many are calling for a universal basic income or UBI. A UBI would provide each citizen, from Bill Gates to the poorest single mother, with a monthly cash payment, no strings attached. Prominent supporters of a UBI include libertarian-leaning Charles Murray and people on the left such as Matt Bruenig and Elizabeth Stoker.

Universal Basic Income?

The details of each UBI plan vary, but the basic appeal is the same: It would reduce the welfare bureaucracy, simplify the process for receiving aid, increase the incentive to work at the margin since it doesn’t phase out, treat low-income people like adults capable of making their own decisions and mechanically decrease poverty by giving people extra cash.

A similar proposal is a negative income tax (NIT), first popularized by Milton Friedman. The current EITC is a negative income tax conditional on work, since it is refundable i.e. eligible people receive the difference between their EITC and the taxes they owe. The NIT has its own problems, discussed in the link above, but it still has its supporters.

In theory I like a UBI. Economists in general tend to favor cash benefits over in-kind programs like vouchers and food stamps due to their simplicity and larger effects on recipient satisfaction or utility. In reality, however, a UBI of even $5,000 is very expensive and there are public choice considerations that many UBI supporters ignore, or at least downplay, that are real problems.

The political process can quickly turn an affordable UBI into an unaffordable one. It seems reasonable to expect that politicians trying to win elections will make UBI increases part of their platform, with each trying to outdo the other. There is little that can be done, short of a constitutional amendment (and even those can be changed), to ensure that political forces don’t alter the amount, recipient criteria or add additional programs on top of the UBI.

I think the history of the income tax demonstrates that a relatively low, simple UBI would quickly morph into a monstrosity. In 1913 there were 7 income tax brackets that applied to all taxpayers, and a worker needed to make more than $20K (equivalent to $487,733 in 2016) before he reached the second bracket of 2% (!). By 1927 there were 23 brackets and the second one, at 3%, kicked in at $4K ($55,500 in 2016) instead of $20K. And of course we are all aware of the current tax code’s problems. To chart a different course for the UBI is, in my opinion, a work of fantasy.

Final thoughts

Because of politics, I think an increase in the EITC (and reducing its error rate), for both working parents and single adults, coupled with criminal justice reform that reduces the number of non-violent felons—who have a hard time finding employment upon release—are preferable to a UBI.

I also support the abolition of the minimum wage, which harms the job prospects of low-skilled workers. If we are going to tie anti-poverty programs to work in order to encourage movement towards self-sufficiency, then we should make it as easy as possible to obtain paid employment. Eliminating the minimum wage and subsidizing income through the EITC is a fairer, more efficient way to reduce poverty.

Additionally, if a minimum standard of living is something that is supported by society than all of society should share the burden via tax-funded welfare programs. It is not philanthropic to force business owners to help the poor on behalf of the rest of us.

More economic growth would also help. Capitalism is responsible for lifting billions of people out of dire poverty in developing countries and the poverty rate in the U.S. falls during economic expansions (see previous poverty rate figures). Unfortunately, growth has been slow over the last 8 years and neither presidential candidate’s policies inspire much hope.

In fact, a good way for the government to help the poor is to reduce regulation and lower the corporate tax rate, which would help economic growth and increase wages.

Despite the relatively high official poverty rate in the U.S., poor people here live better than just about anywhere else in the world. Extreme poverty—think Haiti—doesn’t exist in the U.S. On a consumption rather than income basis, there’s evidence that the absolute poverty rate has fallen to about 4%.

Given the way government functions I don’t think there is much left for it to do. Its lack of local knowledge and resulting blunt, one size fits all solutions, coupled with its general inefficiency, makes it incapable of helping the unique cases that fall through the current social safety net.

Any additional progress will need to come from the bottom up and I will discuss this more in a future post.

Baltimore’s misguided move to raise its minimum wage will harm its most vulnerable

Baltimore’s city council, like others around the country, is considering raising the city’s minimum wage to $15 per hour. This is an ill-advised move that will make it harder for young people and the least skilled to find employment, which is already a difficult task in Baltimore.

The figure below shows the age 16 – 19 labor force participation (LFP) rate, employment rate, and unemployment rate in Baltimore City from 2009 to 2014 (most recent data available). The data are from the American Community Survey table S2301.

baltimore 16-19 emp stats

As shown in the figure, the LFP rate declined along with the employment rate, which has caused the unemployment rate to hold steady at approximately 40% (red line). So 40% of Baltimore’s unemployed teens were searching for a job but couldn’t find one and only 20% of all teens were actually employed, a decline of 4 percentage points (blue line). How is increasing the minimum wage to $15 per hour going to help the 40% who are looking for a job find one?

The minimum wage increase may help some people who are able to keep their job at the higher wage, but for the 40% who can’t find a job at the current minimum wage of $8.25, an increase to $15 is only going to make the task harder, if not impossible. Who is standing up for these people?

The data are just as gloomy when looking at workers with less than a high school degree, which is another group that is severely impacted by a higher minimum wage. As the figure below shows, the employment rate is falling while the unemployment rate is rising.

baltimore lt hs emp stats

In 2009 over 42% of people in this skill group were employed (blue line). In 2014 only 37% were, a decline of five percentage points. Meanwhile, the unemployment rate increased from about 19% to over 25% (red line). And all of this occurred while the economy was supposedly improving.

Again we should ask; how is a higher minimum wage going to help the 25% of high school dropouts in Baltimore who are unemployed find a job? It won’t. Unemployed workers do not become more attractive as employees simply because the city council mandates a higher wage.

What’s going to happen is that more people in this skill group will become discouraged and leave the labor market entirely. Then they will earn $0 per hour indefinitely and be forced to rely entirely on family, friends, and public assistance to live. A $15 minimum wage destroys their chances of finding meaningful employment and unduly deprives them of opportunities to better their lives.

This is the unseen effect of minimum wage hikes that $15 supporters rarely acknowledge. When faced with the higher cost, firms will hire workers who can justify a $15 wage and those who cannot will be unable to find employment. Additionally, firms will start using more technology and automation instead of workers. This happens because consumers want low prices and high quality, and as the minimum wage increases technology and capital become the best way to give consumers what they want. Over time workers in states with lower minimum wages may be forced out of the labor market as well as new technologies spread from high minimum wage areas to low minimum wage areas.

Another common argument put forth by minimum wage supporters is that taxpayers subsidize firms that pay low wages. But this is not true. Firms like Wal-Mart, McDonalds, and the countless other large and small business that employ low-skill workers are doing their part by giving people an opportunity. Firm owners did not unilaterally decide that all Americans should have a minimum standard of living and they should not be required to provide it on their own. Ultimately, advocates of a higher minimum wage who worry that they are subsidizing firms will likely be forced to contribute even more tax dollars to social programs since the wage for unemployed workers is $0.

Furthermore, why $15 and not $20? The argument is that $15/ hour is the minimum necessary to maintain a basic standard of living for working Americans but that argument is subjective. In fact, it can be extended to other areas. For example, should new hires be paid more than an entry-level salary so they can pay off college debt and maintain the standard of living of their parents?

To the extent that Americans deserve a particular lifestyle, providing it is a collective burden that should be shared by everyone. Politicians, clergy, union heads and other minimum wage supporters who want to push the entire burden onto firms are abandoning the moral obligation they claim we all share.

While minimum wage supporters mean well they appear to be blind to those who are harmed by wage controls. And those who are harmed are some of the most vulnerable members of the workforce – high school drop-outs, recent immigrants and urban youth. The minimum wage is a misguided policy that consigns these vulnerable members of the labor force to the basement of the economy and prevents any escape.

The cost disease and the privatization of government services

Many US municipalities are facing budget problems (see here, here, and here). The real cost of providing traditional public services like police, fire protection, and education is increasing, often at a rate that exceeds revenue growth. The graph below shows the real per-capita expenditure increase in five US cities from 1951 to 2006. (Data are from the census file IndFin_1967-2012.zip and are adjusted for inflation using the US GDP chained price index.)

real per cap spend

In 1951 none of the cities were spending more than $1,000 per person. In 2006 every city was spending well over that amount, with Buffalo spending almost $5,000 per person. Even Fresno, which had the smallest increase, increased per capita spending from $480 to $1,461 – an increase of 204%. Expenditure growth that exceeds revenue growth leads to budget deficits and can eventually result in cuts in services. Economist William Baumol attributes city spending growth to what is known as the “cost disease”.

In his 1967 paper, Baumol argues that municipalities will face rising costs of providing “public” goods and services over time as the relative productivity of labor declines in the industries controlled by local governments versus those of the private sector. As labor in the private sector becomes more productive over time due to increases in capital, wages will increase. Goods and services traditionally supplied by local governments such as police, fire protection, and education have not experienced similar increases in capital or productivity. K-12 education is a particularly good example of stagnation – a teacher from the 1950s would not confront much of a learning curve if they had to teach in a 21st century classroom. However, in order to attract competent and productive teachers, for example, local governments must increase wages to levels that are competitive with the wages that teachers could earn in the private sector. When this occurs, teacher’s wages increase even though their productivity does not. As a result, cities end up paying more money for the same amount of work. Baumol sums up the effect:

“The bulk of municipal services is, in fact, of this general stamp [non-progressive] and our model tells us clearly what can be expected as a result…inexorably and cumulatively, whether or not there is inflation, administrative mismanagement or malfeasance, municipal budgets will almost certainly continue to mount in the future, just as they have been doing in the past. This is a trend for which no man and no group should be blamed, for there is nothing than can be done to stop it.” (Baumol, 1967 p.423)

But is there really nothing than can be done to cure the cost disease? Baumol himself later acknowledged that innovation may yet occur in the relatively stagnant sectors of the economy such as education:

“…an activity which is, say, relatively stagnant need not stay so forever. It may be replaced by a more progressive substitute, or it may undergo an outburst of innovation previous thought very unlikely.” (Baumol et al. 1985, p.807).

The cure for the cost disease is that the stagnant, increasing-cost sectors need to undergo “an outburst of innovation”. But this raises the question; what has prevented this innovation from occurring thus far?

One thing that Baumol’s story ignores is public choice. Specifically, is the lack of labor-augmenting technology in the public-sector industries a characteristic of the public sector? The primary public sector industries have high rates of unionization and the primary goal of a labor union is to protect its dues-paying members. The chart below provides the union affiliation of workers for several occupations in 2013 and 2014.

union membership chart

In 2014, the protective service occupations and education, training, and library occupations, e.g. police officers and teachers, had relatively high union membership rates of 35%. Conversely, other high-skilled occupations such as management, computer and mathematical occupations, architecture and engineering occupations, and sales and office occupations had relatively low rates, ranging from 4.2% to 6.5% in 2014. Installation, maintenance, and repair occupations were in the middle at 14.6%, down from 16.1% in 2013.

The bottom part of the table shows the union membership rate of the public sector in general and of each level of government: federal, state, and local. The highest rate of unionization was at the local level, where approximately 42% of workers were members of a union in 2014, up from 41% in 2013. This is about 14 percentage points higher than the federal level and 12 percentage points higher than the state level. The union membership rate of the private sector in 2014 was only 6.6%.

In addition to the apathetic and sometimes hostile view unions have towards technological advancement and competition, union membership is also associated with higher wages, particularly at the local-government level. Economists Maury Gittleman and Brooks Piece of the Bureau of Labor statistics found that local-government workers have compensation costs 10 – 19% larger than similar private sector workers.

The table below shows the median weekly earnings in 2013 and 2014 for workers in the two most heavily unionized occupational categories; education, training, and library occupations and protective service occupations. In both occupation groups there is a substantial difference between the union and non-union weekly earnings. From the taxpayer’s perspective, higher earnings mean higher costs.

union median wage chart

There needs to be an incentive to expend resources in labor-saving technology for it to occur and it is not clear that this incentive exists in the public sector. In the public sector, taxpayers ultimately pay for the services they receive but these services are provided by an agent – the local politician(s) – who is expected to act on the taxpayer’s behalf when it comes to spending tax dollars. But in the public sector the agent/politician is accountable to both his employees and the general taxpayer since both groups vote on his performance. The general taxpayer wants the politician to cut costs and invest in labor-augmenting technology while the public-employee taxpayer wants to keep his job and earn more income. Since the public-employee unions are well organized compared to the general taxpayers it is easier for them to lobby their politicians/bosses in order to get their desired outcome, which ultimately means higher costs for the general taxpayer.

If Baumol’s cost disease is the primary factor responsible for the increasing cost of municipal government then there is not an easy remedy in the current environment. If the policing, firefighting, and education industries are unreceptive to labor-augmenting technology due to their high levels of unionization and near-monopoly status, one potential way to cure municipalities of the cost disease is privatization. In their 1996 paper, The Cost Disease and Government Growth: Qualifications to Baumol, economists J. Ferris and Edwin West state “Privatization could lead to significant changes in the structure of supply that result in “genuine” reductions in real costs” (p. 48).

Schools, police, and fire services are not true public goods and thus economic efficiency does not dictate that they are provided by a government entity. Schools in particular have been successfully built and operated by private funds for thousands of years. While there are fewer modern examples of privately operated police and fire departments, in theory both could be successfully privatized and historically fire departments were, though not always with great success. However, the failures of past private fire departments in places like New York City in the 19th century appear to be largely due to political corruption, an increase in political patronage, poorly designed incentives, and the failure of the rule of law rather than an inherent flaw in privatization. And today, many volunteer fire departments still exist. In 2013 69% of all firefighters were volunteers and 66% of all fire departments were all-volunteer.

The near-monopoly status of government provided education in many places and the actual monopoly of government provided police and fire protection makes these industries less susceptible to innovation. The government providers face little to no competition from private-sector alternatives, they are highly unionized and thus have little incentive to invest in labor-saving technology, and the importance of their output along with the aforementioned lack of competition allows them to pass cost increases on to taxpayers.

Market competition, limited union membership, and the profit-incentive are features of the private sector that are lacking in the public sector. Together these features encourage the use of labor-augmenting technology, which ultimately lowers costs and frees up resources, most notably labor, that can then be used on producing other goods and services. The higher productivity and lower costs that result from investments in productive capital also free up consumer dollars that can then be used to purchase additional goods and services from other industries.

Privatization of basic city services may be a little unnerving to some people, but ultimately it may be the only way to significantly bring down costs without cutting services. There are over 19,000 municipal governments in the US, which means there are over 19,000 groups of citizens that are capable of looking for new and innovative ways to provide the goods and services they rely on. In the private sector entrepreneurs continue to invent new things and find ways to make old things better and cheaper. I believe that if we allow entrepreneurs to apply their creativity to the public sector we will get similar outcomes.

Rhode Island to unionize daycare workers

Last week, the Rhode Island legislature passed a law to permit daycare workers who receive any subsidies from the state to either form a union, or join an existing union such as the SEIU. While they would not be eligible for state pensions or health benefits, and not permitted to strike, the law allows workers to collectively bargain over subsidies, training and professional development and “other economic matters.”

Daycare workers represent a target population for unions. A new law in Minnesota permits daycare workers to unionize so home providers can advocate for higher subsidy payments from the state. In New York in 2010, Governor Paterson pushed for daycare workers to pay union dues to the teachers’ unions in his 2011 budget proposal.

With Rhode Island in the mix, 17 states now permit or strongly encourage daycare workers to unionize. In the rush to unionize private business owners, the ostensible benefits – a voice in the legislature to lobby for higher state subsidies – are touted – and the costs are ignored For example, in Massachusetts, if a private daycare owner accepts clients who pay with state daycare vouchers, the daycare provider must be represented by a union and pay dues. These dues are skimmed off of the state subsidy for low-income parents which is paid directly to the daycare provider. To avoid unionization, the provider would have to turn away low-income families who receive state subsidies for childcare.

The SEIU claims unionization will improve the quality of childcare and offers economic justice for workers. But, the most dramatic result seems to be this:  where daycare workers unionize, the SEIU immediately gains a windfall of new dues transferred from a program meant to help low-income families pay for daycare, (to the tune of $28 million in Michigan, where similar legislation was recently passed).

As James Shrek writes in National Review, one of the more remarkable things about this effort is that it represents a new strategy by unions. The target group for unionization are private individuals or business owners who are also the recipients of government benefits. For instance, at one point in Michigan, a parent receiving Medicaid to care for a disabled child could receive SEIU representation. Some parents found the only result was a reduction in their monthly Medicaid payments and no representation, effectively, “forcing disadvantaged families to pay union dues out of their government benefits.”

As Shrek notes, the Minnesota law, which authorizes AFSCME to unionize in-home daycare providers, also potentially covers short-term summer camps, and grandparents watching their grandkids, or “relative care.”

Shrek asks, does this tactic represent a sign of desperation on the part of unions who are actively seeking new members to the point of organizing, “unions of one”? With a growing number of states joining the trend, it is worth watching how these laws affect those people and families that the unions are claiming to help.

 

 

 

 

WMATA’s failures are institutional, not personal

Chris Barnes who writes the DC blog FixWMATA  is supporting a petition to replace the Board of Directors of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority. Frustration with the transit agency is growing among Washington-area residents as ongoing system repairs have made the system’s weekend service increasingly unusable. The situation has led to the birth of multiple blogs documenting WMATA’s failures. As an intern in DC from the Czech Republic recently summed up the situation, “Metro is both terrible and expensive.”

While the need for reforms at WMATA is clear, replacing the Board of Directors is unlikely to lead to significant improvements in the system. Rather, WMATA’s problems are institutional, and new actors facing the same incentives as the current WMATA Board are unlikely to produce better results. Some of the institutions preventing a Metro of reasonable quality and cost include:

1) Union work rules. Stephen Smith, my co-blogger at Market Urbanism, has done an excellent job of explaining how union work rules make transit needlessly expensive. One of the biggest culprits is requiring shifts to be at least eight hours and preventing the hiring of part-time workers. WMATA rationally runs trains and buses more often during morning and evening rush hours, but it is not permitted to staff these time periods at levels above mid-day staffing because of the eight-hour shift requirement. Combined with the above-market wages and benefits that WMATA employees make, these bloated employee costs prevent WMATA from achieving a higher farebox recovery rate and having more resources to dedicate to needed capital improvements.

2) Intergovernmental transfers. Over half of WMATA’s current capital improvement budget comes from the federal government, meaning that while the benefits of the system are narrowly bestowed on riders, a large share of the capital improvement costs are spread across U.S. taxpayers. This large dispersal of costs permits much more expensive transit than would be tolerated if all funding came from the localities that benefit from the system. Furthermore, with funds coming from the District, Maryland, Virginia, and the federal government, the flypaper effect comes into play. This means that a $100 million infusion from the federal government to WMATA will not reduce the cost born by local taxpayers by $100 million; rather, total spending on the project will increase with grants from higher level of government. Absent incentives to spend this money well, WMATA demonstrates that high levels of federal funding will not necessarily result efficiently carried out capital improvements.

At Pedestrian Observations, Alon Levy provides a comparison of transit construction costs across countries, and finds that U.S. construction costs are exorbitant. The reasons for these cost disparities are many and not well-understood. One reason for high costs in the U.S., though, may be that the prevalence of  federal funding comes with the strings of costly federal regulations.

3) Accountability. While all U.S. transit systems suffer inefficiencies from intergovernmental transfers and union work rules, DC’s Metro has a unique governance structure that seems to produce particularly bad and costly service. WMATA has the blessing and the curse of being multijurisdictional. On the one hand, the Washington region is not plagued with the agency turf wars that New York City transit sees. Several of the system’s rail lines run through Virginia, DC, and Maryland, providing many infrastructure efficiencies and service improvements over requiring transfers between jurisdictions.

Despite these opportunities to provide improved service at a lower cost, WMATA’s lack of jurisdictional control seems to do more harm than good. No politician can take full credit for running WMATA efficiently, so none prioritize the agency’s performance. It’s a tragedy of the political commons.

Josh Barro has recommended directly electing the Board of Directors of WMATA to create elected officials with an incentive to improve service. This institutional change would be more likely to improve outcomes than replacing the current Board with new members who would face the same incentives. Clearly, WMATA’s Board of Directors is failing in its job to oversee quality and cost-effective transit for the region; however, replacing the board members without changing the institutions that they work under will not likely improve outcomes. Intergovernmental transfers and union work rules limit transit efficiency across the country, but WMATA’s interjurisdictional status exacerbates inefficiencies and waste.

What’s Good for General Motors May be BAD for the Country

Marketplace recently did a segment on the federal government’s announcement that it was getting out of the car business and would be selling off its stake in GM over the next two years. Marketplace reporter Nancy Marshall-Genzer first turned to Cato’s Dan Ikenson who noted that taxpayers would likely “need to assume a loss of $15 to $20 billion.”

Then, she turned to Sean McAlinden of the Center for Automotive Research who believes that taxpayers will break even.

“Is he math-challenged?” she asks. Not when you “look beyond the bailout cost” and consider that the bailout meant government ended up spending less on unemployment checks, that it got more income-tax revenue from auto industry employees, and “Then there’s the trickle-down effect.” To wit:

Without GM, auto parts suppliers would have struggled. Maybe gone under themselves. The carmakers use many of the same suppliers, so assembly lines at Ford would have ground to a halt. Dealerships would have suffered too.

A few things to note:

First, I love that she uses “trickle-down” in the way it should be used: in reference to a top-down government policy that transfers wealth from the taxpayer to well-to-do firms in hopes that the transfer will eventually “trickle down” to the little guy. I’ve long felt that if there were any justice in the English language, policies such as these would be called “trickle-down economics.” More commonly, of course, it is across-the-board tax cuts that don’t transfer wealth but instead abstain from taxing that go by the name “trickle-down.”

Second, as long as we are looking “beyond the bailout cost” let’s also look beyond the “trickle-down” effect (which I find dubious, but I’ll leave that to another day) and consider some additional negative consequences of a bailout. In my paper on government-granted privilege, I catalogue a host of problems that may arise when government bestows favors on particular firms or industries. These include:

  1. Less competition, yielding higher prices for consumers and less economic surplus
  2. X-inefficiency (i.e. higher production costs)
  3. Lower quality goods and less innovation
  4. Rent-seeking (people invest valuable resources asking for bailouts)
  5. Unproductive entrepreneurship (entrepreneurs busy themselves thinking of new ways to obtain bailouts instead of new ways to create value for customers)
  6. Moral hazard (firms are incentivized to make mistakes when they know that mistakes might entitle them to a bailout.
  7. Loss of innovation and diminished long-run economic growth
  8. Increased short-run macroeconomic instability
  9. Increased cronyism, which can erode social trust and diminish the legitimacy of both government and business

You can read my paper for arguments and citations for each of these claims (though this appropriately-titled paper is a good place to start).

Now let me add two more problems that are specific to the auto bailout:

  1. In choosing to give the union’s Voluntary Employee Beneficiary Association greater priority than claims by other unsecured creditors such as suppliers and unsecured bond holders, the Administration’s auto bailout overturned a bedrock principle of bankruptcy law (namely that those creditors with similar claims be treated equally). My Mercatus colleague, GMU Law Professor Todd Zywicki, has written about this with the Heritage Foundation’s James Sherk here, and here. It isn’t clear yet at this point what sort of precedent this will set. But if unions were the winners here, generality and the rule of law seem to have been the losers.
  2. The auto bailout seems to have radically shifted the Democratic Party’s position on the relationship between government and business. As Timothy Taylor pointed out in October, there was a time when Democrats openly mocked Republicans who claimed that “what’s good for General Motors is good for the country.” There was a time when Democrats believed that social safety nets were supposed to catch individuals who were down on their luck, not the firms at which these individuals happened to work. As Luigi Zingales points out in A Capitalism for the People, the Democratic Party’s one-time antagonism to business sometimes proved a healthy check on Republicans who too often confused being pro-market with being pro-business. Now that Democrats, too, think that their job is to help corporate America, there is effectively no organized political check on crony-capitalism.

This Week in Economic Freedom

It’s been a promising week for supporters of freer markets as several states and municipalities have taken steps toward deregulation and consumer choice. Here’s a roundup of some new developments:

1. Washington state is making headlines by being the first state (and first place globally) to legalize recreational marijuana. This policy change comes after recent polls indicate that most Americans favor legalizing marijuana. Of course what remains to be seen  is how the federal government will respond to this change in state law. The U.S. Attorney General’s office has issued a letter stating that marijuana remains illegal under federal law in these states and under the Obama administration the office has aggressively prosecuted medical marijuana dispensaries that are legal under states’ laws.

2. In Michigan right to work legislation looks poised to pass. The change would make it legal for employers to pay workers who choose not to be union members. James Sherck explains the political calculus behind this potential policy change:

Republicans have large majorities in both houses of the state legislature. Until now, however, Governor Rick Snyder has insisted right to work was not on his agenda. But today he changed his tune and called for the legislature to pass the bill — Snyder’s support removes the last obstacle to right to work passing in Michigan.

How did this happen? For one, unions badly miscalculated. They tried to amend the state constitution to preemptively ban right to work and attempted to elevate union contracts above state law. Michigan voters roundly rejected the proposal, but the debate put the issue on the public’s agenda.

Unsurprisingly, Michigan unions strongly oppose this change and are currently rallying against this potential change.

3. In Washington, DC City Council took two steps toward greater economic freedom. On Tuesday, the DC Council passed legislation allowing Uber, a popular sedan service which customers use their cell phones to book, to continue operating in the city. The new legislation legalizes “digital dispatch” and permits this new type of service that fits between taxis and traditional car services. Uber still faces legal challenges in San Francisco, Boston, Toronto, New York, and Chicago. Also on Tuesday, DC joined its neighbors Maryland and Virginia with legal Sunday liquor sales. As is so often the case with regulation,  many liquor store owners supported the status quo of mandatory Sunday closings. Store owners testified that they appreciated the mandatory day off and worried that the policy change would allow competitors to cut into the profits of stores that choose to close on Sunday.

New video explores source of union influence in politics

The Moving Picture Institute and Reason TV have partnered on a new video that explores how public sector unions affect political outcomes. Many public sector employees are required to pay union dues, and these dues are in turn used to sway political outcomes.

As the video explains, teachers who want to teach in public schools often don’t have the option of keeping their union dues instead of funding political causes. This helps to explain the union’s incentive to grow the public sector workforce, even if the growth in spending does not result in improved outcomes for taxpayers.

The video does a clear job of explaining that the problem is not individual public employees, but rather the incentives facing the unions that they are required to belong to. This incentive structure at times leads union officials to support their own best interests even ahead of their members’. This was demonstrated in Chicago last fall when the Chicago Tribune revealed that 23 retired union officials receive benefits nearly three times greater than what the city’s typical retirees make, at the expense of not only taxpayers, but also the public employees they represent.

 

Proposed changes to Illinois’ pension benefits

Illinois Governor Pat Quinn proposed several changes to the state’s pension plan last week designed to shore up the state’s fund that has one of the nation’s largest unfunded liabilities. The Chicago Tribune summarizes the potential changes:

Illinois’ unfunded pension liability has grown to a huge $83 billion after the state skimped on funding for years. In fiscal 2013, which begins July 1, the state’s payment into the pension system will hit $5.2 billion, or 15 percent of general revenue spending – up substantially from 6 percent in 2008, according to the governor’s office.

Quinn, a Democrat, said his plan would leave the system, which covers state, local school, university and community college employees, 100 percent funded by 2042. Without it, he said Illinois will have expected payments totaling nearly $310 billion between 2012 and 2045, when a $32.7 billion unfunded liability would still remain.

“This plan rescues our pension system and allows public employees who have faithfully contributed to the system to continue to receive pension benefits,” he said.

Under the proposal, workers’ pension contributions would increase by 3 percent, while cost-of-living adjustments would be reduced. A retirement age of 67 would also be phased in.

Governor Quinn says that these changes will save state taxpayers between $65 and $85 billion in the next 30 years. The plan would also take steps to try to reduce abuse of the public sector pension system on the part of union employees that the Tribune exposed this fall.

The reforms are designed to bring the Illinois pension fund in line with the practices that the Governmental Accounting Standards Board advocates. While these reforms are marginal improvements toward putting the pension fund on a sustainable trajectory, they do not address the fundamental problem with the GASB standards. Public pensions are guaranteed benefits, so they should be valued at the risk free discount rate and invested in safe assets like US Treasury bonds. The unfunded liability is, in reality, much larger than what GASB standards suggest because they do not require the use of the risk free discount rate.

Furthermore, the reforms would do nothing to ensure that future politicians do not continue the decades of irresponsible practices that have gotten the state’s fund to where it is today. While the plan says that going forward the state will make the required contributions, we know that current legislators cannot tie the hands of future legislators. Future policymakers could easily return to skipping pension fund payments and painting a rosy picture of the funds assets with accounting gimmicks.

As Eileen and Ben point out in their paper “Illinois’s Fiscal Breaking Points,” the state needs larger institutional reforms to achieve fiscal stability and improve its bond rating. These changes could include a constitutional cap on the unfunded liability, or, better, a transition away from defined benefit public pensions to a defined contribution system.