Tag Archives: Utah

A public sector retirement plan for Millennials

According to the Center for Retirement Research, about 52 percent of households are “at risk of not having enough to maintain their living standards in retirement” and that the retirement landscape is making “the outlook for retiring Baby Boomers and Generation Xers far less sanguine than for current retirees.” This growing problem for younger generations is highlighted by the Economic Policy Institute’s finding that almost half of households headed by someone between the ages of 32 and 61 have nothing saved for retirement. A confluence of factors has led to a predicament for millennials as they try to prepare for retirement in a drastically changing job market.

The millennial generation has grown to be an integral part of the workforce, and private sector companies are increasing their efforts to understand what they value most a job. A Deloitte survey reveals that a good work/life balance, opportunities to progress/be leaders, flexibility, and a sense of meaning emerge as the most important factors when evaluating job opportunities. What’s more, millennials are not likely to stick around for a job that doesn’t meet this criteria. The same survey found that if given the choice during the next year, one in four millennials would quit his or her current employer to join a new organization or to do something different.

This flightiness appears to be a characteristic of many young people and to be happening in tandem with, if not contributing to, an increasingly transient job market. This phenomenon, corroborated by other surveys, demonstrates that more and more millennial workers are changing jobs at a higher rate than previous generations. It is not as common to stick with your first or second job until retirement, as it once was for Baby Boomers. The “loyalty challenge” facing companies, paired with changes in technology and culture, has in turn been transforming the landscape of retirement options.

As workers become more transient, companies are forced to provide more portable retirement plan options. During the past two decades, the private sector has done just that by transitioning from offering primarily defined benefit retirement plans to offering more defined contribution plans. This change is to be expected in part because of the flexibility it provides for beneficiaries. Defined contribution plans allow for workers to take their benefits more easily with them from job to job.

The public sector has not quite caught up to this trend. Public sector plans have had much more difficulty staying solvent and much of this is because of the prevalence of defined benefit plans. Mercatus scholars, along with many economists, have long criticized the poor incentive structure of these plans. If these aren’t reason enough for policymakers to offer defined contribution plans in their place, then maybe their changing workforces will.

Much of the debate over growing pension liabilities has focused on whether public sector compensation costs are fair either in comparison to other states or to the private sector. But much less has been said about what is fair across generations.

Most pension reform efforts at the state level target changes in benefits for younger employees while preserving the benefits of older workers. Although this is largely the result of legal and political constraints, such changes have the potential to force younger generations of public-sector workers to shoulder a disproportionate share of the cost of reforms, as their retirement benefits become more uncertain, thus violating a crucial criterion of “intergenerational equity” for pension reform.

Pension experts Robert Novy-Marx and Joshua Rauh reveal in a 2008 study that the intergenerational transfer of pension debt could be quite large. They predict a 50 percent chance of underfunding across the states amounting to more than $750 billion, even before adjusting for risk. In other words, if left alone, the pension bills of today are going to be handed to the generations of tomorrow.

A new Mercatus paper uncovers how similar intergenerational equity issues have developed in the state of Oregon. The author, legal scholar Scott Shepard, writes:

“…the system radically favors (generally older) workers who started before 1996 and 2003, respectively – not just in expected ways, like seniority pay bumps, but in deeply structural ways; earlier-hired employees simply get a significantly better pay-and-benefit package for every minute of their climb up the seniority ladder.”

Oregon’s pension system, along with many other states’ plans, started out offering extremely generous benefits, but as this has grown increasingly unsustainable, the state is being forced to deal with reality and reign in benefits for newer workers.

The unfair retirement landscape that this creates is largely the result of many past poor policy decisions and although this difference in benefits between age groups is far from intentional, how Oregon – and other states in similar positions – responds can be. Changing demographic trends may lend reason for public pension officials to consider moving towards defined contribution plan structures, or at least providing the option.

Shepard strongly urges Oregon to make this shift. He describes a number of benefits; from the perspective of the state, taxpayers, and future generations:

“First, payments must be made when due, rather than being shifted off to future generations. This may seem painful to present taxpayers, but the long-term effect is to ensure a more honest government, in that politicians cannot make promises that their (unrepresented) descendants end up paying for generations later, long after the promisors have reaped the political benefits of making unfunded promises, only to have retired from the scene when payment comes due. This inability to promise now and pay later has a corollary benefit of thwarting the impulse to make extravagant pension promises, as the payments come due immediately, rather than being foisted off on future generations.”

Offering defined contribution plans for workers can provide a more sustainable option that would prevent this equity issue from worsening.

In addition to the accountability and savings that offering a defined contribution option provides, like we have seen demonstrated in Utah and Michigan, this also has the potential to lead to higher worker satisfaction.

With millennials looking to save money for retirement through more portable means, policymakers will want to offer benefits packages that match these preferences. Private sector workers and some public – including Federal and public university – workers lie at the forefront of those benefiting from the defined contribution trend. Most state public plans, however, still fall behind, which has continuing implications for public plan solvency and intergenerational equity.

Conservatives, Liberals, and Privilege

Utah Senator Mike Lee (R) delivered an important, and timely address at the Heritage Foundation this week. It was focused squarely on what he called “America’s crisis of crony capitalism, corporate welfare, and political privilege.”

It is a problem, he said, that “simultaneously corrupts our economy and our government.” He pointed to a number of ways in which it manifests itself, including “direct subsidies,” “indirect subsidies, like loan guarantees,” “tax carve-outs and loopholes,” “bailouts,” the implicit bailout of “too big to fail,” and “complicated regulations.”

The Senator is careful to point out that the problem has a long history:

Just like the crises of lower-income immobility and middle class insecurity, the crisis of special-interest privilege is not Barack Obama’s fault. It predates his presidency. And though his policies have made it worse, past Republican presidents and Congresses share some of the blame.

He also stresses that the problem is bipartisan:

Too many in Washington have convinced themselves that special-interest privilege is wrong only when the other side does it.

And he’s willing to call Republicans to task for the part they have played:

We [Republicans] have tried being a party of corporate connections and special-interest deal-making. And we’ve lost five of the six presidential popular votes since [Reagan left office].

But though he believes Republicans bear some blame, the Senator contends that government-granted privilege is fundamentally incompatible with conservatism:

Properly considered, there is no such thing as a conservative special interest.

While I agree, I have a more ecumenical view of the issue.

Yes, privilege is incompatible with properly-considered conservatism, but I also think it incompatible with properly-considered progressivism (and properly-considered libertarianism, for that matter). The Senator, on the other hand, believes that “Liberals have no problem privileging special interests, so long as they’re liberal special interests.” As evidence, he quotes progressive thinker Herbert Croly, who wrote:

In economic warfare, the fighting can never be fair for long, and it is the business of the state to see that its own friends are victorious.

I won’t dispute that many progressives continue to view things this way. But I think there is value in framing the elimination of government-granted privilege in terms that attract progressives to the cause rather than in terms that seem destined to repel them.

And there is plenty of evidence that many progressives are at least open to the anti-privilege agenda. As I note in the beginning of the Pathology of Privilege, both the Tea Party and the Occupy movements oppose corporate bailouts. Consider the way progressive economist and Nobel Laureate Joseph Stiglitz framed the issue in Zuccotti Park:

Our financial markets have an important role to play. They are supposed to allocate capital and manage risk. But they’ve misallocated capital and they’ve created risk. We are bearing the cost of their misdeeds. There’s a system where we socialized losses and privatized gains. That’s not capitalism, that’s not a market economy, that’s a distorted economy and if we continue with that we won’t succeed in growing, and we won’t succeed in creating a just society.

Those words could have come out of Milton Friedman’s mouth.

Or consider the way progressives Mark Green and Ralph Nader framed regulatory capture in 1973:

The verdict is nearly unanimous that economic regulation over rates, entry, mergers, and technology has been anticompetitive and wasteful.

The result, they wrote, is a system which “undermines competition and entrenches monopoly at the public’s expense.”

Green and Nader’s concern about regulatory capture wasn’t just an academic exercise. It helped propel one of the most successful eliminations of government-granted privilege in U.S. history: the deregulation of trucking, air travel, and freight rail in the late 1970s. To the considerable benefit of consumers, these industries were substantially deregulated and de-cartelized. And it happened because liberals like Ted Kennedy and Jimmy Carter eventually joined the cause.

Our task today is to get modern libertarians, conservatives, and progressives to once again rally against government-granted privilege.

Markets Fail and Governments Do Too

We often hear that markets fail when it comes to preserving the environment, so government regulation is needed to protect natural resources from the ravages of capitalism. But what happens when government regulations themselves get in the way of innovative ideas that move us towards a cleaner and more environmentally sustainable future?

This is exactly what happened in Logan City, Utah when the local government built a small hydropower turbine and ran into a nightmare of regulatory red tape that led to large cost overruns and far more time committed to the project than was originally anticipated. In the end, the project was delayed four years and ended up costing twice as much as planned.

This abstract from a recent working paper from the Mercatus Center describes what happened:

In 2004 Logan, Utah, saw the opportunity to place a turbine within the city’s culinary water system. The turbine would reduce excess water pressure and would generate clean, low-cost electricity for the city’s residents. Federal funding was available, and the city qualified for a grant under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Unfortunately, Logan City found that a complex and costly federal nexus of regulatory requirements must be met before any hydropower project can be licensed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. This regulation drove up costs in terms of time and money and, as a result, Logan City is not planning to undertake any similar projects in the future. Other cities have had similar experiences to Logan’s, and we briefly explore these as well. We find that regulation is likely deterring the development of small hydropower potential across the United States, and that reform is warranted.

This wouldn’t be the first time that regulations have led to perverse environmental outcomes. To prevent these problems in the future, agencies need to take better account of the expected costs and benefits of their rules before finalizing them. For example, recent analysis by myself and my colleague Richard Williams shows that agencies only rarely estimate dollar values for both benefits and costs of their regulations.

Another improvement would be for agencies to consider more flexible approaches when regulating. For example, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration recently proposed a rule to reduce silica exposure for workers. The rule requires businesses to consider gas masks or other personal protection equipment only as a last resort. Other methods of controlling silica dust, like enclosing work areas or using sprays and vacuums, should be considered first. These methods are likely to be more burdensome than asking workers to wear a gas mask. The agency should consider offering more flexibility to businesses and workers if it wants to relieve some unnecessary burden in its proposed rule.

Of course it’s true that markets can fail. But it’s important to remember that governments often fail too. Only an approach that considers both market failure and government failure can illuminate the best course of action when addressing a serious social problem like environmental degradation. Furthermore, until regulators start acting more like the experts we expect them to be, government is likely to fail just as much, if not more often, than markets.

New York’s Population Challenge

Last week at City Journal, Aaron Renn explored the New York region’s loss of domestic residents since 2000. He demonstrates that one of the world’s economic powerhouses is falling victim to the trend of domestic outmigration that New York state is seeing. Between 2000 and 2010, the New YOrk region lost 2 million domestic residents and they took with them billions of dollars of income. In Freedom in the 50 States, Will Ruger and Jason Sorens rank New York as the country’s least-free state based on its regulatory and tax regimes. They point to its tax burden — the highest in the nation —  and indebtedness as a factors contributing to the state losing 9-percent of its domestic population on net since 2000. Renn also posits that high tax rates are a leading cause for residents leaving New York City, many of them moving to Sun Belt states.

While the New York City region is only maintaining a positive population growth rate through births and international immigration, it’s far from the case that no one is willing to suffer its high tax rates in exchange for the city’s economic dynamism and cultural amenities. Rather the city’s exorbitant rental rates demonstrate that millions of people are willing to pay a premium to live in the region in spite of city and state policies that hamper economic development.  The vacancy rate for apartments is below 2-percent, well under many estimates for the natural vacancy rate. While lower taxes at the state and municipal levels in the New York region would reduce the flow of domestic outmigration at the margin, they would also increase competition for the city’s coveted apartments.

Are New York City’s amenities so desirable that its policymakers don’t need to worry about losing more residents to other states than they’re gaining? Its own not-so-distant history indicates that even the Big Apple is susceptible to the ravages of population loss. From 1950 to 1980, the city’s population fell from 7.9 million to 7 million, with most of that loss occurring in the 1970s. This time period corresponded with sharp increases in crime and the city’s famous default. These are predictable consequences of urban population decline, particularly in indebted cities where a decrease in tax base equates with inability to meet obligations to creditors .

While pursuing policy reforms designed to boost the state’s competitive standing to attract businesses and residents is a key piece of ensuring the city does not fall prey to population exodus, perhaps most importantly, city policymakers should examine their land use restrictions that limit would-be residents from moving to the city. Over the past decade, New York’s housing stock has grown only 5.3% in the face of the highest rental rates in the country for much of this time period. Historic preservation, density restrictions, and an onerous review process prevent the city’s housing stock from growing to meet demand.

Renn points out that most of New York’s domestic inmigration comes from midwestern cities and college towns across the country. Presumably many of these new residents are early in their careers and are on the margin of being able to afford New York rents. If New York housing were more attainable, more American young people would select the city as the starting place for their careers and it would attract more of the foreign immigrants essential to maintaining the city’s diversity and innovation. Ed Glaeser explains that those states that are successfully attracting more residents, like Texas and Georgia, are also those in which developers are able to build more housing with fewer restrictions. By allowing more housing in New York City and the surrounding areas, policymakers would both protect their tax base and help to maintain the city as a center of innovation and economic growth. In their effort to retain citizens — and particularly high-income retirees — New York City and New York state policymakers will need to revisit their punishing tax schemes. But at least as importantly they should focus on allowing those residents who would like to move to the city for economic and cultural opportunities to be able to afford to do so.

 

 

 

 

Separation between art and state

In Utah, the Sutherland Institute is leading an effort to stop state support for the Sundance Film Festival. On the organization’s blog Derek Monson writes:

Given the amount of sexual promiscuity that Sundance Film Festival regularly brings to Utah, it seems similarly indecent that Utah’s major economic development agencies basically endorsed the event: providing “critical support” to the festival as a “global branding” opportunity, and being listed under the event’s “Corporate Support” banner.

The institute’s president Paul Mero says that the organization is opposed to all corporate subsidies. From an economic position — and one of fairness — this makes sense. As Matt has written, subsidies that favor one type of business lead to inefficient investment thereby decreasing economic growth. When Utah policymakers tout the economic benefits that the festival brings to the state, they are ignoring that the festival would likely be held in Park City for its scenic location without a subsidy and the unseen costs of directing taxpayer resources away from what they would otherwise be invested in.

In this case of subsidized art, however, those receiving the subsidies should be as wary as the taxpayers providing them. No one at the Sutherland Institute has suggested placing restrictions on the content of the films allowed at Sundance, rather they object to their tax dollars supporting supporting a film festival, and one that contains films some may find offensive at that. But in many other cases, public funding for art breeds censorship.

In 2010, the Smithsonian’s National Portrait Gallery famously removed a video by David Wojnarowicz which had been a part of an exhibit called Hide/Seek in response to conservative groups and the Catholic League which described the work as  as “designed to insult and inflict injury and assault the sensibilities of Christians.” Understandably, these groups protested their tax dollars being spent on art they found offensive, but just as understandably artists participating in the exhibit objected to government censorship of their colleague’s work. In reaction, AA Bronson asked the National Portrait Gallery to remove his work in protest, but his request was denied by the museum.

The many examples of censorship of government-funded art and art museums provide compelling reasons for art and state to remain separate, both to protect taxpayers and economic growth along with artists’ freedom of expression.

Small steps in VA occupational licensing reform

On July 1, hair braiding in Virginia will be deregulated. People will be free to braid hair without any license from the state saying that they are qualified to do so. The final requirements will be lifted after a 2004 move which reduced the requirement for hair braiders from a 1,500-hour course required of other cosmetologists to a 170-hour course.

The policy change came on the recommendation of the Governor’s Commission on Government Reform and Restructuring, which also recommended deregulation of landscape architecture, interior design, polygraph administrators, and mold inspectors, but only the recommendation with respect to hair braiding was adopted.

In Utah, however, hair braiders still face a much higher occupational hurdle. The Institute for Justice is suing the state in the U.S. District Court for requiring a 2000-hour cosmetology course for anyone who wants to braid hair in the state. As IJ explains:

Jestina Clayton, a college graduate, wife, mother of two and refugee from Sierra Leone’s civil war has been braiding hair for most of her life.  Now she wants to use her considerable skills to help provide for her family while her husband finishes his education.  But the state of Utah says she may not be paid to braid unless she first spends thousands of dollars on 2,000 hours of government-mandated cosmetology training—not one hour of which actually teaches her how to braid hair.  In the same number of class hours, a person also could qualify to be an armed security guard, mortgage loan originator, real estate sales agent, EMT and lawyer—combined.  Such arbitrary and excessive government-imposed licensing on such an ordinary, safe and uncomplicated practice as hairbraiding is not only outrageous, it is unconstitutional.

Unsurprisingly, cosmetologists favor keeping the law in place to protect their own investment and to restrict their potential competition. The case represents the absurdity of occupational licensing requirements and their detrimental impact on economic growth. However, the requirements that remain after streamlining efforts in Virginia beg the question of why we need licensing for just about any profession. Every exchange carries a risk that the consumer will be disappointed with her purchase, but by stifling competition we hurt consumers rather than helping them.

Occupational licensing requirements seem to be designed behind the idea that sub-par businesses are out to get their consumers. This is exactly the type of business that competition, rather than regulation, successfully eliminates. Selling consumers a poor service one time is not a winning business model, and online review services like Yelp are making it less and less possible to stay in business without providing a service that consumers love.

The case could be made that consumers can suffer irreparable damage from poor services, such as contracting an infection from an unsanitary manicure (though this type of risk seems unlikely in hairbraiding or interior design). Even so, the correct policy angle to take isn’t whether consumers would be harmed in a perfect world, but whether or not government does a better job eliminating this harm than competition and consumer choice among salons. Furthermore, without occupational licensing, consumers have legal recourse to sue in cases of damages, acting as an additional incentive for businesses to provide quality services.

In all but the most extreme cases, it’s clear that occupational licensing makes consumers worse off and limits job growth and economic productivity for the benefit of limiting competition for existing firms. Virginia offers a successful model of standing up to vested interests in favor of market competition but still has much room for improvement.

AEI-Mercatus pension panel addresses need for reform

Yesterday Eileen Norcross participated in a panel discussion that was co-hosted by the American Enterprise Institute and the Mercatus Center. The event included two panels, one discussing the case for pension reform, and the second discussing the politics of reform for conservatives.

Eileen participated on the first panel, joined by Scott Beaulier of Troy University and Jason Richwine of the Heritage Foundation. They covered several points of the importance of pension reform, including the necessity for fund managers to use the correct discount rate when determining the pension liability, the importance of upholding fiduciary responsibility to workers and retirees, and the reality that public employee pensions are overly generous compared to private sector compensation.

Drawing on their previous research in pension reform, the panelists made a convincing case for the need for a shift away from defined benefit public pensions. Unfortunately, none were particularly optimistic that drastic reform measures will be undertaken. Scott pointed to Utah as a model states relative to others for responsible pension fund management but said that even their reforms do not go nearly far enough.

Using incentives to save the prairie dogs

Growing up in Western Colorado, I was never aware that prairie dog populations were threatened. Frankly, I always considered them to be about one step up from rats. In fact though, the Utah prairie dog is an endangered species, causing challenges for developers in Iron County.

Until recently, landowners in Utah had to obtain permission to build on land that is considered prairie dog habitat in accordance with the Endangered Species Act. They would have to relocate the animals to a suitable new habitat, after which they would typically be allotted only a 60-day window in which to begin building, resulting in uncertain property rights and incentives to rush development. Now, developers can instead purchase Habitat Credits, or the right to build on current prairie dog habitats, from farmers and ranchers who own land suitable for prairie dogs.

The Associated Press reports:

The program works like a bank, allowing private landowners to sell “credits” if they own prairie dog habitat they’re willing to protect. Buyers who purchase those credits gain permission to develop other habitat areas on their own timeframes.

The number of credits up for purchase and the cost of the credits will vary depending on the population of prairie dogs on the land.

The arrangement would fulfill the Endangered Species Act requirement that bars destruction of a listed species’ habitat without developing new habitat.

Environmentalists are hopeful that this program will boost prairie dog populations enough to get them off of the endangered species list, and the policy change has made life easier for developers. Furthermore, this change is good for residents of Iron County, as reducing obstacles to development will result in an improved built environment.

This seemingly simple policy change illustrates the power of property rights. Assigning them in a way to better align incentives benefits everyone by allowing for improvements in land allocation.

Rating State Business Tax Climates

Today the Tax Foundation released its annual State Business Tax Climate Index.

Good tax policy is not just about low rates. The Index’s author, Kail Padgitt, writes:

State lawmakers are always mindful of their states’ business tax climates but they are often tempted to lure business with lucrative tax incentives and subsidies instead of broad-based tax reform. This can be a dangerous proposition.

The public choice pressures that Dr. Padgitt is talking about encourage state policy makers to cut special tax deals for politically-important businesses and to keep rates high for those who are aren’t so well-connected. The Business Tax Climate report is a nice antidote to such thinking:

The goal of the index is to focus lawmakers’ attention on the importance of good tax fundamentals: enacting low tax rates and granting as few deductions, exemptions and credits as possible. This “broad base, low rate” approach is the antithesis of most efforts by state economic development departments who specialize in designing “packages” of short-term tax abatements, exemptions, and other give-aways for prospective employers who have announced that they would consider relocating. Those packages routinely include such large state and local exemptions that resident businesses must pay higher taxes to make up for the lost revenue.

The best climates: South Dakota, Alaska, Wyoming, Nevada, Florida, Montana, New Hampshire, Delaware, Utah and Indiana.

And the worst: New York, California, New Jersey, Connecticut, Ohio, Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, Rhode Island and North Carolina.