ECONOMIC REPORTING REVIEW

By Dean Baker

February 23, 2004

 

You can sign up to receive ERR every week by signing up for service at http://www.cepr.net/pages/Sign_up_for_page.htm or by sending an email request with your email address in the body to cepr(--at--)cepr(--dot--)net with the subject "subscribe ERR". You can find the latest ERR at http://www.cepr.net/pages/Economic_Reporting_Review_Page.htm. All ERR prior to August 2000 can be found at http://www.fair.org/err.

 

Links to New York Times articles require membership. To sign up for this free service, go to http://www.nytimes.com/auth/login.

 

 

OUTSTANDING STORIES OF THE WEEK

 

 

The Health of Grocers, Workers

Michael Barbaro and Neil Irwin

Washington Post, February 17, 2004, Page E1

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46553-2004Feb16.html

 

            This article reports on the changes taking place in the grocery industry. It shows how the spread of Wal-Mart into the sector is depressing wages. Chains that have unionized workforces, and which provide decent wages and benefits to their workers, have great difficulty competing with Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart generally pays its workers far less and only provides very limited health care and pension benefits. 

 

 

Talking Simplicity, Building a Maze

David Cay Johnston

New York Times, February 15, 2004, Section 3 Page 1

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/15/business/yourtaxes/15simplify.html?ex=1392181200&en=fb4cd9b9f7efcbdc&ei=5007&partner=USERLAND

 

            This article discusses some of the complexities in the tax code. It points out that while most people strongly favor more simplicity in the tax code, special provisions tend to have powerful backers, which tend to obstruct any serious move towards greater simplicity.

 

 

 

Trade

 

 

Trade Deficit Hits $489 Billion

Jonathan Weisman and Paul Blustein

Washington Post, February 14, 2004, Page A8

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40854-2004Feb13.html

 

U.S. Trade Deficit Reaches A Record $489.4 Billion

Elizabeth Becker

New York Times, February 14, 2004, Page B3

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/14/business/worldbusiness/14trade.html?ex=1392181200&en=16f1b059a8d5a2eb&ei=5007&partner=USERLAND

 

These articles report on the Commerce Department’s release of trade data for December. The data showed that the country ran it second highest monthly trade deficit ever in December. The year round trade deficit was a record 4.5 percent of GDP.

 

It is worth noting that the December deficit was considerably higher than what the Commerce Department had assumed in it advance estimate of fourth quarter GDP. The December numbers will lower the estimate of GDP for the quarter by approximately a 0.5 percentage point to 1.0 percentage point. It will have approximately the same impact on productivity growth, lowering the rate for the quarter to approximately 2.0 percent.

 

Other data that has come in since the advance GDP report, most importantly inventory data for December, will push the estimate of GDP upward, but the impact of a surprisingly negative trade report on the estimate of GDP for the 4th quarter deserves some attention. It implies that the economy is growing considerably less rapidly than is generally believed.

 

The Post article includes a discussion of the possibility that the large trade deficit will push Democrats towards adopting a “protectionist stance,” and asserts that President Clinton pursued “free trade” policies. This is not true. President Clinton openly pursued protectionist policies, most notably increasing copyright and patent protection in developing countries. These forms of protection increase the price of affected products by 300 to 400 percent, or more, above the competitive market price. The resulting distortions are far larger than those created by most tariffs or quotas. The Clinton administration also supported measured restricting the number of foreign doctors that could practice in the United States. It did favor reducing trade barriers when the main effect would be on manufacturing workers, but it certainly did not support free trade as a general policy.  

 

 

Democrats Will Try a Hybrid of Old, New Policies

Jim VandeHei

Washington Post, February 15, 2004, Page E1

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A42676-2004Feb14.html

 

AFL-CIO Backing Gives Kerry a Boost

John F. Harris and Jim VandeHei

Washington Post, February 20, 2004, Page A12

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A55862-2004Feb19.html

 

These articles both discuss the positions of the Democrats on trade. Both articles make references to proponents of “unfettered free trade” or “unregulated free trade.” There are no prominent proponents of unfettered or unregulated free trade in the Democratic Party. Virtually all prominent Democrats support copyright and patent protection for internationally traded goods. They also have been supportive of protectionist measures that restrict the number of foreign doctors practicing in the United States, in order to sustain high salaries for U.S. doctors.

 

There are prominent Democrats who support trade agreements, such as NAFTA, a main purpose of which was to eliminate trade barriers that helped to protect the wages of blue-collar workers. In short, while most of the party is strongly supportive of protectionist measures, there are differences on trade policies that benefit less skilled workers.

 

 

Many New Causes for Old Problem of Jobs Lost Abroad

Steve Lohr

New York Times, February 14, 2004, Page A17

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/15/business/15JOBS.html?ex=1392181200&en=8b20c92f0f49c2a1&ei=5007&partner=USERLAND

 

The Bright Side of Sending Jobs Overseas

Eduardo Porter

New York Times, February 14, 2004, Section 4 page 3

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/15/weekinreview/15porter.html?ex=1392181200&en=536df4f8e8837482&ei=5007&partner=USERLAND

 

These articles discuss the implications of the increased outsourcing of U.S. jobs to countries with lower wages. Both articles imply that outsourcing will be limited to relatively less-skilled jobs, with the best paying, highest skilled jobs remaining in the United States.

 

There is no economic theory or empirical data to support this view. It is much cheaper to train workers at any level of skill in relatively poor countries like China or India than in the United States. This means that in a free market, workers from these countries will likely be able to compete successfully even for the most skilled positions. This process would continue until wages in the United States moved closer to those in developing countries.

 

At present, many highly skilled workers in the United States do not have to compete against workers from developing countries because of protectionist barriers, such as professional and licensing restrictions (see “Professional Protectionists: The Gains From Free Trade in Highly Paid Professional Services,” [http://www.cepr.net/professional_protectionists.htm]). It is also illegal for employers to bring workers into the United States for the explicit purpose of paying lower wages. While this law is not likely to ever be enforced on farms or in restaurants, a hospital or university (or newspaper) that sought visas for foreign professionals, explicitly because they would work for lower wages than U.S. citizens, would almost certainly be shut down. It is this sort of barrier that preserves many high-paying jobs for U.S. workers, not anything intrinsic to the dynamic of the economy.

 

 

 

The Economy and the Election

 

 

Economy May Work in Bush’s Favor

Jonathan Weisman

Washington Post, February 17, 2004, Page A1

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46543-2004Feb16.html

 

            This article examines the impact that the economy is likely to have on the presidential election. It asserts that it is likely to help president Bush since most families are feeling better off now than they were four years ago. Most of the evidence, including that cited in the article, suggests that most families have not been faring well, and are not likely to vote for President Bush based on their current economic situation.

 

            For example, the article reports that average weekly wages, adjusted for inflation, are up 4.1 percent since 2001. While average real wages have risen over this period, this is entirely due to the momentum coming out of the late nineties boom. The rate of real wage growth, which had been approximately 2.0 percent annually from 1996 to 2001, has fallen to zero in the last year. Furthermore, since most workers are paying more out of pocket for their health care costs (a factor not included in the consumer price index), most workers have been seeing the value of their take home pay decline in the last year.

 

            The article also reports that workers are seeing rising disposable income due to the Bush tax cuts of the last three years. Actually, these tax cuts would make little or no difference to most workers. For a worker earning the median wage, slightly less than $30,000 a year, the tax cuts would make little difference in disposable income. For the approximately 30 percent of workers who do not have income tax liability, the Bush tax cuts made no difference whatsoever. Other items mentioned in the article – such as the recent run-up in stock prices – would also make little difference to the vast majority of workers.

 

            The fact that most families do not see themselves as doing well in the Bush economy is supported by polling data cited in the article, which shows that the public overwhelmingly gives Bush a negative rating on the economy. It would have been useful if the article examined the reasons for this negative rating instead of only looking at reasons that people might view the economy of the Bush years positively.

 

            The article also includes some questionable assertions about the overall state of the economy. For example, at one point it comments that “after nine quarters of slow but steady growth, the economy as a whole is poised for a take off.” The article does not give the basis for this view. In fact, GDP growth has slowed markedly from its extraordinary 8.4 percent growth rate in the third quarter of last year, to a growth rate that is likely to be revised to less than 3.5 percent for the fourth quarter. With little employment growth over the last six months, there seems no obvious basis for the view that the economy is about to “take off.” The article also focuses on the unemployment rate, which is not very high by historic standards. However, many economists, most notably Ben Bernacke, the vice-chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, have focused on the extraordinary two percentage point drop in the employment to population ratio as a better measure of labor market slack.

 

            The article also notes the extraordinary run-up in home prices over the last eight years that has made many families feel wealthier. This run-up in home prices has not been accompanied by a comparable increase in rental prices. In fact, rental prices are now falling in many areas in response to a nationwide record rental vacancy rate. No economist has been able to produce an explanation as to how home prices can rise in an environment in which rental prices fall, except if they are being driven by a speculative bubble. Reporting on the temporary benefits of this housing bubble, without noting the eventual problems that its collapse will create, would be comparable to reporting on the status of major shareholders in Internet companies at the beginning of 2000, without mentioning the tech bubble. Since the housing market is featured so prominently in this article, it would have been appropriate to include more background on its recent dynamics. 

 

 

 

Taxes

 

 

Pin the Label on Tax Policy

David E. Rosenbaum

New York Times, February 15, 2004, Section 3, page 1

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/15/business/yourtaxes/15Policy.html?ex=1392181200&en=df4a8e6d172c86eb&ei=5007&partner=USERLAND

 

            This article discusses the importance of tax policy in the presidential race. At one point it notes that Senator John Kerry has proposed taking back the Bush tax cuts for people earning more than $200,000 a year, but not for people earning less than this amount. It then adds, “ but it is not clear how Mr. Kerry would go about charging taxpayers with incomes of more than $200,000 a higher rate of taxes on stock dividends and capital gains than would be owed by people with smaller incomes.”

 

The tax code is full of complex phase outs, for example the child tax credit and most deductions are phased out at higher levels of income. If Kerry stuck strictly to his pledge (as opposed to leaving families earning less than $200,000 on average no worse off), then presumably he would put in some comparable phase out system for the lower tax rates on dividends and capital gains. It would be extremely unusual for a presidential candidate to discuss this sort of detail in their campaign. It is not clear why the article views such details, or their absence, as important.

 

 

 

Airlines 

 

 

At 2 Airlines, Management and Unions Focus on Cuts

Micheline Maynard

New York Times, February 17, 2004, Page C2

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/17/business/17air.html?ex=1392354000&en=94b6c064fc9c9098&ei=5007&partner=USERLAND

 

This article reports on efforts by US Airways and United Airlines to reduce their labor costs. At one point it refers to the assessment of industry analysts that US Airways has the highest average cost per passenger mile in the industry. Cost per passenger mile is not necessarily a good measure of relative labor costs. US Airways has a disproportionate number of short flights. These flights have relatively high costs, but also have higher fares on a per mile basis. For example, the distance from New York to Los Angeles is more than ten times the distance from New York to Washington; however the air fare on the longer route would not be close to ten times as high as the fare on the New York to Washington route.

 

 

 

Manufacturing

 

 

Fed Reports Offer Signs of a Revival in Industry

Reuters

New York Times, February 18, 2004, Page C10

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/18/business/18econ.html?ex=1392526800&en=87b950837baa9f64&ei=5007&partner=USERLAND

 

            This article discusses the Federal Reserve Board’s release of data on industrial output in January. The headline is inaccurate. While the overall industrial production index did show an impressive 0.8 percent increase from its December level, the bulk of this increase was attributable to a 5.2 percent rise in utility output. This increase was attributable to cold weather, not the state of the economy. The rise in manufacturing output was a modest 0.3 percent, approximately the increase needed just to keep employment constant. Furthermore, the new report revised down the increase previously reported for December, from 0.3 percent to 0.1 percent. The new data implies that output in manufacturing has increased at an average rate of just 0.2 percent over the last two months. This growth rate would imply declining employment in the sector.