Results for “those new service sector jobs”
138 found

Will Congress exempt itself from ACA exchange provisions?

Congressional leaders in both parties are engaged in high-level, confidential talks about exempting lawmakers and Capitol Hill aides from the insurance exchanges they are mandated to join as part of President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul, sources in both parties said…

There is concern in some quarters that the provision requiring lawmakers and staffers to join the exchanges, if it isn’t revised, could lead to a “brain drain” on Capitol Hill, as several sources close to the talks put it.

The problem stems from whether members and aides set to enter the exchanges would have their health insurance premiums subsidized by their employer — in this case, the federal government. If not, aides and lawmakers in both parties fear that staffers — especially low-paid junior aides — could be hit with thousands of dollars in new health care costs, prompting them to seek jobs elsewhere. Older, more senior staffers could also retire or jump to the private sector rather than face a big financial penalty.

Plus, lawmakers — especially those with long careers in public service and smaller bank accounts — are also concerned about the hit to their own wallets.

Here is more, via these guys.

Addendum: Here is a response from Ezra Klein to the Politico story, but I don’t see that it counters the basic point, as reflected by this brouhaha, that the exchanges are not necessarily such a wonderful place to be, especially for low wage workers.  Megan McArdle also comments.

Is current unemployment all about aggregate demand?

Christie Romer basically says yes, Arnold Kling dissents.

I don't expect Romer to turn a speech into an academic debate and in this sense I don't fault her.  Nonetheless I did not find her account very persuasive.

I would start with the fact that output has bounced back more robustly than employment has.  AD theories per se do not explain that differential.  One simple possibility is that better management and better measurement have allowed us to identify (and fire) hundreds of thousands of low-wage people who just weren't producing much of value.  That's a real shock, even if it does not qualify as a sectoral shift in the traditional sense.

It's also the case that the rate of new job creation has been especially low.  Yet the nominal wages on those jobs-to-be are not constrained by previous contracts or agreements.  Tell stories as you may, but it's hard for me to see that as exclusively an AD problem.

I wonder what is the behavioral postulate for how long all these unemployed workers are all staring jobs in the face yet persistently stubborn about their appropriate nominal wage.  I'm all for behavioral economics, but I don't buy the necessary story here.

I don't want to oversell the minimum wage hike + unemployment compensation extension + means-testing hypothesis here, but surely it deserves a mention as one relevant factor.  Those are real factors too.

I also see that wages, and the job market, are more flexible today than in a long time, with so much service sector employment, so much flex-time and part-time, and such a low rate of unionization.  In most AD theories that implies the job market bounces back relatively quickly yet that is not what we observe.

A separate question is what Romer believes the major AD shock to have been.  She clearly repudiates the Scott Sumner story that monetary policy was too tight.  Is it all from the collapsed bubble in the housing market?  Keep in mind those are paper values and that the real services from the country's housing stock haven't declined.  Again, you can tell behavioral stories about the asymmetric perception of losses vs. future gains (for many people, buying a future home is now much cheaper, though perhaps they don't notice the positive wealth effect), but is that going to drive the whole cycle?

To be sure, AD is a major factor in this recession but it is not the entire story by any means.  In major recessions usually it is AD and AS forces together.

Most of all, the Romer essay convinces me that current economic policymakers — not to mention many bloggers — should not be so certain they understand what is going on.

Addendum: I sometimes have the feeling that commentators on the left reject the "real shocks" hypothesis because they think it implies government can't do much to make things better.  That doesn't follow.  Most of what government does, for better or worse, is an attempt to solve a real rather than a nominal problem.  It might imply "intervention is less effective" but it also (possibly) can imply "intervention is more necessary."

The benefits of outsourcing

Virginia Postrel has been blogging up a storm on outsourcing, click here for a sterling post. In addition Her latest NYT column offers an excellent historical tale of outsourcing:

In the late 1980’s, Asian manufacturers began turning out basic memory chips, undercutting American chip makers’ prices and inciting a fierce policy debate. Many industry leaders argued that the United States would lose its technological edge unless the government intervened to protect chip makers.

In a famous 1988 Harvard Business Review article, Charles Ferguson, then a postdoctoral associate at the Center for Technology Policy and Industrial Development at M.I.T., summed up the conventional wisdom: “Most experts believe that without deep changes in both industry behavior and government policy, U.S. microelectronics will be reduced to permanent, decisive inferiority within 10 years.”

He denounced the “fragmented, chronically entrepreneurial industry” of Silicon Valley, which was losing market share to government-aided Asian businesses. “Only economists moved by the invisible hand,” he wrote, “have failed to apprehend the problem.”

Those optimistic economists were right. The dire predictions were wrong. American semiconductor makers shifted to higher-value microprocessors. Computer companies bought commodity memory chips and other components, from keyboards to disk drives, abroad. Businesses and consumers enjoyed cheaper and cheaper prices.

Far from an economic disaster, the result was a productivity boom. As global manufacturing helped to reduce the price of information technology sharply, all sorts of businesses, from banks to retailers, found new, more productive ways to use the technology.

“Globalized production and international trade made I.T. hardware some 10 to 30 percent less expensive than it otherwise would have been,” Dr. Mann estimates in an institute policy brief. (Her paper, “Globalization of I.T. Services and White-Collar Jobs: The Next Wave of Productivity Growth,” can be downloaded at iie.com.)

As a result, she estimates, gross domestic product grew about 0.3 percentage point a year faster than it would have otherwise, adding up to $230 billion over the seven years from 1995 to 2002. “That’s real money,” she said in an interview.

By building the components for new integrated software systems inexpensively, offshore programmers could make information technology affordable to business sectors that haven’t yet joined the productivity boom: small and medium-size businesses, health care and construction.

I link to Doug Irwin’s excellent outsourcing piece at The Volokh Conspiracy. Daniel Drezner covers the debate in his usual quality fashion. Arnold Kling offers good comments as well. Here’s hoping that this swell of intellectual support for free trade continues. Here is a more ambivalent Glenn Reynolds.