Results for “from the comments”

2065 found

Wages for low-wage workers have been flat in recent years but health care costs have been increasing.  For a company like Wal-Mart, which pays many of its workers modest wages but does offer a reasonable health insurance plan, this is an invitation to adverse selection.  As the value of the wage component of the Wal-Mart benefit package has declined relative to the value of the health insurance component Wal-Mart has attracted more workers who want the job for the health benefits, i.e. sicker workers.  Reed Abelson writing in the NYTimes notes:

The Wal-Mart work force reflects a growing fear of many employers that the
people who work for them are increasingly at risk for health problems. Many of
Wal-Mart’s employees are obese, the company says, and a result is rapidly rising
numbers of cases of diabetes
or heart
disease. The prevalence of these diseases among Wal-Mart employees is
increasing much faster than the national average, it says.

"The low-income population generally is not as healthy and does not engage as
much in preventive care," said Diane Rowland, executive director of the Kaiser
Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured. A risk that a company like Wal-Mart
faces, especially when it competes with smaller retailers that offer no
insurance at all, Ms. Rowland said, is attracting too many workers who want the
job primarily for the health coverage.

Wal-Mart’s health care costs are rising faster than their revenues.  Other companies are trying to shift some of the cost of health care onto their workers but Wal-Mart’s workers are already paying more than the national average so Wal-Mart may try to reverse adverse selection by adjusting their work and benefit package.  An internal memo suggests that:

…the company could require all jobs to include some
component of physical activity, like making cashiers gather shopping carts. It
also recommends redesigning and expanding benefits to appeal to a different type
of worker, someone more interested in buying a home, say, than in getting health
insurance.

Wal-Mart will probably be pilloried for this sort of thinking but you can hardly blame them when the workers are engaging in almost the identical actions in reverse.  The more fundamental problem is the tying of insurance to work, a problem for which I am afraid there no win-win solution.

Comments are open.

Addendum: Rey Lehmann offers excellent commentary.

Here is question number two, if you are bold try to sketch an answer in the comments.

Let us say you had a real business cycle model where production took a very long period(s) of time, rather than just a single (shorter) period.  Might this help such a model explain the aggregate macroeconomic data?  What might become easier and what might become harder?

Hint: One good approach is to break your answer down in the three categories of "comovement, persistence, and labor supply."

I associate Ben Bernanke with several major contributions:

1. The theory of irreversible investment, circa 1983.  Before Bernanke, Dixit, and Pindyck, models often assumed that investments could be reversed or "taken back."  Bernanke outlined how the irreversibility of investment might matter.  Often individuals will choose to wait and sample more information, rather than make an immediate decision.  Small changes in information could lead to big fluctuations in investment.  Large changes in interest rates might have little effect.  Bad news can hurt you more than good news helps you.  This was Bernanke’s first major contribution to economics.

2. The credit channel for monetary policy; here are the papers, most of all the 1992 piece with Alan Blinder.  Bernanke took an old Keynesian idea and gave it empirical rigor.  During upturns and downturns, does money or credit play the leading role?  Bernanke showed that credit has greater importance.  Bernanke’s work in particular helped combat the Litterman and Weiss paper of 1983; L&W had showed that once you put the nominal interest rate in a Vector Autoregression (a relatively atheoretical statistic technique), money didn’t seem to matter.  Bernanke rescued the relevance of money but showed it mattered through the associated channel of credit.  This work stands among the most important contributions in macroeconomics in the last twenty years.  It also suggests that Bernanke, as Fed chair, will look closely at credit indicators.  Here is a Bernanke speech on money and the stock market.

3. Inflation targeting. Very few if any economists will now defend the old Friedmanesque recipe of monetary targeting or a fixed rule for money supply growth.  It has become increasingly popular to look toward inflation targeting.  New Zealand and Canada led the way in terms of policy when their central banks explicitly adopted a range for inflation targeting; 0-2 percent in the case of New Zealand.  Bernanke would like to see the Fed put greater emphasis on price stability.  He did not invent this view, but he is the individual who made it politically credible.  Right now the major debate in the theory of monetary policy concerns whether inflation targeting should be tight or loose.  Bernanke has been a major force on these issues, and he has often been praised for his leadership in this area, even by those who disagree with him.  Here is a 1999 Bernanke essay on inflation targeting.

4. Causes of the Great Depression; here is one paper, here is part of his book.  Bernanke did a good deal of comparative work and concluded that the Great Depression became great because of deflation, its international transmission, and rigid exchange rate policies.  Recall that Sweden, which cut the link from gold and let its currency float, had a much milder depression during the 1930s.  This has become part of accepted wisdom; in a policy context it implies Bernanke has a low tolerance for deflation.  Here is a Bernanke speech on the Great Depression.  Here is an Anna Schwartz review of his book.

5. The global savings glut.  Trade and budget deficits are enormous, so why aren’t we collapsing?  Why do real interest rates remain so low?  Bernanke cited the possibility of a global savings glut; here is one explanation of the idea, here is another.  The bottom line is this: some Asian countries have high levels of savings, but poor financial institutions.  They invest their savings in the United States, and often we invest in back in Asia.  In essence they are "outsourcing" their savings to foreign financial institutions.  This recycling of Asian savings may help explain what is going on in the global economy.  It also suggests that the current U.S. position is at least temporarily sustainable.  Here is a relevant Bernanke speech; here is some commentary on the idea.

Here is Bernanke’s vita.  Here are his books.  Here is his talk on making the transition from academic life to the policy world.  Here is a White House bio.  Here is Wikipedia.

Bernanke the man? I met him once and had lunch.  He came across as a nice guy; most importantly, he listened to everyone at the table (or at least seemed to!), no matter what their academic status.  In the profession he is popular.

If you know more, comments are open.  Here are various blogger reactions.

The new Fed nominee is Ben Bernanke, an excellent choice and a first-rate economist. 

What must a good Fed chair do? 

1. He should have a mastery of data and an understanding of the macroeconomy.  He must not be a dogmatist.  Bernanke gets an A or A+ here.

2. He should have the ability to lobby the President and Congress for support.  It is not clear who is listening but Bernanke gets in relative terms at least a B+ here.

3. He should have the personality to hang tough.  This requires the "test of time" but we have no reason to be pessimistic.

4. He should recognize that the Fed can only succeed if fiscal policy is responsible.  Give him an A.

5. He should be credible abroad and on Wall Street.  Bernanke is not fully senior in this regard, at least not within the policy community, but he could achieve this stature within a year’s time.  B.

6. He should have that Greenspan magic touch.  Grade?????

Next I will post on Bernanke’s contributions to economics.  Comments are open…

Word is that a successor to Alan Greenspan — or at least the Bush nominee — will be announced later today.  Check back for a report.  Comments on this post are open in case you beat me to the news; I do have a lunch coming up, plus many of you are excellent analysts anyway…

We all know Thomas Schelling’s classic analysis of focal points.  One of his original examples stipulated that two individuals are to meet somewhere in New York City, but they do not know the time or place.  Where would they appear?  Schelling suggested that a twelve noon meeting at Grand Central Station (actually called Grand Central Terminal), beneath the central clock, would be focal.

Focal points change, and of course trains have become a less important form of transportation.  I have been to Manhattan many times, but have not been in GCS in a good twenty years.  And when I take the train, I usually end up getting off at Penn Station.  Stick with noon as the time, which place would you find focal today?  I see a few options:

1. The clock at Grand Central Station remains focal.  Where else to go?  Note the clock stands above the designated information point as well.

2. The clock remains focal, but only because Schelling himself has kept it that way with his analysis.

3. Ground Zero.

4. The Empire State Building.

5. The US Air Shuttle Terminal at La Guardia.

6. A central point at Times Square.

7. The Metropolitan Museum of Art or perhaps at Picasso’s Les Demoiselles D’Avignon painting at MOMA. 

I will opt for number two, but for my mom I would wait on the stairs of the Met.  What do you think?  Comments, of course, are open.

Addendum: Brock Sides picks a focal point for Memphis and for the world; on the latter I say in front of The White House.