U.S. Labor Market Trends – Alarming Data for Young Men

To the 21-30 year old men in the United States, I say a hearty Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! I hope that your dutiful and doting parents gifted you with all of the latest video games and up-to-date console technology while simultaneously making your extended stay in their basement as comfortable and with as much hospitality as humanly possible.

Much like an Onion article, the above is meant to be partial satirical tongue in cheek while still hitting remarkably close and painful to the home [basement]. To get to the reality of the labor market forces for the United States as a whole and this young male adult group as a subset within it, we have to go on a longer journey through economic time to see the trends to show how today might be materially different than yesterday. Economist Russ Roberts recently interviewed fellow economist Erik Hurst on his EconTalk podcast on the topic of the dynamics of the U.S. labor market over the last two decades. Hurst and colleagues have researched and published a great amount of studies related to the labor force participation rate since 2000, and are on the cusp of releasing even more related to my specific topic at hand for this post. As a quick contextual note, whereas most headline trends focus on the unemployment rate (defined as the number of people without work/the number of people actively working or looking for work), Hurst and colleagues have emphasized the ratio of people actually working as a portion of the overall population. Arguably, this latter metric is a more useful guide as to strength of a nation’s labor markets and overall economic health, and is the metric Hurst and Roberts focus on throughout the discussion.

Hurst’s focus at a higher level is on the labor market for workers with less than a Bachelor’s degree for education attainment. Within this population, Hurst observes and makes the case that the downward trends in labor force participation is highly correlated with the decline in manufacturing employment over time. Meantime, downward trends in manufacturing were masked at the aggregate level (while still negatively impacting some local communities) by the housing boom that drew young male adults with lower education levels into select markets with relatively high pay for an extended period of time. Thus, Phoenix and Las Vegas localized booms masked Detroit and Dayton localized busts when the data was aggregated at a national level. Well, we all know how the low-interest rate, government subsidized and promoted, Freddie and Fannie leveraged housing boom turned out. In essence, while the housing boom masked the underlying job-market structural weakness for workers with lower education levels, it was more akin to a hasty application of Bondo on a rusty car than a replacement of the car panels. In other words, it was destined to come undone.

As Roberts indicates in the back and forth dialogue, manufacturing employment in the U.S. has been declining steadily since the 1950s, and this type of “creative destruction” is inevitable in any free-market economy and is not a malevolent force in the long run, especially since people, particularly younger generations, can see the market shifts and react and adjust accordingly. Agriculture is an excellent case in point – whereas agriculture used to employ 80% of Americans in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, it is now less than 2%. Within this type of adjustment to labor market reality, a slice of the population that is 50+ laid off manufacturing and construction workers is a challenge, just as a 55 year old blacksmith in 1915 was challenged with adjusting. But for the economy as a whole, this is a short-term problem. More ominous for the long-term would be a group of 25 year-olds with no discernible skills facing a structurally challenging labor market over the long-run. And indeed this is what Hurst reveals in his research.  Hurst’s conjecture, and Roberts seems to agree, is that the jobs of the past in manufacturing and construction likely are not coming back, so we are likely stuck with a relatively lower labor force participation rate for a long period of time, especially given (as we will prove in a moment) that it is the young rather than the old who are under-employed.

Beginning with some framing and comparative trends, since 2000 and amongst workers aged 31-55 without college degrees, hours worked throughout the year have decreased over 10%, from 2000 hours per year to 1750. This trend is a constant decline and not simply a result of the recession in 2008. Whereas other population groups have recovered, men without college degrees uniquely have not. And just to make the point that is made in the podcast about population sizes, the percentage of men without college degrees is still the overwhelming majority – close to 70%. I think this number shocks most of us who have college degrees and cluster with others just like us. Of course, there are other forms of developing education and skills, but American job markets seem to unfortunately place a singular premium on college degree attainment. Dropping out of college is about as useful, if not worse, than not going at all, and unfortunately, viable post high school training in vocations seems to be lacking.

The most provocative component of this podcast, and connected back to my choice of media graphic and opening satire, is that Hurst has also captured through a wealth of census information that much of this decrease in working hours amongst men is driven by younger men aged 21-30. Within this age group, hours worked have decreased a stunning 15% between 2000 and 2015. Even more depressing, fully 18% reported not working at all during the previous year. You might incredulously ask how on earth someone could get by living such a lifestyle. The answer is cohabitation, and yes it is with parents (did you expect me to say with a wife?). Fully 70% of those who reported not working were living with parents or another close relative. 90% of them were not married nor do they have kids. Hurst points out this these stark declines and the contrasts between young and old are unique to men. In short, women ages 21-30 are similar to their older peers in labor force participation. You might say that the education and labor force participation of young women is picking up the slack where young men are relatively idle.

Given this much higher level of idleness/not working, you might naturally ask what these young men are doing with their time. Using time studies, Hurst indicates that almost 100% of their time differences in lost work time since 2000 have shifted to computers and video gamesPerhaps even more distressing (for those of us with a propensity to value work and look down on idleness, anyway) is that these young men are reporting the same or higher levels of happiness compared to comparative years in which their age group was more occupied with paid work.

In short, a substantial portion of our population is idle in the form of young men without college degrees, and they are seemingly completely satisfied with the lifestyle. Roberts and Hurst spend some amount of time discussing more arcane economic concepts about whether the job market weakness causes a flight to video games and cohabitation, or whether the causation is the other way around and great video games draw young men from the labor market and push their reservation prices higher (the wage at which they could be drawn back into work). Either way, I have to believe that over the long run and when this group of men reaches their 40s and 50s that levels of satisfaction with an idle lifestyle coupled with dim long-term romantic relationship prospects and parents’ failing health (for which their more productive siblings will expect them to care for, no doubt) that the consequences to mental health and other factors will not be a positive societal force. Less malign, I also have to imagine that as more women graduate from higher paying fields such as medical school and engineering, and as relatively less men put in the effort in a critical part of their lives to develop useful skills, the existing gender gaps in aggregate pay will close. This is part of the quiet gender revolution in workforce status and relationships vis-à-vis men that is lost in all of the gender pay-gap handwringing that I posted about in a different blog (again, tellingly, on the back of another EconTalk podcast).  As far as prescriptions for how to improve the plight of the young idle male, I concur with points made by Roberts on this podcast that our primary education system has to become more competitive, diverse, open to vocational models, and more flexible and adaptable to change to provide the skills required in a global, digitally innovative, and constantly changing society.

 

The Defense of Free Trade

This is about as robust and comprehensive a defense of free trade as I have seen in quite some time, from one of my favorite economists, Russ Roberts. Here is a key excerpt that was quoted in the Wall Street Journal:

Suppose a scientist invents a pill that once you take it lets you live until 120 with no health issues whatsoever. Once you turn 120, you die a peaceful death on your birthday. Suppose the scientist, in a gesture of good will, charges $10 for the pill.

Should we let the scientist sell the pill? Is it good for the country? It’s good for almost everyone. But it’s going to be very hard on a very large group of people immediately:

Doctors. Nurses. Health Care administrators. People who build hospitals. People in medical school. People who teach in medical schools. People in health insurance companies. Pharmaceutical companies. Researchers. You get the idea. It’s millions of people. This is a very disruptive technology.

What’s going to happen to all those people?

Mass unemployment. All of the skills of all of those people are no longer valued. The past investments made in those skills are now wasted. Incomes of those workers will inevitably plummet overnight. . . .

Most people would argue that the millions of health care workers have no right to stop people from living until 120. And on the surface, that’s the whole story—long life and a very tough transition for millions of people from lives of financial well-being and deep satisfaction to a much bleaker future.

But that’s not the whole story. We’re missing a huge part of the story.

The other important part of the story is that everyone is suddenly a lot wealthier. All the money we once poured into health care will now be able to be spent on other things. What are those other things?

We can’t know. No one can. But a whole bunch of areas are going to expand and some of those are going to soak up the time, talents and energy of former doctors, health care administrators and so on. . . .

And young people who planned to go to medical school or become chemists in the pharmaceutical industry or nurses or data analysts in the insurance business will now turn elsewhere. What will they do instead? There is no way of knowing but they will try to find skills to invest in that lead to financially and psychologically rewarding lives. The dreams of those young people have been shattered. They will have to find something else to do. But their opportunities will now be much wider than just something other than health care. The areas outside of health care are now much wider because the increased wealth we all have can now go into new areas and opportunities.

Enjoy!

 

 

If we must target wages for poverty reduction, wage subsidies > minimum wages

If we agree that poverty and welfare reduction are valuable goals that government should enact and that we want to supplement wages as a result, then this quick four minute video provides a simple explanation as to why wage subsidies are drastically superior to minimum wage policies. I would add that much of the muddle that we make of poverty reduction – whether it be food purchasing programs or healthcare financing, and all of those programs’ attendant bureaucracy, could be made much more efficient and effective through a wage subsidy. Plus, we could actually target poverty directly while supporting jobs and in turn reducing the rest of the inefficient welfare state.

Of course, those in government always prefer the minimum wage – it gives voters the impression that they did something to reduce poverty while shoving the consequences off of the government liabilities and accounting books, the problem being that it is less effective, drives down employment, and/or increases prices to consumers. In general, Marginal Revolution’s economics videos are always brief but insightful.

“Slaughter & Rees Report: ‘Mr. President, You Are Mistaken, Sir'”

In a similar vein to my recent post on the Trump/Carrier “deal”, but with far more professional credibility from the authors – spanning the gamut of journalism, economics, private sector, and government experience, including one author’s (Matthew Slaughter) service on the Council of Economic Advisors for President George W. Bush and current service as the Dean of the Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth – this article, delivered as a letter to President-elect Trump, represents additional logic behind free trade. While my post largely focuses on the philosophy of individual freedom and dangers of government picking winners and losers, the Slaughter and Rees Report lines up several empirical reasons of why protectionism is actually economically harmful and counterproductive. It is worth the read.

Exhibit A: Industrial policy that protects the few at the expense of the many – Carrier keeps jobs in Indiana but on the backs of taxpayers and consumers

Image result for Carrier JObs

I just received an article from the Wall Street Journal that indicated that Carrier has agreed to keep roughly 1,000 jobs in a manufacturing plant rather than shift the employment to Mexico. Rather than celebrate this as a great example of private and public partnership and the deal-making style of Trump that successfully and benevolently puts Americans first, I am going to put a different, and perhaps unpopular, spin on this and call it what I believe it to truly be – arbitrary manipulation and industrial policy developed by government for the benefit of the few at the expense of the many.

Of course, the “saving” of 1,000 jobs is a positive thing on the surface, and it will no doubt lead to declarations of success and subsequently votes for the protectionist politicians who promoted it well into the future. Less visible will be the unintended consequences and foregone opportunities of non-government intervention. I will start with the obvious and work my way to the more philosophical, but just as important, reasons to decry, rather than to celebrate, such government interventions:

  • The 1,000 jobs were kept and promoted at a hefty price tag per worker. At a $7,000,000 tax incentive agreement, this works out to $7,000 per job “saved.” This means the rest of Indiana taxpayers are subsidizing this arbitrary policy. No doubt, you will find many lower-paid workers subsidizing their higher-paid brethren. I am sure the Indiana taxpayer could think of a million different things they could do with that $7,000 to help their own careers and families. This is the unintended consequences that are diffused and don’t get highlighted in the media that happens with industrial policy. This is also what happens when rent-seeking corporations get the ear of government officials who control too many of the levers of economic policy. They get to decide how to use our tax dollars and declare it a successful investment with little accountability or visibility to what ends those dollars could have gone to had they left them in our pockets.
  • The inability to shift labor to take advantage of wage rate/productivity imbalances leaves costs higher for American consumers in the long-run. Once again, this is government meddling in support of one small class of citizens at the expense of the many.
  • Preventing Mexico from taking advantage of their comparative advantages in their specific mixture of labor force participation, wages, and productivity will continue to put pressure on their citizens but not allowing them to grow economically, which further puts pressure on its citizens to immigrate. Being able to take advantage of cross-border trade is mutually beneficial and is not the zero-sum game that protectionists such as Trump believe it to be. The great irony is that plugging one “problem” of imbalanced trade only exacerbates another one of immigration- or at least in the sense that self-described American Economic Nationalists believe trade and immigration to be problems.
  • Sustaining or creating new abusive and arbitrary government power to take tax dollars from citizens in support of the few establishes/continues a dangerous precedence. What well-connected company or connected political body will take their turn next in using their connections to politicians to extract resources from the rest of us under the auspices of “America first?” Do we really trust the government to pick and choose these winners wisely and with all of our freedom, liberty, and economic interests in mind? I hope to someday make this a rhetorical question.
  • I keep coming back to this point from previous posts – but what right does the government have to tell me as a consumer where I can and can’t buy goods? By implication – browbeating, cajoling, and incenting them to stay (using my money) in America through taxpayer funds is ultimately an act to usurp my rights to buy goods from the provider who can make the highest quality good at the lowest cost and in the end is little more than theft of my resources to support their own arbitrary decisions.

Finally, freedom and liberty requires a tradeoff of uncertainty in outcomes that don’t always redound to every individual, but is the only way with which we can grow economically (and in turn emotionally and spiritually) in the long run. The fundamental question then becomes do we want to bequeath to our future generations and children an open and dynamic society where people are free to create the exciting and enriching occupations of the future, or do we want to confine them to the known quantities of the past and present?  We shouldn’t demand equality in outcomes, but rather demand the equality of opportunity combined with blind justice – good arbitration when conflicts arise over contracts between free people. Otherwise, we should keep government at a safe arm’s length that is akin to a good and impartial referee who knows a foul when it sees it and has a consistent redress for those fouls irrespective of the player that committed them. Instead, what we have these days is a referee who changes the rules in the middle of a game to the advantage of his favorite and most well-connected players. On this note of equality of opportunity and why it is extremely important, I land with a powerful excerpt from Deirdre McCloskey’s remarkable book, Bourgeois Equality, of which I have written more at length about in a separate post, but for today’s topic pull out this specific section:

The ideas of equality [in the English and Scottish Enlightenment period] led to other social and political movements not uniformly adorable. Hannah Arendt remarked in 1951 that ‘equality of condition…is among the greatest and most uncertain ventures of modern mankind.’ Alexis de Tocqueville had said much the same a century earlier. And Scottish equality has a harsh, even tragic side. It entails equal reward for equal merit in a marketplace in which others, by freedom of contract, can also compete. As John Stuart Mill put it in On Liberty, ‘Society admits no right, either legal or moral, in the disappointed competitors to immunity from this kind of suffering; and feels called on to interfere only when means of success have been employed which it is contrary to the general interest to permit – namely, fraud or treachery, or force.’ Yet in the real world, unhappily, if the poor are to be raised up, there is no magic alternative to such competition. An ill-advised and undercapitalized pet store, into which the owner pours his soul, goes under. In the same neighborhood a little independent office for immediate health care opens half a block from a branch of the largest hospital chain in Chicago, and seems doomed to fail the test of voluntary trade. Although the testing of business ideas in voluntary trade is obviously necessary for betterment of the economy (as it is too by non-monetary tests for betterment in art and sport and science and scholarship), such failures are deeply sad if you have the slightest sympathy for human projects, or for humans. But at least the pet store, the clinic, the Edsel, Woolworth’s, Polaroid, and Pan American Airlines face the same democratic test by trade: Do customers keep coming forward voluntarily? Does real income rise?

We could all by state compulsion backed by the monopoly of violence remain in the same jobs as our ancestors, perpetually “protected,” though at $3 a day. Or, with taxes taken by additional state compulsion, we could subsidize new activities without regard to a test by voluntary trade, “creating jobs” as the anti-economic rhetoric has it. Aside even from their immediate effect of making national income lower than it could have been, perpetually, such ever-popular plans – never mind the objectionable character of the violent compulsion they require – seldom work in the long run for the welfare of the poor, or the rest of us. In view of the way a government of imperfect people actually behaves in practice, job “protection” and job “creation” often fail to achieve their gentle, generous purposes. The protections and the creations get diverted to favorites. Laws requiring minority or female businesses to be hired, for example, tend to yield phony businesses run in fact by male whites. In a society run by male whites or inherited lords or clan members or Communist Party officials, or even by voters not restricted by inconvenient voting times and picture IDs, the unequal and involuntary rewards generated by sidestepping the test of trade are seized by the privileged. The privileged are good at that.

 

 

No, pumping up demand through government intervention is not “basic macroeconomics.” In the long run, only great ideas in a free market create economic growth.

In a recent social media debate, I found myself engaged in a discussion about whether government regulation and intervention can create economic growth and jobs. Readers here won’t be surprised at which side I am on generally with this topic . My opposite interlocutor ended his closing argument with something to the effect of, “government can help to increase the velocity of money (and therefore GDP). Just basic macro.”

“Just basic macro” is how progressive economists and those in never-ending faith in big government view the “expert” technocratic interventions in the market. The basic concept is one in which during market downturns, there can be a multiplier effect that ripples throughout the economy when government spends money. Thus, a $1 spend out of government (read taxpayer) coffers can magically create $3 out in the broader economy, and at least in theory results in economic growth and a positive return to the taxpayer for their “investment” which happens to have been forced upon them via the government’s monopoly on violence (if this statement seems dramatic to you, try not paying your taxes one year and see what happens). A true win-win! However, while this concept may be “just basic macro” to John Maynard Keynes, Paul Samuelson, and Paul Krugman, to the Austrian school economists and those of us toiling away on Main Street, we can grasp a sense of what the elitists in Ivory Towers can’t. To put an economic term to it, these “prime the pump to multiply” government interventionists inevitably always fail to account for opportunity costs. In layman’s terms, opportunity costs are defined as the next best alternative that was not pursued because of decisions to use scarce resources to pursue some other objective end. Very often, the opportunity cost can be larger than the objective end that was ultimately pursued. To use a simple analogy, think of an investor with $1,000 in 2006 who chose to invest in Microsoft rather than Apple. While the Microsoft investment may very well have been positive, it paled in comparison to the return on the investment in Apple. In this scenario, the cost of a foregone opportunity exceeded the option that was actually pursued.

On this topic, I am gaining some great insights as I am slowly and deliberately making my way through Deirdre McCloskey’s incredible book Bourgeois Equality, which is the final installment of a trilogy in which McCloskey sets out to prove a remarkable thesis that can be broadly summarized as follows: the global outlook and economic growth changed dramatically for the better when some geographic regions’ ethics changed substantially in the direction of valuing and dignifying the bourgeois class of traders, merchants, bankers, businessmen, etc. The slow and deliberate pace is due to my desire to fully absorb all of the insights and jot down and highlight the key sections to commit to memory, so to the extent that this post is one-part book review, please don’t let my pace suggest lack of interest in the book or that it is  a difficult and laborious read, because I assure you wholeheartedly that this is far from the case. The thesis is essentially that all of the conventional notions of what caused rapid economic development since the 1800s, such as sound government institutions, development of the rule of law, property rights, the Industrial Revolution, and so on, are all sideshows, byproducts, and/or elements that had long existed in a world in which for most of history, life was nasty, brutish, and short, and which most of humanity lived on a mere equivalent of $3 a day. McCloskey powerfully asserts, backed by an unparalleled mountain of facts and her own research, along with quotes from the global history of economics, sociology, philosophy, and literature, that it truly was the ethics and growth of the bourgeois engaging in open competition, resulting in what she calls “trade-tested betterments” that catapulted us to over 1,000% economic growth (from the $3 a day base) in developed parts of the world. Trade-tested betterments is a term coined uniquely by McCloskey, and is just one of many examples of the creative and brilliant mind of the author. One might mistakenly call what McCloskey calls trade-tested betterment “innovation,” but McCloskey stresses the importance of innovators being forced to face competition and global trade to truly push remarkable and rapid innovation to fuel economic growth. In essence, innovation at its best occurs when we don’t allow trade restrictions and competition, both forces that are inevitably rife when a government intervenes in the market.

McCloskey’s Chapter 16 in her book is titled, Most Government Institutions Make Us Poorer. This chapter resonates with the point of my blog post today and ties back to the debate in which it was declared that government intervention grows the economy and creates jobs as “Just Basic Macro.” McCloskey begins the Chapter with a quote from 19th Century French Economist Frédéric Bastiat that is apropos:

“The bad economist confines himself to the visible effect; the good economist takes into account both the effect that can be seen and those effects that must be foreseen….Whence it follows that the bad economist pursues a present good that will be followed by a great evil to come, while the good economist pursues a great good to come, at the risk of a small present evil.”

Again – the bad economist ignores opportunity costs, moral hazards, and tramples on the rights of citizens with their arbitrary wealth redistribution schemes.

But what if government technocrats could prove themselves truly capable of beating the next best alternatives? Here is what McCloskey has to say about that:

“The fact suggests that the projects of betterment enacted by governments, compared with voluntary deals made among consenting adults free of force or fraud, will fail, as they regularly have, because they are directed not at general betterment but at enriching special interests at the expense of generality, or merely spending mindlessly what money the government can appropriate under the threat of violence. The modern social-democratic habit of regarding the government as a wise and honest distributor of public goods ignores the unseen, the contents of Swiss bank accounts and the misdirected expenditures in aid of the prime minister’s second cousin, which practices govern most of the world. It supposes that every government is like Denmark’s, New Zealand’s, or Finland’s (which together govern 2 percent of the world) when most are instead like Russia’s, China’s, or India’s (39 percent). In James Madison’s words in 1787, ‘If angels were to govern men, neither external not internal controls on government would be necessary.’ Angles are rare, if unseen.”

McCloskey closes the chapter with a sweeping declaration comparing government intervention and regulation with a free market:

“The relevant comparison is not of some unattainable utopia of perfect trade-tested betterment with actual, imperfect government regulation. It is the comparison of the actual record of liberated trade, and the betterment it has brought to the powerless of the world, with the actual record of populism, fascism, socialism, and thick regulation bettering a few favored groups of the poor, every Party official, and most of the owners of the bigger enterprises able to corrupt the government, all at the expense of the rest.”

Once again, the ignored opportunity costs, the actual historical record of how bad governments are at market interventions (either through regulation or prime the pump spending), and the abuse of power and moral hazards it creates, means we as citizens should be extremely skeptical of these interventions.

Taking a quote from one my my favorite blogs, Cafe Hayekfurther illustrates the point of how Keynesians fail to capture the true essence of economics when they reduce everything to their formulas and theories.

Quotation of the day is from page 40 of Arnold Kling’s excellent new book, published this year, Specialization and Trade: A Re-introduction to Economics (link added):

[Paul] Samuelson and his successors taught that the economic machine had a gas pedal that could be used to avoid economic slowdowns.  That device was “aggregate demand,” which could be increased by the government’s printing money, running a budget deficit, or both. In this economic subfield, known as macroeconomics, the concept of specialization is forgotten entirely.  Instead, economists employ an interpretive framework in which every worker performs the same job, toiling in one big factory that produces a homogeneous output.  Macroeconomics replaces specialization with that GDP factory.

Indeed, it’s not too much to say that macroeconomics in the Samuelsonian-Keynesian mode abstracts away from most of what is essential in economics.  Market processes and entrepreneurial searches for profit; specialization; the complementarity of different capital goods with each other and with labor; the role of relative prices; the reality and importance of institutions; the reality and importance of the fact that politicians are relatively uninformed and self-interested agents. These important aspects of economic and social reality are either ignored or treated haphazardly in too much of what is called “macroeconomics.”

In short – “Just Basic Macro” is shorthand for legerdemain to justify government abuse, power, and expropriation of citizen wealth that in aggregate would have created higher economic growth (especially in the long run) than all the government experts in the world pumping out formulas could ever achieve.

“Protectionism Is a Means of Stealing That Which Suppliers Are Unwilling to Purchase”

As ever, the Cafe Hayek blog does an admirable job of using analogies that make no economic or ethical sense and apply them to ways in which we pursue ill conceived economic policies.

The following is what I deem to be the most important point of the post:

Yet too often when buyers shift some of their patronage from domestic producers to foreign producers, domestic producers – both firm owners and workers – insist that the state is morally obliged to force buyers to continue to purchase their products and their labor without any reduction in the prices and wages charged by sellers.  These producers greedily and falsely insist that it’s bad policy for the state to allow buyers to shift their patronage to other sellers.  Because those other sellers happen to be located abroad – or in the case of immigrants happen not to have passports issued by the domestic sovereign – such greedy and false insistence by domestic producers and workers is remarkably seen as legitimate, despite the fact that there’s nothing remotely legitimate about such insistence.

Tariffs and other forms of ‘protectionism’ are means of forcing buyers to act and to pay as if they agreed to terms of contracts with sellers that these buyers never agreed to and that the sellers who benefit from the protectionism were unwilling to pay for in their contractual dealings with their customers.

Protectionism is akin to changing the rules of a game in the middle of a game.  It’s unfair.  It’s unproductive.  It’s theft wrapped in flags, and too-often faux-sanctified by specious theorizing.

Healthcare isn’t a marketplace

A great summation exhorting us to stop using the term “marketplace” to describe healthcare.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/quit-using-word-marketplace-when-you-talk-healthcare-america-hull?trk=hp-feed-article-title-publish

The key point and question that the author goes on to answer is:

A market is a place where buyers and sellers, functioning as independent agents in pursuit of their self interest, meet to negotiate a mutually agreeable exchange of money for products/services.  At Wharton, they taught us, furthermore, that an efficient market has three basic qualities: A critical mass of buyers and sellers, low transaction fees, and information transparency between buyers and sellers.   Do either of those two scenarios remind you of the American healthcare system?

The rest of the post is succinct and on point.

What freedom entails: facing the good and the bad consequences of our decisions

For men and women to be free from paternalistic domination from others and free to make our own choices necessarily means that we are in turn subjected to the vicissitudes and the consequences, for better or for worse, of those decisions. It is a fundamental concept that for us to remain free, we must not in turn be “protected” by government from the downside risk of flawed choices or bad luck. It was in fact this form of “protection” that for centuries kept peasants under the feudal domination of their class superiors – the knights, earls, and dukes under which they served and whom they paid exorbitant rents to. Predictably, famine only ever struck the peasants when harvests failed, while nobles and priests always maintained a relatively bountiful diet. Ostensibly, this was the price to be paid for protection by the lords of the castle and his soldiers and mercenaries. The reality was that for most peasants throughout the ages, the only real danger to their lives was in fact the deprivations of the lords supposedly protecting them.

Alas, for centuries and the better part of human history, this system kept a stable class of hereditary beneficiaries in control of a never growing and largely agrarian-based economic pie. People lived consistently on the modern equivalent of $3 a day and under a Malthusian system in which population growth led to a decrease in individual agrarian and artisanal wages, wages which only rose again the next time a plague wiped out swaths of the population and the supply of labor.  On that note, this never growing economic pie also led to no real advancements in science and medicine, and those frequent plagues (thought for centuries to arise out of miasmas in the sky that needed to be avoided by clustering indoors and blood that needed to be let out of the body – an ignorantly fatal combination) killed noble and peasant alike. In the words of Thomas Hobbes, life for the vast majority of our ancestors’ histories was lived in “continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” Shakespeare poetically wrote of death as, “the arbitrator of despairs, just death, kind umpire of men’s miseries…” Let me pause for a moment and express my extreme gratitude to have been born into the relative bounty and ease of modern-day American life. Whatever our problems, they pale in comparison to the way humanity lived for thousands of years; well into the 1800s most people lived in these Hobbesian conditions. Many millions of people on earth still reside in dark removes of similar medieval conditions in places such as Somalia and Afghanistan.

Deirdre McCloskey, in her remarkable book, Bourgeois Equality: How Ideas, Not Capital or Institutions, Enriched the World, makes the above points eloquently and with her unique ability to draw upon an impressive panoply of analogies, anecdotes, and historic intellectual luminaries’ thoughts and writings to buttress her points. I highly recommend the book and credit it with much of my facts (i.e. the $3 a day factoid, Malthus’ theories). In direct contrast to the idea that we as individuals need protection and on the topic of the reality and essential connection between freedom and potential loss, she observes:

“The ideas of equality led to other social and political movements not uniformly adorable. Hannah Arendt remarked in 1951 that ‘equality of condition…is among the greatest and most uncertain ventures of modern mankind.’ Alexis de Tocqueville had said much the same a century earlier. And Scottish equality has a harsh, even tragic side. It entails equal reward for equal merit in a marketplace in which others, by freedom of contract, can also compete. As John Stuart Mill put it in On Liberty, ‘Society admits no right, either legal or moral, in the disappointed competitors to immunity from this kind of suffering; and feels called on to interfere only when means of success have been employed which it is contrary to the general interest to permit – namely, fraud or treachery, or force.’ Yet in the real world, unhappily, if the poor are to be raised up, there is no magic alternative to such competition. An ill-advised and undercapitalized pet store, into which the owner pours his soul, goes under. In the same neighborhood a little independent office for immediate health care opens half a block from a branch of the largest hospital chain in Chicago, and seems doomed to fail the test of voluntary trade. Although the testing of business ideas in voluntary trade is obviously necessary for betterment of the economy (as it is too by non-monetary tests for betterment in art and sport and science and scholarship), such failures are deeply sad if you have the slightest sympathy for human projects, or for humans. But at least the pet store, the clinic, the Edsel, Woolworth’s, Polaroid, and Pan American Airlines face the same democratic test by trade: Do customers keep coming forward voluntarily? Does real income rise?
We could all by state compulsion backed by the monopoly of violence remain in the same jobs as our ancestors, perpetually “protected,” though at $3 a day. Or, with taxes taken by additional state compulsion, we could subsidize new activities without regard to a test by voluntary trade, “creating jobs” as the anti-economic rhetoric has it. Aside even from their immediate effect of making national income lower than it could have been, perpetually, such ever-popular plans – never mind the objectionable character of the violent compulsion they require – seldom work in the long run for the welfare of the poor, or the rest of us. In view of the way a government of imperfect people actually behaves in practice, job “protection” and job “creation” often fail to achieve their gentle, generous purposes. The protections and the creations get diverted to favorites. Laws requiring minority or female businesses to be hired, for example, tend to yield phony businesses run in fact by male whites. In a society run by male whites or inherited lords or clan members or Communist Party officials, or even by voters not restricted by inconvenient voting times and picture IDs, the unequal and involuntary rewards generated by sidestepping the test of trade are seized by the privileged. The privileged are good at that.”

 The implicit conclusion is that while there are unfortunate consequences of freedom and a free market, the alternative is worse. The plea, as McCloskey states in her book’s foreword, is this:  “Perhaps you yourself still believe in nationalism or socialism or proliferating regulation. And perhaps you are in the grip of pessimism about growth or consumerism or the environment or inequality. Please, for the good of the wretched of the earth, reconsider.”

The left’s massive remake of healthcare strikes and fails again

Bagdad Bob.jpg

In a recent Modern Healthcare article, it is evident that small health plans and insurers are being heavily penalized by the ACA’s risk corridor program in a shocking, but not entirely unpredictable, bit of reverse corporate wealth redistribution in which money is actually flowing from small businesses and insurers to the behemoths in the industry such as Anthem and Aetna. Since the ACA and ancillary modern healthcare legislation seems to be openly promoting and favoring the large health system and large insurer over the small private practice and small insurer, this really should not be a surprise. Perhaps it is bringing scarcely disguised huzzahs from those in progressive camps .

Meantime, officials at CMS, in true Baghdad Bob soothsaying fashion, continue to maintain that everything is working to plan. If by working according to plan they mean standing ready to cover and excuse their errors while promising to correct their original mistakes with more thousand page complex and inscrutable reforms (in other words, the standard government playbook of creating a problem through market intervention, blaming venal companies, and then creating more market intervention to further compound the original errors), then I guess they are correct. Meantime, there is less care plan choice due to mandated standardization, less consumer choice of  health providers and insurance companies due to industry consolidation, and precipitously increasing premiums. The next step from progressives is inevitable – proposals that only a single payer health system can resolve this government induced mess. The question to free citizens is, do you really trust the government that can’t build a bridge to manage the entirety of your health insurance system?