Blog

From today’s NY Times: The cost of public pensions has been systemically underestimated nationwide for more than two decades, say some analysts. By these estimates, state and local officials have promised $5 trillion worth of benefits while thinking they were committing taxpayers to roughly half that amount. As Dimitri Papadimitriou said on this blog recently, we are facing a multidimensional pension crisis in this country. A coherent national retirement system–truly comprehensive Social Security obviating private pensions–might have avoided these runaway state and local pension obligations, which may yet end up on the federal balance sheet.

The International Policy Centre for Inclusive Growth has issued a report on an unintended consequence of women-empowering microfinance: an increase in child labor. The report underscores the importance of unpaid work–work performed mostly by women. A development program, small or big, should consider the constraint that unpaid care duties impose on women, and provide assistance through a social care system. As a saying goes, “It takes a village to raise a child.”

An earlier Levy post outlined America’s multi-dimensional pension crisis. Now comes this paper from economist Joshua Rauh, who says that at least seven states may be unable to pay their public-pension obligations during the next decade–and by 2030 that number could reach 31 states. Barring reforms, Rauh says, a federal bailout could be needed, possibly exceeding $1 trillion. In the paper, he gives a sense of the magnitude of the problem: “The gap between assets and already-promised liabilities in state pension funds alone was over $3 trillion at the end of 2008.” What is to be done? Part of the answer, Rauh writes, is that states might give public employees defined contribution plans–and bring into the Social Security system the quarter of state and local workers now outside of it.

Jan Kregel and Rob Parenteau, respectively senior scholar and research associate at the Levy Institute, offer this analysis of the current crisis in Europe, observing that investor behavior in this case isn’t just moved by animal spirits or orneriness: This is about more than just testosterone counts. Some wing of the professional investing world is beginning to see the design flaws built into the eurozone from day one. And once the spy these flaws, they begin to realize the nature of the solution is something utterly different than what they are witnessing being rolled out before their very eyes. In the following 11 points, we highlight some of the key aspects of the eurozone predicament using the financial balance approach developed by the late Wynne Godley which we have explored in previous blog submissions, papers, and book chapters. Until more investors and policy makers can understand the true nature of the various predicaments facing the eurozone, and the inherent design flaws exhibited in the European Monetary Union and the (In)Stability and (Lack of) Growth Pact, odds are precious time will simply be wasted trying to make believe the shock and awe fix is already in. Read the rest here.

Getting medical insurance out of the workplace would have been a grand idea. But bowing to practicality, the Obama administration pushed through a good-enough plan that leaves it there. Let’s not make the same mistake twice when it comes to pensions. America and its retirees are facing a multi-dimensional pension crisis—one that, even more than health-care, requires severing the connection between the workplace and the social safety net. Like health insurance, employer-provided pensions are regarded as the natural course of things in this country, but it wasn’t always so. It all started during World War II, when the government clamped down on wages. Benefits were a way of getting around the restrictions to increase compensation, but they persisted for good reasons. Paying workers with benefits rather than cash had tax advantages, and promising something 30 years into the future is always more appealing to employers than paying higher wages today. But the system has bred serious problems, all of them getting larger by the day. First, individuals and their employers are terrible retirement planners. Companies have every incentive to make rosy assumptions that let them under-fund their plans, while employees, increasingly left to their own devices with 401(k)s and other such self-funded plans, probably don’t save enough. Then there’s the problem of investing. Neither employers nor employees are very good… Read More

The Bureau of Labor Statistics released its occupational employment and wages summary today. With a surge of interest in economics in the general public, I wondered how many of us are hired to work (search Economists and Economics Teacher, Postsecondary). What is your guess? (Hint: for every 5,021 hired workers, one economist is at work)

Distinguished Scholar Wynne Godley, longtime head of the Levy Institute’s Macro-Modeling Team, died on May 13. He was 83. At the time of his death, Godley was professor emeritus of applied economics at the University of Cambridge and a fellow of King’s College. He was formerly a senior visiting research fellow at the Cambridge Endowment for Research in Finance, and a member of the British Treasury’s Panel of Independent Forecasters—the so-called “Six Wise Men.” Much of his work focused on the strategic prospects for the US, UK, and world economies, and the use of accounting macroeconomic models to reveal structural imbalances. He published extensively. His most recent book, Monetary Economics: An Integrated Approach to Credit, Money, Income, Production, and Wealth (2007; with Marc Lavoie), is an elaboration of his classic textbook Macroeconomics, written in 1983 with Francis Cripps. He is survived by his wife, the former Kathleen “Kitty” Garman, and their daughter. An extensive obituary appeared in the Times of London on May 17. “Wynne Godley,” it said, “was the most insightful macroeconomic forecaster of his generation.” Another extensive appreciation appeared later, this one in the Guardian.

Michael Scherer at Time has a fascinating story on three women in Washington–Sheila Bair, Elizabeth Warren and Mary Schapiro–who have risen from the ashes of the financial meltdown. If nothing else, the crisis has at least helped put some women in charge of Wall Street.

Dean Baker debunks the myth that banks are failing to lend money. Long story short: it’s the recession! Businesses are looking less like good credit risks because they have less revenue. What bank would be lending more in this atmosphere? A foolish bank.

Any time you talk about a contagion, it’s sensible to ask: where did the infection come from? The European debt crisis may look like it started in Greece, but really it began with the Stability and Growth Pact, the final framework of the European Monetary Union (EMU) that gave us the euro. That agreement is just too rigid to allow for the kind of fast, coordinated action necessary in a crisis. And because it launched the joint currency without any kind of federal transfer system, it made the new currency unsustainable. The euro’s founding framework thus contained the seeds of instability. What’s really surprising about recent developments is that the imbalances in the euro-zone have caught the world by surprise. The recent trillion-dollar rescue package calmed the markets, at least for now, but it also highlights the level of imbalances in Europe. The fact that this rescue package took the better part of four months to construct underscores that the monetary and fiscal institutions in the euro-zone are not conducive to a single currency. The euro bailout is the product of what a federal government could construct in days. The austerity measures that will accompany the program at the hands of the IMF and a politically reticent Germany will do little more than choke off growth and fuel political discontent… Read More

From the way markets reacted, the trillion-dollar rescue package hurled by European leaders at the continent’s growing debt crisis might well have been code-named Panacea. Stocks rose all over the place while Greek bond yields tumbled on Monday. But this is far from the end of the story. The rescue package alleviated the growing Eurozone liquidity crisis, but the solvency crisis remains. While the acute problem (liquidity) was a serious threat, so is the chronic problem of excessive indebtedness that besets Greece, Portugal, Spain and Ireland. The rescue plan cannot address the central problem, which is that countries with very different fiscal cultures (and earnings potential) are yoked to the same currency. The idea was that this would help the profligate keep in line, but instead it’s shaping up as a way for them to ship their liabilities to their fitter neighbors. How long will voters in rich countries stand for this? Perhaps not much longer than the voters in the debtor countries will stand for the austerity measures imposed on them. The entire rescue plan presumably rests on the assumption that, with more time, the Eurozone’s problem countries can get their fiscal houses in order—and Europe can somehow grow its way out of trouble. But Greece and some of the other major European debtors are seriously uncompetitive. And the… Read More

The good news on U.S. employment is that we added 290,000 nonfarm jobs in April. The bad news is that unemployment rose as well, to 9.9%, because more people entered the labor force and many more returned to seeking work. So unfortunately, the employment picture remains grim, with a level of unemployment we might have found horrifying just a couple of years ago. Many of us agree that the government has a role to play in creating more jobs, but nobody is paying much attention to the best kinds of jobs Washington should create. As it turns out, they’re not the kinds of high-paying jobs most of us would want. But they are the kind that would help the most people—and get taxpayers the biggest bang for their buck. How can the government accomplish these twin goals? My Levy Institute colleagues Rania Antonopoulos, Kijong Kim, Thomas Masterson, and Ajit Zacharias studied this question and came up with a surprising answer. The best jobs for Washington to create don’t involve repairing bridges and digging subway tunnels, worthy as those initiatives may be. Nor do they involve wind power or other green technologies, although those too are fine undertakings. No, the best jobs government could possibly create are what we’ll call “social sector” jobs—roughly speaking, work taking care of people. We’re talking… Read More