Tag: Institute for New Economic Thinking

Work Longer, Die Sooner! America’s Dire Need to Expand Social Security and Medicare

Mary Pat Campbell

Link: https://www.ineteconomics.org/perspectives/blog/work-longer-die-sooner-americas-dire-need-to-expand-social-security-and-medicare

Excerpt:

Are we all really living longer? Let’s first point out that Princeton economists Anne Case and Angus Deaton, noted for their research in health and economics, recently showed that many Americans are not, in fact, enjoying extended lives. As they stated in their own New York Times op-ed, those without college degrees are “scarred by death and a staggeringly shorter life span.” According to their investigation, the expected lifespan for this group has been falling since 2010. By 2021, people without college degrees were expected to live to about 75, nearly 8.5 years shorter than their college-educated counterparts.

Overall life expectancy in America dropped in 2020 and 2021, with increases in mortality across the leading causes of death and among all ages, not just due to COVID-19. In August 2022, data confirmed that Americans are dying younger across all demographics. Again, the U.S. is an outlier. It was one of two developed countries where life expectancy did not bounce back in the second year of the pandemic.

So the argument that everyone is living longer greatly stretches the truth—unless, of course, you happen to be rich: A Harvard study revealed that the wealthiest Americans enjoy a life expectancy over a decade longer than their poorest counterparts.

Could the idea that working into our seventies and beyond boosts our health and well-being hold true? Obviously, for those in physically demanding roles, such as construction or mining, prolonged work is likely to lead to a higher risk of injury, accidents, and wearing down health-wise. But what about everybody else? What if you have a desk job? Wouldn’t it be great to get out there, do something meaningful, and interact with people, too?

Perhaps it’s easy for people like Steuerle and Kramon to imagine older people working in secure, dignified positions that might offer health benefits into old age – after all, those are the types of positions they know best.

But the reality is different. Economist Teresa Ghilarducci, a professor at the New School for Social Research, focuses on the economic security of older workers and flaws in U.S. retirement systems in her new book, Work, Retire, Repeat: The Uncertainty of Retirement in the New Economy. She calls those praising the health perks of working longer “oddballs” – those fortunate folks in cushy positions who have a lot of autonomy and purpose. Like lawmakers or tenured professors, for example.

Author(s): Lynn Parramore

Publication Date: 8 May 2024

Publication Site: Institute for New Economic Thinking

Can Baby Bonds Fight the Wealth Gap and Racial Inequality? Connecticut Aims to Find Out.

Mary Pat Campbell

Link: https://www.ineteconomics.org/perspectives/blog/can-baby-bonds-fight-the-wealth-gap-and-propel-racial-equality-connecticut-aims-to-find-out

Excerpt:

Connecticut has made history as the first state to implement a baby bonds program — fully funded for 12 years of babies.

The state will invest $3,200 for each baby covered by HUSKY, the state’s Medicaid program – that’s about 15,000 babies a year and a whopping 36% of the state’s children. Kids are automatically enrolled; no action is required. Upon reaching adulthood (18-30), participants can claim funds for specific wealth-and-opportunity-building purposes like higher education, a home purchase, or starting a business in the state. To receive the funds, they have to be Connecticut residents and need to complete a financial literacy course (hopefully not one funded by self-serving Wall Street firms). The initial $3,200 investment is anticipated to grow to $11,000 – $24,000, depending on when claims are filed.

Turning the idea of baby bonds into reality was a rocky road: the Democratic-led Connecticut General Assembly passed the bill in 2021, championed by former Democratic Treasurer Shawn Wooden. However, Governor Lamont and his team initially opposed the program’s funding, citing concerns over borrowing more than $50 million annually. Internal conflict heated up, as revealed in a January 2023 investigation by the Connecticut Mirror, exposing tensions between Wooden and the governor’s staff. Yet, following the publication, the situation took an unexpected turn. The program became a reality.

The sticking point of funding was solved by a plan to use a $393 million reserve fund established in 2019 during the restructuring of the state’s cash-strapped pension fund for municipal teachers. Originally designed to cover shortfalls in pension fund contributions, this reserve could be repurposed. To safeguard the pension system and meet ratings agencies’ requirements, a $12 million insurance policy was necessary, leaving approximately $381 million available for investment in the baby bonds program.

Author(s): Lynn Parramore

Publication Date: 27 Feb 2024

Publication Site: Institute for New Economic Thinking

How Should the Government Negotiate Medicare Drug Prices? A Guide for the Perplexed

Mary Pat Campbell

Link:https://www.ineteconomics.org/perspectives/blog/how-should-the-government-negotiate-medicare-drug-prices-a-guide-for-the-perplexed

Graphic:

Excerpt:

Now, at last, thanks to the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), the federal government will be allowed to negotiate a “maximum fair price” for drugs covered by Medicare Part D. This historical change, taking place in the face of intense industry opposition, incrementally reverses policies that have prohibited the government from engaging in price negotiations since Medicare Part D was first established in 2003. While only ten drugs will be subject to negotiation in the first year of the IRA and 90 over the first five years, negotiations are now ongoing.

….

It has been suggested that the government should negotiate for value-based pricing that would benchmark the Medicare Part D price measures of the health benefit provided to those using these drugs. This would be analogous to the approach currently used by most European countries for drug pricing. We believe this approach is inadequate and fails to provide the public with a return on the massive US government investments in biomedical research related to these drugs that enabled these products to be developed and commercialized in the first place.

….

In our new INET working paper, we extend these analyses to the ten drugs selected for Medicare price negotiation in the first year of the IRA. Our analysis reveals that the NIH spent $11.7 billion on basic or applied research related to the drugs selected for Medicare price negotiations, representing a median investment cost of $895.4 million per drug and, by making this research available to industry, saving industry a median of $1,485 million per drug. While data on industry investments in these ten drugs is not publicly available, this level of NIH investment is comparable to reported investment by industry in the drugs approved from 2010 to 2019.

Paper PDF: https://www.ineteconomics.org/uploads/papers/WP_219-Federal-spending-on-drugs-Ledley-et-al-final.pdf

Author(s): Fred Ledley

Publication Date: 4 Mar 2024

Publication Site: Institute for New Economic Thinking

Monopsony in Professional Labor Markets: Hospital System Concentration and Nurse Wage Growth

Mary Pat Campbell

Link: https://www.ineteconomics.org/perspectives/blog/monopsony-in-professional-labor-markets-hospital-system-concentration-and-nurse-wage-growth

Graphic:

PDF of working paper: https://www.ineteconomics.org/uploads/papers/WP_197-Allegretto-HospCons.pdf

Excerpt:

Rolling waves of consolidation have significantly decreased the number of hospital systems in the U.S., leading to dominant regional systems. Increased concentration potentially affects industry quality, prices, efficiency, wages, and more. Much of the consolidation research is focused on merger events and estimating effects on the merged entities. In contrast, our new working paper is not based simply on merger data but takes account of the overall increase in consolidation across the country without respect to cause.

Specifically, we use the intensity of changes in hospital system consolidation in metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) over two periods to estimate its effect on the wage growth of higher-earning professional workers—in this case registered nurses. We focus on registered nurses as a homogeneous group of workers with some degree of industry-specific education and skills. Registered nurses represent the largest single occupational classification in hospitals and urgent care centers, representing one in four workers.

Understanding the dynamics of local healthcare labor markets is critical given the importance of the sector for the U.S. economy; even more so in the wake of the pandemic amid continued uncertainty around long-term effects (e.g., early retirements, career shifts, education delays). Moreover, labor shortages among hospital-based nurses, which may be a symptom of monopsony, have been endemic in the industry for many years. The wages of nurses were stagnant between 1995 and 2015 despite increasing demand for healthcare over the same timeframe even as it was the only sector that added employment during the Great Recession. Explanations for the stagnation of nurse wages—in one of the more highly unionized professional occupations in the country—are not readily apparent.

Author(s): Sylvia Allegretto and Dave Graham-Squire

Publication Date: 19 Jan 2023

Publication Site: Institute for New Economic Thinking

Meet the Grinch Stealing the Future of Gen Y And Z

Mary Pat Campbell

Link: https://www.ineteconomics.org/perspectives/blog/meet-the-grinch-stealing-the-future-of-gen-y-and-z

Excerpt:

There’s one threat that gets far less attention, which has been impacting American workers since the 1970s: wages that just don’t keep up, despite increased productivity. Social Security was designed for wages that rise with inflation – but that’s not happening. In an interview with the Institute for New Economic Thinking, Eric Laursen, author of The People’s Pension: The Struggle to Defend Social Security Since Reagan, breaks down how the program works, why wage stagnation represents a mounting threat, and what can be done to strengthen and update the program for the 21stcentury.

Lynn Parramore: Social Security has been America’s most successful retirement program for the last 87 years. Yet the public is constantly hearing that the program is going to “run out of money.” Is that actually true? Can Social Security actually go bankrupt?

Eric Laursen: No, and the word bankrupt is just about a complete misnomer when it comes to Social Security. The program is funded by contributions that participants and their employers make through their paychecks. It’s also backed by a Trust Fund which is accumulated over time.

That Trust Fund is dwindling now, and it’s expected to run out of money in the early 2030s. But Social Security can’t actually go bankrupt. If the situation arises where there is not enough money either in the Trust Fund or coming through from contributions to fund current benefits, then those benefits can’t be paid, perhaps as much as 25%. In that case, Congress would be faced with a choice to either cut benefits or increase contributions.

There’s a lot of pressure from people who want to cut Social Security to do it now rather than waiting for that point in the future, because at that point, Congress would be under a lot of pressure to make good on what people have been promised.

….

LP: What would you do to make sure that Social Security is protected and remains strong? Does it need to be modernized in some ways to keep it effective?

EL: There are a number of things that can be done. One is to raise the cap. More of income beyond the $147,000 threshold needs to be taxed for payroll tax purposes. Another thing that can be done is passing the Social Security Expansion Act that Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and others have backed. There is a special minimum benefit for Social Security recipients that’s aimed at keeping people who have really low incomes during their lifetimes above the poverty level, and that needs to be improved. That’s not asking a lot. It should be done.

You can also change the rules for wealthy people. One of the differences between now and 40 years ago is that people in the really high income brackets get much more of their income from investments, stock options, and other business holdings than they do from salaries and wages. We need to figure out a formula for applying the payroll tax to at least some of that investment income – like capital gains and so forth. Definitely, the CPI-E needs to be instituted. There should be an expansion of benefits across the board for Social Security benefits. We need the CPI-E at a base level that’s more reasonable. Another thing I think is important: one of the changes that happened in ’83 that was really bad was that Social Security survivor benefits were ended for children of deceased or disabled workers above the age of 18. It used to be that you could get those until 22 and they would help you to go to college. That was abolished. It would be a very good thing if that could be reinstated so that more people have some level of security to pursue higher education.

Author(s): Lynn Parramore

Publication Date: 20 Dec 2022

Publication Site: Institute for New Economic Thinking

A Nobel Award for the Wrong Model

Mary Pat Campbell

Link: https://www.ineteconomics.org/perspectives/blog/a-nobel-award-for-the-wrong-model

Graphic:

Excerpt:

A more realistic assumption would be that by investing the good at T=0, it cannot be paid out and consumed at T=1. This is only possible at T=2. With this assumption, the model has two different assets:

– a liquid asset, i.e. the all-purpose asset has not been invested in T=0 and it can be consumed at T=1,

– an illiquid asset, i.e. the all-purpose asset been invested in T=0 and can only be consumed at T=2.

Without banks, risk-averse agents would not be able to participate in the returns of the investment good. As they all are confronted with the risk of being type 1, it would be very risky to invest the commodity. In T=1, Type 1 agents would then not be able to consume.

In such a model, banks can provide an obvious improvement if one assumes again that they know the share of type 1 and type 2 agents. In T=0, all agents deposit their endowment of the commodity with the bank. Assuming that the share of type 1 agents is 25 %, the bank keeps 25 % of the all-purpose asset unchanged and invests 75 % as illiquid long-term investment. It thus performs maturity transformation by transforming liquid assets into illiquid assets (Figure 2).

Author(s): Peter Bofinger and Thomas Haas

Publication Date: 18 Oct 2022

Publication Site: Institute for New Economic Thinking

It’s Worse than “Reverse” – The Full Case Against Ultra Low and Negative Interest Rates

Mary Pat Campbell

Link: https://www.ineteconomics.org/research/research-papers/its-worse-than-reverse-the-full-case-against-ultra-low-and-negative-interest-rates

Paper: https://www.ineteconomics.org/uploads/papers/WP_151-White-NegativeInterestRates.pdf

Abstract:

It is becoming increasingly accepted that lowering interest rates might at some point prove contractionary (the “reversal interest rate”) if lower lending margins cut the supply of bank loans. This paper argues that there are many other reasons to question reliance on monetary policy to provide economic stimulus, particularly over successive financial cycles. By encouraging the issue of debt, often for unproductive purposes, monetary stimulus becomes increasingly ineffective over time. Moreover, it threatens financial stability in a variety of ways, it leads to real resource misallocations that lower potential growth, and it finally produces a policy “debt trap” that cannot be escaped without significant economic costs. Debt-deflation and high inflation are both plausible outcomes.

https://doi.org/10.36687/inetwp151

Author(s): William White

Publication Date: 5 March 2021

Publication Site: Institute for New Economic Thinking

Covid Is Hitting Workers Differently Than the 2008 Financial Crisis

Mary Pat Campbell

Link: https://www.ineteconomics.org/perspectives/blog/covid-is-hitting-workers-differently-than-the-financial-crisis

Excerpt:

In a new INET working paper, we examine inequality in employment outcomes across social groups during recessions. We take a comparative perspective, studying results from two recent and severe US recessions: the “Great Recession” linked with the global financial crisis beginning in late 2007 and the “lockdown” recession caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Comparing these two events presents an interesting case study to explore inequality in recessions.

The severity of a recession depends both on how much employment declines and the persistence of those declines. The primary job-months lost statistic in our analysis is designed to capture both of these dimensions. This measure simply adds up the difference between actual employment and pre-recession employment over the recession months. For example, if the pre-recession employment trend for a demographic group was flat and a person in that group lost a job in April but went back to work in July, that person’s experience would add three job-months lost to the total in their demographic group.

Author(s): Steven Fazzari, Ella Needler

Publication Date: 19 April 2021

Publication Site: Institute for New Economic Thinking