<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Minor Thoughts &#187; Economics</title>
	<atom:link href="http://minorthoughts.com/categories/economics/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://minorthoughts.com</link>
	<description>In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 28 Dec 2011 03:04:28 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
<atom:link rel="hub" href="http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com"/><atom:link rel="hub" href="http://superfeedr.com/hubbub"/>		<item>
		<title><![CDATA[Unemployment Insurance Changes Incentives to Work &raquo;]]></title>
		<link>http://www.minorthoughts.com/feeder/?FeederAction=clicked&amp;feed=Articles+%28RSS2%29&amp;seed=http%3A%2F%2Fminorthoughts.com%2Feconomics%2Funemployment-insurance-changes-incentives-to-work%2F&amp;seed_title=%3C%21%5BCDATA%5BUnemployment+Insurance+Changes+Incentives+to+Work+%26raquo%3B%5D%5D%3E</link>
		<comments>http://www.minorthoughts.com/feeder/?FeederAction=clicked&#038;feed=Articles+%28RSS2%29&#038;seed=http%3A%2F%2Fminorthoughts.desertflood.com%2Feconomics%2Funemployment-insurance-changes-incentives-to-work%2F&#038;seed_title=%3C%21%5BCDATA%5BUnemployment+Insurance+Changes+Incentives+to+Work+%26raquo%3B%5D%5D%3E#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Dec 2011 20:00:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Joe Martin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Economics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://minorthoughts.desertflood.com/?p=3111</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>Scott Sumner talks about unemployment insurance (UI).</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>The statistical evidence on UI is overwhelming significant.  When the UI benefits maxed out at 26 weeks, there was a spike in the number re-employed right after the benefits ran out.  That’s not to say the benefits are necessarily inefficient, if the spike was due to the income effect then UI might actually make the job market more efficient.  But it’s hard to dispute the fact that UI insurance does have some effect on labor supply.  And that means some effect on employment, as studies show that the effects on unemployment duration even occur in areas with double digit unemployment.</p>
</blockquote>
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Scott Sumner talks about unemployment insurance (UI).</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>The statistical evidence on UI is overwhelming significant.  When the UI benefits maxed out at 26 weeks, there was a spike in the number re-employed right after the benefits ran out.  That’s not to say the benefits are necessarily inefficient, if the spike was due to the income effect then UI might actually make the job market more efficient.  But it’s hard to dispute the fact that UI insurance does have some effect on labor supply.  And that means some effect on employment, as studies show that the effects on unemployment duration even occur in areas with double digit unemployment.</p>
</blockquote>
<p><a href="http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=12198" title="Link to original article" rel="bookmark">Visit This Link &#8594;</a>
</p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.minorthoughts.com/feeder/?FeederAction=clicked&#038;feed=Articles+%28RSS2%29&#038;seed=http%3A%2F%2Fminorthoughts.desertflood.com%2Feconomics%2Funemployment-insurance-changes-incentives-to-work%2F&#038;seed_title=%3C%21%5BCDATA%5BUnemployment+Insurance+Changes+Incentives+to+Work+%26raquo%3B%5D%5D%3E/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title><![CDATA[Lets get real about poverty in America &raquo;]]></title>
		<link>http://www.minorthoughts.com/feeder/?FeederAction=clicked&amp;feed=Articles+%28RSS2%29&amp;seed=http%3A%2F%2Fminorthoughts.desertflood.com%2Feconomics%2Flets-get-real-about-poverty-in-america%2F&amp;seed_title=%3C%21%5BCDATA%5BLets+get+real+about+poverty+in+America+%26raquo%3B%5D%5D%3E</link>
		<comments>http://www.minorthoughts.com/feeder/?FeederAction=clicked&#038;feed=Articles+%28RSS2%29&#038;seed=http%3A%2F%2Fminorthoughts.desertflood.com%2Feconomics%2Flets-get-real-about-poverty-in-america%2F&#038;seed_title=%3C%21%5BCDATA%5BLets+get+real+about+poverty+in+America+%26raquo%3B%5D%5D%3E#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Dec 2011 18:00:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Joe Martin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Economics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[poverty]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://minorthoughts.desertflood.com/?p=3109</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>Walter E. Williams, Professor of Economics at George Mason University, summarizes 3 recent papers about poverty in America: &#8220;Understanding Poverty in the United States: Surprising Facts About America&#8217;s Poor&#8221;, &#8220;The Material Well-Being of the Poor and the Middle Class Since 1980&#8243;, and &#8220;Income Mobility in the U.S. from 1996 to 2005&#8243;.</p>

<p>The truth is that there isn&#8217;t nearly as much poverty in the U.S. as is commonly assumed. And poverty doesn&#8217;t tend to be nearly as bad as we assume it is. It&#8217;s still plenty bad. And being part of a smaller group of poor people doesn&#8217;t make it suck any less to be poor. But having an accurate view of poverty might change the ways and means that we use to alleviate and attack poverty.</p>
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Walter E. Williams, Professor of Economics at George Mason University, summarizes 3 recent papers about poverty in America: &#8220;Understanding Poverty in the United States: Surprising Facts About America&#8217;s Poor&#8221;, &#8220;The Material Well-Being of the Poor and the Middle Class Since 1980&#8243;, and &#8220;Income Mobility in the U.S. from 1996 to 2005&#8243;.</p>

<p>The truth is that there isn&#8217;t nearly as much poverty in the U.S. as is commonly assumed. And poverty doesn&#8217;t tend to be nearly as bad as we assume it is. It&#8217;s still plenty bad. And being part of a smaller group of poor people doesn&#8217;t make it suck any less to be poor. But having an accurate view of poverty might change the ways and means that we use to alleviate and attack poverty.</p>
<p><a href="http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/2011/11/lets-get-real-about-poverty-america" title="Link to original article" rel="bookmark">Visit This Link &#8594;</a>
</p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.minorthoughts.com/feeder/?FeederAction=clicked&#038;feed=Articles+%28RSS2%29&#038;seed=http%3A%2F%2Fminorthoughts.desertflood.com%2Feconomics%2Flets-get-real-about-poverty-in-america%2F&#038;seed_title=%3C%21%5BCDATA%5BLets+get+real+about+poverty+in+America+%26raquo%3B%5D%5D%3E/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title><![CDATA[Debit-Card Law Has Nasty Side Effect &raquo;]]></title>
		<link>http://www.minorthoughts.com/feeder/?FeederAction=clicked&amp;feed=Articles+%28RSS2%29&amp;seed=http%3A%2F%2Fminorthoughts.desertflood.com%2Feconomics%2Fdebit-card-law-has-nasty-side-effect%2F&amp;seed_title=%3C%21%5BCDATA%5BDebit-Card+Law+Has+Nasty+Side+Effect+%26raquo%3B%5D%5D%3E</link>
		<comments>http://www.minorthoughts.com/feeder/?FeederAction=clicked&#038;feed=Articles+%28RSS2%29&#038;seed=http%3A%2F%2Fminorthoughts.desertflood.com%2Feconomics%2Fdebit-card-law-has-nasty-side-effect%2F&#038;seed_title=%3C%21%5BCDATA%5BDebit-Card+Law+Has+Nasty+Side+Effect+%26raquo%3B%5D%5D%3E#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Dec 2011 14:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Joe Martin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Economics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[regulation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://minorthoughts.com/?p=3121</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m chortling madly over here. Why? Because the law of unintended consequences strikes again. Because people who ignored <a href="http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basEss1.html">Bastiat&#8217;s dicta</a> regarding the &#8220;seen and the unseen&#8221; are being bitten, hard, by reality. Because federal regulators (hi Senator Durbin!) are once again proving to be powerless. People are not just pieces to be moved around a chess board by wise overseers. They make their own decisions and you can&#8217;t predict what the ultimate effect of regulations will be.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Many business owners who sell low-priced goods like coffee and candy bars now are paying higher rates—not lower—when their customers use debit cards for transactions that are less than roughly $10.</p>
  
  <p>That is because credit-card companies used to give merchants discounts on debit-card fees they pay on small transactions. But the Dodd-Frank Act placed an overall cap on the fees, and the banking industry has responded by eliminating the discounts.</p>
  
  <p>&#8220;There will be some unhappy parties, as there always is when the government gets in the way of the free-market system,&#8221; says Chris McWilton, president of U.S. markets for MasterCard Inc. He said the company decided that it couldn&#8217;t sustain the discounts under the new rate model because the old rates had essentially subsidized the small-ticket discounts.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>And, the kicker.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Mr. Scherr, the coffee shop owner, says that debit-card fees at one of his five stores rose to about 4.5% of sales from 3.5% of sales in the month after the new law took effect. &#8220;It&#8217;s a killer for me,&#8221; says Mr. Scherr, who estimates that 95% of his sales are under $15.</p>
  
  <p>In the meantime, Mr. Scherr is weighing whether the expense of an ATM would justify its installation. If he gets one, he says he plans to &#8220;stick a sign on top of it, calling it a &#8216;Durbin ATM.&#8217;&#8221;</p>
</blockquote>

<p>I didn&#8217;t expect that level of pushback from a Manhattan coffee shop owner. Good for him—I hope he does it.</p>
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m chortling madly over here. Why? Because the law of unintended consequences strikes again. Because people who ignored <a href="http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basEss1.html">Bastiat&#8217;s dicta</a> regarding the &#8220;seen and the unseen&#8221; are being bitten, hard, by reality. Because federal regulators (hi Senator Durbin!) are once again proving to be powerless. People are not just pieces to be moved around a chess board by wise overseers. They make their own decisions and you can&#8217;t predict what the ultimate effect of regulations will be.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Many business owners who sell low-priced goods like coffee and candy bars now are paying higher rates—not lower—when their customers use debit cards for transactions that are less than roughly $10.</p>
  
  <p>That is because credit-card companies used to give merchants discounts on debit-card fees they pay on small transactions. But the Dodd-Frank Act placed an overall cap on the fees, and the banking industry has responded by eliminating the discounts.</p>
  
  <p>&#8220;There will be some unhappy parties, as there always is when the government gets in the way of the free-market system,&#8221; says Chris McWilton, president of U.S. markets for MasterCard Inc. He said the company decided that it couldn&#8217;t sustain the discounts under the new rate model because the old rates had essentially subsidized the small-ticket discounts.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>And, the kicker.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Mr. Scherr, the coffee shop owner, says that debit-card fees at one of his five stores rose to about 4.5% of sales from 3.5% of sales in the month after the new law took effect. &#8220;It&#8217;s a killer for me,&#8221; says Mr. Scherr, who estimates that 95% of his sales are under $15.</p>
  
  <p>In the meantime, Mr. Scherr is weighing whether the expense of an ATM would justify its installation. If he gets one, he says he plans to &#8220;stick a sign on top of it, calling it a &#8216;Durbin ATM.&#8217;&#8221;</p>
</blockquote>

<p>I didn&#8217;t expect that level of pushback from a Manhattan coffee shop owner. Good for him—I hope he does it.</p>
<p><a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204319004577084613307585768.html" title="Link to original article" rel="bookmark">Visit This Link &#8594;</a>
</p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.minorthoughts.com/feeder/?FeederAction=clicked&#038;feed=Articles+%28RSS2%29&#038;seed=http%3A%2F%2Fminorthoughts.desertflood.com%2Feconomics%2Fdebit-card-law-has-nasty-side-effect%2F&#038;seed_title=%3C%21%5BCDATA%5BDebit-Card+Law+Has+Nasty+Side+Effect+%26raquo%3B%5D%5D%3E/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Milton Friedman on Wealth Redistribution</title>
		<link>http://www.minorthoughts.com/feeder/?FeederAction=clicked&amp;feed=Articles+%28RSS2%29&amp;seed=http%3A%2F%2Fminorthoughts.desertflood.com%2Feconomics%2Fmilton-friedman-on-wealth-redistribution%2F&amp;seed_title=Milton+Friedman+on+Wealth+Redistribution</link>
		<comments>http://www.minorthoughts.com/feeder/?FeederAction=clicked&#038;feed=Articles+%28RSS2%29&#038;seed=http%3A%2F%2Fminorthoughts.desertflood.com%2Feconomics%2Fmilton-friedman-on-wealth-redistribution%2F&#038;seed_title=Milton+Friedman+on+Wealth+Redistribution#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Dec 2011 20:15:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Joe Martin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Economics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[taxes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wealth]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://minorthoughts.desertflood.com/?p=3103</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m a sucker for Milton Friedman videos <em>and</em> I&#8217;m a sucker for people explaining the secondary effects of economic regulations: the unseen that comes after the seen. Friedman does that here, schooling a student on how a 100% inheritance tax on wealth would destroy our society.</p>

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/MRpEV2tmYz4?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m a sucker for Milton Friedman videos <em>and</em> I&#8217;m a sucker for people explaining the secondary effects of economic regulations: the unseen that comes after the seen. Friedman does that here, schooling a student on how a 100% inheritance tax on wealth would destroy our society.</p>

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/MRpEV2tmYz4?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
<p></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.minorthoughts.com/feeder/?FeederAction=clicked&#038;feed=Articles+%28RSS2%29&#038;seed=http%3A%2F%2Fminorthoughts.desertflood.com%2Feconomics%2Fmilton-friedman-on-wealth-redistribution%2F&#038;seed_title=Milton+Friedman+on+Wealth+Redistribution/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title><![CDATA[Public Pensions: Some Numbers and Reality &raquo;]]></title>
		<link>http://www.minorthoughts.com/feeder/?FeederAction=clicked&amp;feed=Articles+%28RSS2%29&amp;seed=http%3A%2F%2Fminorthoughts.desertflood.com%2Feconomics%2Fpublic-pensions-some-numbers-and-reality%2F&amp;seed_title=%3C%21%5BCDATA%5BPublic+Pensions%3A+Some+Numbers+and+Reality+%26raquo%3B%5D%5D%3E</link>
		<comments>http://www.minorthoughts.com/feeder/?FeederAction=clicked&#038;feed=Articles+%28RSS2%29&#038;seed=http%3A%2F%2Fminorthoughts.desertflood.com%2Feconomics%2Fpublic-pensions-some-numbers-and-reality%2F&#038;seed_title=%3C%21%5BCDATA%5BPublic+Pensions%3A+Some+Numbers+and+Reality+%26raquo%3B%5D%5D%3E#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Dec 2011 17:41:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Joe Martin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Economics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://minorthoughts.desertflood.com/?p=3101</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>I can get into the details of the situation where $29 billion in deposits and $62 billion in payouts aren’t a problem… but that’s not the situation that holds in NJ. It requires the benefits to be “running off”, where the population and benefit amounts are decreasing, and a nice, hefty investment fund to begin with.</p>
<p>That is not the situation with the NJ pension plans.</p></blockquote>

<p>The pension numbers are looking scary in both New Jersey and Illinois. It&#8217;s going to be very, very expensive for both governments to come close to paying for the pension benefits that they&#8217;ve promised.</p>
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>I can get into the details of the situation where $29 billion in deposits and $62 billion in payouts aren’t a problem… but that’s not the situation that holds in NJ. It requires the benefits to be “running off”, where the population and benefit amounts are decreasing, and a nice, hefty investment fund to begin with.</p>
<p>That is not the situation with the NJ pension plans.</p></blockquote>

<p>The pension numbers are looking scary in both New Jersey and Illinois. It&#8217;s going to be very, very expensive for both governments to come close to paying for the pension benefits that they&#8217;ve promised.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.conservativecommune.com/2011/12/public-pensions-some-numbers-and-reality/" title="Link to original article" rel="bookmark">Visit This Link &#8594;</a>
</p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.minorthoughts.com/feeder/?FeederAction=clicked&#038;feed=Articles+%28RSS2%29&#038;seed=http%3A%2F%2Fminorthoughts.desertflood.com%2Feconomics%2Fpublic-pensions-some-numbers-and-reality%2F&#038;seed_title=%3C%21%5BCDATA%5BPublic+Pensions%3A+Some+Numbers+and+Reality+%26raquo%3B%5D%5D%3E/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title><![CDATA[The S&amp;P Downgrade &raquo;]]></title>
		<link>http://www.minorthoughts.com/feeder/?FeederAction=clicked&amp;feed=Articles+%28RSS2%29&amp;seed=http%3A%2F%2Fminorthoughts.desertflood.com%2Feconomics%2Fthe-sp-downgrade%2F&amp;seed_title=%3C%21%5BCDATA%5BThe+S%26amp%3BP+Downgrade+%26raquo%3B%5D%5D%3E</link>
		<comments>http://www.minorthoughts.com/feeder/?FeederAction=clicked&#038;feed=Articles+%28RSS2%29&#038;seed=http%3A%2F%2Fminorthoughts.desertflood.com%2Feconomics%2Fthe-sp-downgrade%2F&#038;seed_title=%3C%21%5BCDATA%5BThe+S%26amp%3BP+Downgrade+%26raquo%3B%5D%5D%3E#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Dec 2011 22:40:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Joe Martin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Economics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[debt]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[medicare]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[social security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[taxes]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://minorthoughts.desertflood.com/?p=3089</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>An oldie from August, that I&#8217;ve been hanging on to, for some reason. Veronique de Rugy breaks down S&amp;P&#8217;s memo about <em>why</em> they downgraded US debt to an AA+ rating.</p>

<p>The bottom line:</p>

<blockquote><p>In other words, to avoid a downgrade, it would have been key in S&amp;P’s opinion to show signs of willingness to cut (contain) Medicare and other entitlement spending. That didn’t happen, since many lawmakers in Congress (Democrats mainly, though not exclusively) refuse to talk about how much we can really afford to spend on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and other social programs.</p>
<p>As a result, it is difficult to claim that the Republicans’ unwillingness to raise revenue is the only reason for this downgrade. It seems to me that there is enough blame to go around.</p></blockquote>
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>An oldie from August, that I&#8217;ve been hanging on to, for some reason. Veronique de Rugy breaks down S&amp;P&#8217;s memo about <em>why</em> they downgraded US debt to an AA+ rating.</p>

<p>The bottom line:</p>

<blockquote><p>In other words, to avoid a downgrade, it would have been key in S&amp;P’s opinion to show signs of willingness to cut (contain) Medicare and other entitlement spending. That didn’t happen, since many lawmakers in Congress (Democrats mainly, though not exclusively) refuse to talk about how much we can really afford to spend on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and other social programs.</p>
<p>As a result, it is difficult to claim that the Republicans’ unwillingness to raise revenue is the only reason for this downgrade. It seems to me that there is enough blame to go around.</p></blockquote>
<p><a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/273854/sp-downgrade-veronique-de-rugy#" title="Link to original article" rel="bookmark">Visit This Link &#8594;</a>
</p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.minorthoughts.com/feeder/?FeederAction=clicked&#038;feed=Articles+%28RSS2%29&#038;seed=http%3A%2F%2Fminorthoughts.desertflood.com%2Feconomics%2Fthe-sp-downgrade%2F&#038;seed_title=%3C%21%5BCDATA%5BThe+S%26amp%3BP+Downgrade+%26raquo%3B%5D%5D%3E/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title><![CDATA[American Airlines Enters Bankruptcy &raquo;]]></title>
		<link>http://www.minorthoughts.com/feeder/?FeederAction=clicked&amp;feed=Articles+%28RSS2%29&amp;seed=http%3A%2F%2Fminorthoughts.desertflood.com%2Feconomics%2Famerican-airlines-enters-bankruptcy%2F&amp;seed_title=%3C%21%5BCDATA%5BAmerican+Airlines+Enters+Bankruptcy+%26raquo%3B%5D%5D%3E</link>
		<comments>http://www.minorthoughts.com/feeder/?FeederAction=clicked&#038;feed=Articles+%28RSS2%29&#038;seed=http%3A%2F%2Fminorthoughts.desertflood.com%2Feconomics%2Famerican-airlines-enters-bankruptcy%2F&#038;seed_title=%3C%21%5BCDATA%5BAmerican+Airlines+Enters+Bankruptcy+%26raquo%3B%5D%5D%3E#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Dec 2011 20:00:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Joe Martin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Economics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[unions]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://minorthoughts.desertflood.com/?p=3083</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>Megan McArdle, on my American Airlines is entering bankruptcy.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>But airlines do have another problem that&#8217;s special to them: their unions, which are both powerful, and plentiful.</p>
  
  <p>Whatever you think about the United Autoworkers, at least there&#8217;s only one of them.  The union doesn&#8217;t want to kill the company any more than management does.  In theory, at least, you should be able to work something out.</p>
  
  <p>But when there are three or four unions&#8211;pilots, flight attendants, mechanics, and baggage handlers&#8211;things get complicated.  All of those groups are completely necessary to make sure that the plane gets in the air.  If one of them doesn&#8217;t show up, you lose all the money on every seat.</p>
  
  <p>&#8230;  But when times aren&#8217;t so flush, this dynamic becomes a problem.  The company&#8217;s past labor agreements don&#8217;t leave much margin for error&#8211;particularly when there were sizeable pensions, as there have been at most of these legacy airlines.</p>
  
  <p>It&#8217;s not clear what will happen to American&#8217;s $8 billion worth of pension obligations, which are underfunded by billions, but I&#8217;d expect that the company will push hard to shed them.  It will also want the judge to rewrite its labor contracts.</p>
</blockquote>
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Megan McArdle, on my American Airlines is entering bankruptcy.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>But airlines do have another problem that&#8217;s special to them: their unions, which are both powerful, and plentiful.</p>
  
  <p>Whatever you think about the United Autoworkers, at least there&#8217;s only one of them.  The union doesn&#8217;t want to kill the company any more than management does.  In theory, at least, you should be able to work something out.</p>
  
  <p>But when there are three or four unions&#8211;pilots, flight attendants, mechanics, and baggage handlers&#8211;things get complicated.  All of those groups are completely necessary to make sure that the plane gets in the air.  If one of them doesn&#8217;t show up, you lose all the money on every seat.</p>
  
  <p>&#8230;  But when times aren&#8217;t so flush, this dynamic becomes a problem.  The company&#8217;s past labor agreements don&#8217;t leave much margin for error&#8211;particularly when there were sizeable pensions, as there have been at most of these legacy airlines.</p>
  
  <p>It&#8217;s not clear what will happen to American&#8217;s $8 billion worth of pension obligations, which are underfunded by billions, but I&#8217;d expect that the company will push hard to shed them.  It will also want the judge to rewrite its labor contracts.</p>
</blockquote>
<p><a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/11/american-airlines-enters-bankruptcy/249223/" title="Link to original article" rel="bookmark">Visit This Link &#8594;</a>
</p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.minorthoughts.com/feeder/?FeederAction=clicked&#038;feed=Articles+%28RSS2%29&#038;seed=http%3A%2F%2Fminorthoughts.desertflood.com%2Feconomics%2Famerican-airlines-enters-bankruptcy%2F&#038;seed_title=%3C%21%5BCDATA%5BAmerican+Airlines+Enters+Bankruptcy+%26raquo%3B%5D%5D%3E/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title><![CDATA[The Income Mobility of Millionaires &raquo;]]></title>
		<link>http://www.minorthoughts.com/feeder/?FeederAction=clicked&amp;feed=Articles+%28RSS2%29&amp;seed=http%3A%2F%2Fminorthoughts.desertflood.com%2Feconomics%2Fthe-income-mobility-of-millionaires%2F&amp;seed_title=%3C%21%5BCDATA%5BThe+Income+Mobility+of+Millionaires+%26raquo%3B%5D%5D%3E</link>
		<comments>http://www.minorthoughts.com/feeder/?FeederAction=clicked&#038;feed=Articles+%28RSS2%29&#038;seed=http%3A%2F%2Fminorthoughts.desertflood.com%2Feconomics%2Fthe-income-mobility-of-millionaires%2F&#038;seed_title=%3C%21%5BCDATA%5BThe+Income+Mobility+of+Millionaires+%26raquo%3B%5D%5D%3E#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Dec 2011 17:45:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Joe Martin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Economics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[income]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://minorthoughts.desertflood.com/?p=3086</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>Hate the rich? Don&#8217;t worry, most of them won&#8217;t be rich for long. Only about 6% of millionaires manage to stay millionaires for 9 years or more.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>This week, Mercatus Center Research Fellow Veronique de Rugy examines the income dynamics of taxpayers with millionaire status using data calculated by the Tax Foundation that followed the same Internal Revenue Service (IRS) tax returns from 1999 through 2007. The data represent 675,000 taxpayers who were millionaires at some point during this period; this number serves as the benchmark for the percentages of millionaires who remain millionaires.</p>
  
  <p>&#8230; Interestingly, things look rosier at the bottom of the income distribution. That same Tax Foundation study also shows that about 60 percent of households that were in the lowest income quintile in 1999 were in a higher quintile in 2007, and about a third of those in the lowest quintile moved to the middle quintile or higher. In other words, while it is difficult for one to rise from rags to riches, and while it may be harder now than it was in the past, there is still real upward economic mobility in the United States. (Mark Perry, over at the Enterprise Blog, <a href="http://blog.american.com/2011/03/income-mobility-in-the-dynamic-u-s-economy/">reported</a> back in March on similar data from the <a href="http://www.minneapolisfed.org/research/qr/qr3411.pdf">Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis</a>.)</p>
</blockquote>
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hate the rich? Don&#8217;t worry, most of them won&#8217;t be rich for long. Only about 6% of millionaires manage to stay millionaires for 9 years or more.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>This week, Mercatus Center Research Fellow Veronique de Rugy examines the income dynamics of taxpayers with millionaire status using data calculated by the Tax Foundation that followed the same Internal Revenue Service (IRS) tax returns from 1999 through 2007. The data represent 675,000 taxpayers who were millionaires at some point during this period; this number serves as the benchmark for the percentages of millionaires who remain millionaires.</p>
  
  <p>&#8230; Interestingly, things look rosier at the bottom of the income distribution. That same Tax Foundation study also shows that about 60 percent of households that were in the lowest income quintile in 1999 were in a higher quintile in 2007, and about a third of those in the lowest quintile moved to the middle quintile or higher. In other words, while it is difficult for one to rise from rags to riches, and while it may be harder now than it was in the past, there is still real upward economic mobility in the United States. (Mark Perry, over at the Enterprise Blog, <a href="http://blog.american.com/2011/03/income-mobility-in-the-dynamic-u-s-economy/">reported</a> back in March on similar data from the <a href="http://www.minneapolisfed.org/research/qr/qr3411.pdf">Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis</a>.)</p>
</blockquote>
<p><a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/283324/income-mobility-millionaires-veronique-de-rugy" title="Link to original article" rel="bookmark">Visit This Link &#8594;</a>
</p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.minorthoughts.com/feeder/?FeederAction=clicked&#038;feed=Articles+%28RSS2%29&#038;seed=http%3A%2F%2Fminorthoughts.desertflood.com%2Feconomics%2Fthe-income-mobility-of-millionaires%2F&#038;seed_title=%3C%21%5BCDATA%5BThe+Income+Mobility+of+Millionaires+%26raquo%3B%5D%5D%3E/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title><![CDATA[Do We Really Spend More and Get Less? &raquo;]]></title>
		<link>http://www.minorthoughts.com/feeder/?FeederAction=clicked&amp;feed=Articles+%28RSS2%29&amp;seed=http%3A%2F%2Fminorthoughts.desertflood.com%2Feconomics%2Fdo-we-really-spend-more-and-get-less%2F&amp;seed_title=%3C%21%5BCDATA%5BDo+We+Really+Spend+More+and+Get+Less%3F+%26raquo%3B%5D%5D%3E</link>
		<comments>http://www.minorthoughts.com/feeder/?FeederAction=clicked&#038;feed=Articles+%28RSS2%29&#038;seed=http%3A%2F%2Fminorthoughts.desertflood.com%2Feconomics%2Fdo-we-really-spend-more-and-get-less%2F&#038;seed_title=%3C%21%5BCDATA%5BDo+We+Really+Spend+More+and+Get+Less%3F+%26raquo%3B%5D%5D%3E#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Dec 2011 15:00:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Joe Martin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Economics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Healthcare]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://minorthoughts.desertflood.com/?p=3080</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>If we ignore the fake prices that typify the American health care experience, it&#8217;s clear that the U.S. uses fewer resources to deliver health care than any other developed nation.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>The concept of opportunity cost allows us to see that if we don’t trust spending totals in the international accounts, there is another way to assess the cost of health care. We can count up the real resources being used. Other things equal, a country that has more doctors per capita, more hospital beds, etc., is devoting more of its real income to health care than one that uses fewer resources — regardless of its reported spending.</p>
  
  <p>On this score, the United States looks really good. As the table below (from the latest OECD report) shows, the U.S. has fewer doctors, fewer physician visits, fewer hospital beds, fewer hospital stays and less time in the hospital than the OECD average. We’re not just a little bit lower. We are among the lowest in the developed world. In fact, about the only area where we “spend” more is on technology (MRI and CT scans, for example), as is reflected in the second table.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>We might be able to see these lower costs if we could only get some real price competition into the market.</p>
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If we ignore the fake prices that typify the American health care experience, it&#8217;s clear that the U.S. uses fewer resources to deliver health care than any other developed nation.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>The concept of opportunity cost allows us to see that if we don’t trust spending totals in the international accounts, there is another way to assess the cost of health care. We can count up the real resources being used. Other things equal, a country that has more doctors per capita, more hospital beds, etc., is devoting more of its real income to health care than one that uses fewer resources — regardless of its reported spending.</p>
  
  <p>On this score, the United States looks really good. As the table below (from the latest OECD report) shows, the U.S. has fewer doctors, fewer physician visits, fewer hospital beds, fewer hospital stays and less time in the hospital than the OECD average. We’re not just a little bit lower. We are among the lowest in the developed world. In fact, about the only area where we “spend” more is on technology (MRI and CT scans, for example), as is reflected in the second table.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>We might be able to see these lower costs if we could only get some real price competition into the market.</p>
<p><a href="http://healthblog.ncpa.org/do-we-really-spend-more-and-get-less/" title="Link to original article" rel="bookmark">Visit This Link &#8594;</a>
</p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.minorthoughts.com/feeder/?FeederAction=clicked&#038;feed=Articles+%28RSS2%29&#038;seed=http%3A%2F%2Fminorthoughts.desertflood.com%2Feconomics%2Fdo-we-really-spend-more-and-get-less%2F&#038;seed_title=%3C%21%5BCDATA%5BDo+We+Really+Spend+More+and+Get+Less%3F+%26raquo%3B%5D%5D%3E/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title><![CDATA[Three Policies That Gave Us the Jobs Economy &raquo;]]></title>
		<link>http://www.minorthoughts.com/feeder/?FeederAction=clicked&amp;feed=Articles+%28RSS2%29&amp;seed=http%3A%2F%2Fminorthoughts.desertflood.com%2Feconomics%2Fthree-policies-that-gave-us-the-jobs-economy%2F&amp;seed_title=%3C%21%5BCDATA%5BThree+Policies+That+Gave+Us+the+Jobs+Economy+%26raquo%3B%5D%5D%3E</link>
		<comments>http://www.minorthoughts.com/feeder/?FeederAction=clicked&#038;feed=Articles+%28RSS2%29&#038;seed=http%3A%2F%2Fminorthoughts.desertflood.com%2Feconomics%2Fthree-policies-that-gave-us-the-jobs-economy%2F&#038;seed_title=%3C%21%5BCDATA%5BThree+Policies+That+Gave+Us+the+Jobs+Economy+%26raquo%3B%5D%5D%3E#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Dec 2011 03:58:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Joe Martin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Economics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[History]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[jobs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tax reform]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[taxes]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://minorthoughts.desertflood.com/?p=3072</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>Amity Shlaes on what sparked the job growth of the 1980&#8242;s.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>The era didn&#8217;t start well. The mid-1970s were a dead period. Then suddenly, from 1977 to 1978, new private capital devoted to venture capital increased by 15 times, to $570 million in 1978 from $39 million the year before.</p>
  
  <p>In 1977, public underwritings of firms with a net worth of less than $5 million amounted to a meager $75 million. By 1980 that figure was $822 million, as Michael K. Evans, founder of Chase Econometrics, points out. The venture-capital boom continued down the decades, serving computing, technology, biotech and many other areas.</p>
  
  <p>But what caused this boom? Three policy changes. The first was a [capital gains] tax cut for which this newspaper campaigned. &#8230;</p>
  
  <p>A second policy change came in pension law. &#8230;</p>
  
  <p>A third factor, and one that ensured the boom would continue, was a law &#8230; [that] clarified murky intellectual property rights so that universities and professors, especially, knew they owned their own ideas and could sell them. &#8230;</p>
</blockquote>
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Amity Shlaes on what sparked the job growth of the 1980&#8242;s.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>The era didn&#8217;t start well. The mid-1970s were a dead period. Then suddenly, from 1977 to 1978, new private capital devoted to venture capital increased by 15 times, to $570 million in 1978 from $39 million the year before.</p>
  
  <p>In 1977, public underwritings of firms with a net worth of less than $5 million amounted to a meager $75 million. By 1980 that figure was $822 million, as Michael K. Evans, founder of Chase Econometrics, points out. The venture-capital boom continued down the decades, serving computing, technology, biotech and many other areas.</p>
  
  <p>But what caused this boom? Three policy changes. The first was a [capital gains] tax cut for which this newspaper campaigned. &#8230;</p>
  
  <p>A second policy change came in pension law. &#8230;</p>
  
  <p>A third factor, and one that ensured the boom would continue, was a law &#8230; [that] clarified murky intellectual property rights so that universities and professors, especially, knew they owned their own ideas and could sell them. &#8230;</p>
</blockquote>
<p><a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203914304576628900383779840.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop" title="Link to original article" rel="bookmark">Visit This Link &#8594;</a>
</p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.minorthoughts.com/feeder/?FeederAction=clicked&#038;feed=Articles+%28RSS2%29&#038;seed=http%3A%2F%2Fminorthoughts.desertflood.com%2Feconomics%2Fthree-policies-that-gave-us-the-jobs-economy%2F&#038;seed_title=%3C%21%5BCDATA%5BThree+Policies+That+Gave+Us+the+Jobs+Economy+%26raquo%3B%5D%5D%3E/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

