Labor Economics – Page 91 – artdiamondblog.com

Raghuram Rajan on the Current Economic Downturn and the Subprime Mortgage Mess

“Traders in the oil futures pit of the New York Mercantile Exchange on Tuesday” (January 22. 2008). Source of caption and photo: online version of the NYT commentary quoted and cited below.

Raghuram Rajan is mentioned in the article quoted below. I first ran across him as the co-author of a book that was billed as applying Schumpeterian ideas of creative destruction to issues of economic growth and development.

Then, at the American Economic Association meetings in New Orleans in early January, I was on my way to a History of Economics Society reception, when I stumbled by chance into a modest reception in which Rajan was giving an informal speech on the subprime mortgage crisis.

It was such an interesting presentation, that I ended up totally missing the History of Economics Society reception. Rajan argued that the main problem was one of misguided incentives. Bonuses at top investment firms like Merrrill Lynch and JPMorgan Chase, are supposed to go to those whose investments produce high returns, with modest risks. The problem with the complicated securities based on the subprime mortgages was that they produced high returns, but the risks were actually also fairly high. The high-flying investors probably had some knowledge of this, but the public did not. In most years the investors could invest in the high return, but high risk, securities, and collect huge bonuses. But now the chickens have come home to roost.

Rajan suggested that the answer would be a change in the way in which the traders are given bonuses. Instead of handing them out annually, let them become vested only after observing the investment’s track record for several years. If the investment goes south before the bonus is vested, the trader does not get the bonus. This would provide an incentive and reward for those who accurately accessed the risk of their investments.

(p. A1) . . . , Wall Street hasn’t yet come clean. Even after last week, when JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo announced big losses in their consumer credit businesses, financial service firms have still probably gone public with less than half of their mortgage-related losses, according to Moody’s Economy.com. They’re not being dishonest; they just haven’t untangled all of their complex investments.

“Part of the big uncertainty,” Raghuram G. Rajan, former chief economist at the International Monetary Fund, said, “is where the bodies are buried.”

As Mr. Rajan pointed out, this situation is more severe than the crisis involving Long Term Capital Management in the late 1990s. That was a case in which a limited set of bad investments, largely at one firm, had the potential to drive down the value of other firms’ holdings in the short term. Those firms then might have stopped lending money because they no longer had the capital to do so. But their own balance sheets were largely healthy.

This time, the firms are facing real losses, which will almost certainly curtail lending, and economic growth, this year.

For the full commentary, see:

DAVID LEONHARDT. “ECONOMIC SCENE; Worries That the Good Times Were Mostly a Mirage.” The New York Times (Weds., January 23, 2008): A1 & A23.

(Note: ellipsis added.)

The Schumpeterian book co-authored by Rajan, is:

Rajan, Raghuram G., and Luigi Zingales. Saving Capitalism from the Capitalists: Unleashing the Power of Financial Markets to Create Wealth and Spread Opportunity. New York: Crown, 2003.

Alaska Air Used Skunk Works to Develop Check-In Innovation

Source of graphic: online version of the WSJ article cited below.

The innovation described in the article excerpted below is credited as arising from a ‘skunk works’ project. There’s a neat book called Skunk Works that describes how Lockheed set up an autonomous unit to develop the first stealth air force technology. (Their plant was in a smelly part of town, so it was dubbed the ‘Skunk Works.’)

Clayton Christensen has recommended that established incumbent companies set up skunk works operations in order to develop disruptive technologies that would not survive if they were developed within the main corporate culture and infrastructure.

(In the article excerpted below, it is puzzling to read that Alaska Air went to the trouble to take out a patent, even though they apparently have no intention of enforcing it.)

(p. B1) ANCHORAGE, Alaska — When the Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport was planning a new concourse, prime tenant Alaska Airlines insisted on a counterintuitive design: "The one thing we don’t want is a ticket counter," said Ed White, the airline’s vice president of corporate real estate.

So the 447,000-square-foot Concourse C, which opened in 2004, has only one small, traditional ticket counter, even though the carrier’s 1.2 million Anchorage passengers checked in through that area last year. This unconventional approach — which uses self-service check-in machines and manned "bag drop" stations in a spacious hall that looks nothing like a typical airport — has doubled Alaska’s capacity here, halved its staffing needs and cut costs, while speeding travelers through the building in far less time.

. . .

(p. B4) Alaska’s design in Anchorage has turned heads in the industry, and in 2006 the airline was awarded a U.S. patent for the check-in process, something it calls the two-step flow-through. Mr. White says his company isn’t trying to keep competitors from going down the same path, but pursued the patent more to reward the many employees who helped to bring the idea to fruition.

Other airlines quickly sent scouts up to Anchorage to check out the new concourse, including a team from Delta Air Lines Inc., Mr. White says. A few months ago, Delta completed a $26 million renovation of its check-in hall at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport, and the finished product looks remarkably similar to that of Alaska Airlines. Greg Kennedy, Delta’s vice president for customer service there, says the new layout has enabled the airline to process passengers checking in during the peak spring break travel period in 20 to 30 minutes at most, compared with two or three hours three years ago — and all in the same amount of square footage but 50% more usable space. Mr. Kennedy says he isn’t aware of a visit to Anchorage but doesn’t dispute it.

. . .

Alaska, the nation’s ninth-largest carrier by traffic, started a "skunk works" lab a decade ago to figure out how to use technology to make air travel less of a hassle for passengers. Out of that effort came the airline’s ground-breaking ability to sell tickets on the Internet and allow fliers to check in online, developments other carriers quickly followed.

For the full story, see:

SUSAN CAREY. "Case of the Vanishing Airport Lines; Alaska Air Speeds Up Flow Of Passengers by Jettisoning Traditional Ticket Counters." The Wall Street Journal (Thurs., August 9, 2007): B1 & B4.

Source of graphic: online version of the WSJ article cited above.

Inventor’s House Had Tunnel to Escape Luddites who Smashed His Invention

"The bolt hole was designed to hide from angry textile workers." Source of caption and photo: the BBC article quoted and cited below, and viewable at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/leicestershire/4791069.stm

A series of secret rooms and a tunnel have been discovered under a building in Loughborough. The secret living quarters belonged to John Heathcote, a man who invited the fury of the Luddites after inventing a lace-making machine in the early 1800s.

. . .

Keeper of Charnwood Museum Susan Cooke added: "We don’t know if (John Heathcote) did actually hide down there because he fled Loughborough and went to Devon."

. . .

Activists smashed Heathcote’s lacemaking machine in Loughborough in 1816.

For the full story, see:

"Workmen discover secret chambers." BBC News online. Last updated: Tuesday, 15 August 2006.

(Note: ellipses added.)

(Note: Wikipedia spells the name as “Heathcoat.”)

Only Two Living Americans Are Among 30 All-Time Wealthiest

Source: screen capture of a flash animated graphic that appears in the online version of the NYT article quoted and cited below. The flash animated graphic allows you to move your cursor along the circles representing wealth, and at the top of the graphic appears the picture and a brief bio of the person who owned that amount of wealth (such as Rockefeller in the screen capture above).

(p. 18) Mr. Weill’s beginnings were . . . inauspicious. A son of immigrants from Poland, raised in Brooklyn, a so-so college student, he landed on Wall Street in a low-level job in the 1950s. Harnessing entrepreneurial energy, deftness as a deal maker and an appetite for risk, with a rising stock market pulling him along, he built a financial empire that, in his view, successfully broke through the stultifying constraints that flowed from the New Deal. They were constraints not just on what business could or could not do, but on every high earner’s take-home pay.

“I once thought how lucky the Carnegies and the Rockefellers were because they made their money before there was an income tax,” Mr. Weill said, never believing in his younger days that deregulation and tax cuts, starting in the late 1970s, would bring back many of the easier conditions of the Gilded Age. “I felt that everything of any great consequence was really all made in the past,” he said. “That turned out not to be true and it is not true today.”

The Question of Talent

Other very wealthy men in the new Gilded Age talk of themselves as having a flair for business not unlike Derek Jeter’s “unique talent” for baseball, as Leo J. Hindery Jr. put it. “I think there are people, including myself at certain times in my career,” Mr. Hindery said, “who because of their uniqueness warrant whatever the market will bear.”

He counts himself as a talented entrepreneur, having assembled from scratch a cable television sports network, the YES Network. “Jeter makes an unbelievable amount of money,” said Mr. Hindery, who now manages a private equity fund, “but you look at him and you say, ‘Wow, I cannot find another ballplayer with that same set of skills.’ ”

. . .

The New Tycoons

The new Gilded Age has created only one fortune as large as those of the Rockefellers, the Carnegies and the Vanderbilts — that of Bill Gates, according to various compilations. His net worth, measured as a share of the economy’s output, ranks him fifth among the 30 all-time wealthiest American families, just ahead of Carnegie. Only one other living billionaire makes the cut: Warren E. Buffett, in 16th place.

. . .

“I don’t think it is unreasonable,” he said, “for the C.E.O. of a company to realize 3 to 5 percent of the wealth accumulation that shareholders realize.”

That strikes Robert C. Pozen as a reasonable standard. He made a name for himself — and a fortune — overseeing the investment department at Fidelity.

Mr. Weill makes a similar point. Escorting a visitor down his hall of tributes, he lingers at framed charts with multicolored lines tracking Citigroup’s stock price. Two of the lines compare the price in the five years of Mr. Weill’s active management with that of Mr. Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway during the same period. Citigroup went up at six times the pace of Berkshire.

“I think that the results our company had, which is where the great majority of my wealth came from, justified what I got,” Mr. Weill said.

New Technologies

Others among the very rich argue that their wealth helps them develop new technologies that benefit society. Steve Perlman, a Silicon Valley innovator, uses his fortune from breakthrough inventions to help finance his next attempt at a new technology so far out, he says, that even venture capitalists approach with caution. He and his partners, co-founders of WebTV Networks, which developed a way to surf the Web using a television set, sold that still profitable system to Microsoft in 1997 for $503 million.

Mr. Perlman’s share went into the next venture, he says, and the next. One of his goals with his latest enterprise, a private company called Rearden L.L.C., is to develop over several years a technology that will make film animation seem like real-life movies. “There was no one who would invest,” Mr. Perlman said. So he used his own money.

For the full story, see:

LOUIS UCHITELLE. "Age of Riches; The Richest of the Rich, Proud of a New Gilded Age." The New York Times, Section 1 (Sun., July 15, 2007): 1 & 18-19.

(Note: ellipses added.)

Entrepreneur Leo J. Hindery, Jr. Source of photo: online version of the NYT article quoted and cited above.

Massaging Millions from Google

"Bonnie Brown joined Google when it had 40 employees." Source of caption and photo: online version of the NYT article quoted and cited below.

(p. A1) SAN FRANCISCO, Nov. 11 — Bonnie Brown was fresh from a nasty divorce in 1999, living with her sister and uncertain of her future. On a lark, she answered an ad for an in-house masseuse at Google, then a Silicon Valley start-up with 40 employees. She was offered the part-time job, which started out at $450 a week but included a pile of Google stock options that she figured might never be worth a penny.

After five years of kneading engineers’ backs, Ms. Brown retired, cashing in most of her stock options, which were worth millions of dollars. To her delight, the shares she held onto have continued to balloon in value.

“I’m happy I saved enough stock for a rainy day, and lately it’s been pouring,” said Ms. Brown, 52, who now lives in a 3,000-square-foot house in Nevada, gets her own massages at least once a week and has a private Pilates instructor. She has traveled the world to oversee a charitable foundation she started with her Google wealth and has written a book, still unpublished, “Giigle: How I Got Lucky Massaging Google.”

When Google’s stock topped $700 a share last week before dropping back to $664 on Friday, outside shareholders were not the only ones smiling. According to documents filed on Wednesday with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Google employees and former employees are holding options they can cash in worth about $2.1 billion. In addition, current employees are sitting on stock and unvested op-(p. A16)tions, or options they cannot immediately cash in, that together have a value of about $4.1 billion.

Although no one keeps an official count of Google millionaires, it is estimated that 1,000 people each have more than $5 million worth of Google shares from stock grants and stock options.

For the full story, see:

KATIE HAFNER. "Google Options Make Masseuse a Multimillionaire." The New York Times (Mon., November 12, 2007): A1 & A16.

Source of graphic: online version of the NYT article quoted and cited above.

Effective Foreign Aid

"HOMELAND SECURITY. Many women in Mexico, like Estela Palacio Calzada, with her granddaughter, rely on money sent back from the U.S. " Source of caption and photo: online version of the NYT article quoted and cited below.

Adam Smith argued in The Theory of Moral Sentiments, that altruism is more effective when it is directed toward those we know best–mainly our family, and immediate neighbors.

A policy implication may be that the most effective foreign aid is to have more open immigration policies, that then permit the migrants to send back funds to those in their home country who they know best.

THE money flows in dribs and drabs, crossing borders $200 or $300 at a time. It buys cornmeal and rice and plaid private school skirts and keeps the landlord at bay. Globally, the tally is huge: migrants from poor countries send home about $300 billion a year. That is more than three times the global total in foreign aid, making “remittances” the main source of outside money flowing to the developing world.

Surveys show that 80 percent of the money or more is immediately spent, on food, clothing, housing, education or the occasional beer party or television set. Still, there are tens of billions available for savings or investment, in places where capital is scarce. While remittances have been shown to reduce household poverty, policymakers are looking to increase the effect on economic growth.

Some migrants, for instance, send home money to savings accounts at small bank-like microfinance institutions, which use the resulting capital pool to lend to local entrepreneurs.

For the full story, see:

JASON DePARLE. "Migrant Money Flow: A $300 Billion Current." The New York Times, Week in Review Section (Sun., November 18, 2007): 3.

Source of map graphic: online version of the NYT article quoted and cited above.

“Musing on the Sameness of Princes and Paupers”

King Edward’s suite is enjoyed by Münster, Germany resident Henriette Heussner. Source of photo: online version of the NYT article quoted and cited below.

(p. A4) MARIANSKE LAZNE, Czech Republic — Anybody with a little cash in this quaint and quiet spa town can take a bath fit for a king.

Edward VII of Britain visited this bucolic corner of Bohemia six times during his short reign and each time took a bath in the Royal Cabin, as his private bathroom at the Nove Lazne hotel is still called. For about $45, you can, too.

. . .

King Edward’s Royal Cabin, a spacious Turkish-bath-style suite, is outfitted with a metal alloy tub and a medieval-looking oaken chair that serves as a toilet and a scale.

. . .

The windows are as delicately painted as a church’s stained glass, and the walls richly decorated with a tropical mural, just as they were in Edwardian days. Angels wearing miters look down from the ceiling.

Lying in the bath, staring up at the same blue parrot that King Edward surely contemplated on the opposite wall, one cannot help musing on the sameness of princes and paupers and those who are somewhere in between.

Tiny bubbles like the carbonation on a soda straw collect on the skin, and larger bubbles percolate around the bather, producing a peculiarly pleasant sensation.

An archaic water heater in a corner of the room clanks contentedly, keeping the bath at what the hotel staff call an “optimal” 97 degrees. The smell of the water is sulfuric and slightly metallic.

Much history and many baths have passed since the king bathed here. In the end, everyone grabs the same metal handle that he did to hoist himself up and out of the tub.

For the full story, see:

CRAIG S. SMITH. "MARIANSKE LAZNE JOURNAL; This Year at Marienbad, They’re Still Taking the Waters." The New York Times (Tues., July 3, 2007): A4.

(Note: ellipses added.)

Source of maps: online version of the NYT article cited above.

“India is Outsourcing Outsourcing”

"Infosys employs workers in Brno, Czech Republic." Source of caption and photo: online version of the NYT article quoted, and cited, below.

(p. A1) MYSORE, India — Thousands of Indians report to Infosys Technologies’ campus here to learn the finer points of programming. Lately, though, packs of foreigners have been roaming the manicured lawns, too.

Many of them are recent American college graduates, and some have even turned down job offers from coveted employers like Google. Instead, they accepted a novel assignment from Infosys, the Indian technology giant: fly here for six months of training, then return home to work in the company’s American back offices.

India is outsourcing outsourcing.

One of the constants of the global economy has been companies moving their tasks — and jobs — to India. But rising wages and a stronger currency here, demands for workers who speak languages other than English, and competition from countries looking to emulate India’s success as a back office — including China, Morocco and Mexico — are challenging that model.

Many executives here acknowledge that outsourcing, having rained most heavily on India, will increasingly sprinkle tasks around the globe. Or, as Ashok Vemuri, an Infosys senior vice president, put it, the future of outsourcing is “to take the work from any part of the world and do it in any part of the world.”

. . .

(p. A14) Such is the new outsourcing: A company in the United States pays an Indian vendor 7,000 miles away to supply it with Mexican engineers working 150 miles south of the United States border.

In Europe, too, companies now hire Infosys to manage back offices in their own backyards. When an American manufacturer, for instance, needed a system to handle bills from multiple vendors supplying its factories in different European countries, it turned to the Indian company. The manufacturer’s different locations scan the invoices and send them to an office of Infosys, where each bill is passed to the right language team. The teams verify the orders and send the payment to the suppliers while logged in to the client’s computer system.

More than a dozen languages are spoken at the Infosys office, which is in Brno, Czech Republic.

For the full story, see:

ANAND GIRIDHARADAS. "Outsourcing Comes Full Circle As India Starts to Export Jobs." The New York Times (Tues., September 25, 2007): A1 & A14.

(Note: the somewhat different title of the online version was: "Outsourcing Works So Well, India Is Sending Jobs Abroad.")

U.S. Jobs Moving “Up the Occupational Chains” to Work that “Is Not as Rules-Based”

Source of graphic: online verion of the NYT article cited below.

(p. C1) Jeffrey Taft is a road warrior in the global high-technology services economy, and his work shows why there are limits to the number of skilled jobs that can be shipped abroad in the Internet age.

Each Monday, Mr. Taft awakes before dawn at his home in Canonsburg, Pa., heads for the Pittsburgh airport and flies to Houston for the week.

He is one of dozens of I.B.M. services employees from around the country who are working with a Texas utility, CenterPoint Energy, to install computerized electric meters, sensors and software in a “smart grid” project to improve service and conserve energy.

Mr. Taft, 51, is an engineer fluent in programming languages and experienced in the utility business. Much of his work, he says, involves being a translator between the different vernaculars and cultures of computing and electric power, as he oversees the design and building of software tailored for utilities. “It takes a tremendous amount of face-to-face work,” he said.

What he does, in short, cannot be done overseas. But some of the programming work can be, so I.B.M. employees in India are also on the utility project team.

The trick for companies like I.B.M. is to figure out what work to do where, and, more important, to keep bringing in the kind of higher-end work that needs to be done in this country, competing on the basis of specialized expertise and not on price alone.

The debate continues over how much skilled work in the vast service sector of the American economy can migrate offshore to lower-cost nations like India. Estimates of the number of services jobs potentially at (p. C4) risk, by economists and research organizations, range widely from a few million to more than 40 million, which is about a third of total employment in services.

Jobs in technology services may be particularly vulnerable because computer programming can be described in math-based rules that are then sent over the Internet to anywhere there are skilled workers. Already, a significant amount of basic computer programming work has gone offshore to fast-growing Indian outsourcing companies like Infosys, Wipro and Tata Consultancy Services.

To compete, companies like I.B.M. have to move up the economic ladder to do more complicated work, as do entire Western economies and individual workers. “Once you start moving up the occupational chains, the work is not as rules-based,” said Frank Levy, a labor economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. “People are doing more custom work that varies case by case.”

In the field of technology services, Mr. Levy said, the essential skill is “often a lot more about business knowledge than it is about software technology — and it’s a lot harder to ship that kind of work overseas.”

For the full story, see:

STEVE LOHR. "At I.B.M., a Smarter Way to Outsource." The New York Times (Thurs., July 5, 2007): C1 & C4.

Levy has co-authored a book that is relevant to the example and issues raised in the article. See:

Levy, Frank, and Richard J. Murnane. The New Division of Labor: How Computers Are Creating the Next Job Market. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2004.

IBM engineer Jeffrey Taft (blue shirt) has "local" knowledge of the connection between computer programming and the electric utility business. Here he is on-site in Houston at the offices of CenterPoint Energy. Source of graphic: online verion of the NYT article cited above.

Study Finds Much Smaller Increase in Income Volatility than Hacker Claims

Source of graphs: online version of the WSJ article cited below.

WASHINGTON — Weighing in on an intensifying debate on income insecurity, three economists — including two from the Federal Reserve — have found that American families today are more likely to experience big drops in their income than three decades ago.

Their analysis, however, finds far less volatility in family income than some recent studies.

The authors of the new study, Douglas Elmendorf of the Brookings Institution and senior Fed economists Karen Dynan and Daniel Sichel, caution against interpreting their findings as evidence that families face more risk of hardship than before. They note that financial innovation has given Americans more ways to maintain their spending when their incomes fall. (Read the full study.)

The study found that the volatility of household income rose 23% between the early 1970s and early 2000s. While small changes in family income are no more frequent, large changes in income — more than 50% — are.

The probability that a family will experience a decline in annual income of 50% or more, compared with their average income in the previous three years, rose to 1.8% in 1995 from 0.6% in 1973. After 1995, the probability dipped, and has risen back to 1.7%.

"The increase in volatility we document is not trivial," Mr. Elmendorf said in an interview. "Our work is quite consistent with being concerned about the level and increase in volatility of household income."

That said, "I don’t think our results support the view that the world is dramatically more adverse for households," he added.

. . .

Yet research into the assumption that income volatility has increased has reached differing conclusions. Yale University political scientist and author Jacob Hacker, in a 2006 book titled "The Great Risk Shift," documents a fivefold increase in household-income volatility between the early 1970s and early 1990s. Mr. Hacker, who described himself as "thunderstruck" by the result, has written widely and testified to Congress on the subject. He couldn’t be reached for comment.

By contrast, the Congressional Budget Office, using a different set of data, found that earnings volatility for individuals — as opposed to households — has changed little since the early 1980s.

But the authors argue that bigger swings in income need not force households to slash their spending. They cite preliminary findings from other research they have conducted that show financial innovation, such as easier borrowing against the value of a home, has helped to insulate family spending patterns from fluctuations in income.

For the full story, see:

GREG IP. "Incomes Suffer More Volatility Amid Heightening Risks, Families Find Ways to Cushion Blows." The Wall Street Journal (Fri., June 22, 2007): A4.

(Note: ellipsis added.)

Most New Jobs Are Good Jobs (High-Skill and High-Pay)

Stephen J. Rose, the author of the commentary quoted below, was previously an advisor to Democratic President Clinton’s former Secretary of Labor, Robert Reich. He is currently a senior economic fellow with the Progressive Policy Institute. The commentary is based on Rose’s report "The Truth About Middle Class Jobs."

Economic change is a messy process. New technologies open up many opportunities for those prepared to take advantage of them. At the same time, old firms and their workers are displaced and forced to start over. In 1900, for example, 40% of the U.S. work force was involved in agriculture. Today, that figure is less than 2%, and no serious observer would argue that we are worse off as a result of this transformation.

Yet many of today’s most prominent politicians and pundits are making an updated version of precisely this argument. They claim that the decline in the number of manufacturing jobs has led to the replacement of good middle-class jobs by low-skill, low-pay "hamburger-flipping" service jobs.

. . .

Let us look at the distribution of earnings in 1979, compared with the distribution of earnings of the net new jobs created since that year. . . .

. . .

Here’s the bottom line: For three-quarters of the workforce (women and the top half of male earners), economic growth translated into earnings gains. But for male workers in the bottom half of the earnings distribution, the decline of unionized manufacturing employment has led to the drying up of some middle-class jobs for those with no post-secondary education.

For the clear majority of the workforce, then, the job market has become more welcoming, not less so. But where are these jobs?

Using a framework that I developed in the 1990s, I find that most of the employment gains over the last 30 years have been in business-management activities (administration, sales, finance and business services) as well as in professional services such as health care and education. While the percentage of U.S. jobs derived from manual work in agriculture, mining, timber and manufacturing has declined, the share of jobs related to low-skilled retail and personal/food services has remained steady.

For the full commentary, see:

STEPHEN J. ROSE. "The Myth of Middle-Class Job Loss." The Wall Street Journal (Weds., October 24, 2007): A21.

(Note: ellipses added.)