I live in the Detroit area and, for as long as I have lived here, I have heard media commentators claim that we need more dialogue about racial issues. Yet when I observe such dialogue, I have often seen people talk past one another about racial matters because people often disagree about the definition of racial discrimination. A recent dispute involving Little League baseball illustrates this difference of opinion quite clearly (a news account of this sad story may be found here).
The dispute involves a baseball team from the Chicago area that competed in the competition that ultimately could lead to the team winning the Little League World Championship. The team’s players were all African American. They won the U.S. championship but did not win the world championship. The team’s achievements were praised widely and they were invited to the White House where they met the President. Recently Little League Baseball vacated all of the team’s achievements because it was found that the team’s management violated rules that dictated where the players must live if they were permitted to play on the team. A lawsuit was filed by parents of the players on the team and one parent, in a news conference that I happened to see, claimed that vacating the team’s victories was evidence of discrimination. But is this really what we mean by discrimination?
Little League officials claim that the rules regarding residency were in place before the team competed. In addition, the rule was applied to other teams, including ones who were not African American. If these claims are found in court to be true, then in my opinion, no discrimination has occurred. But what is clear by the lawsuit filed on behalf of the team, the parents think that discrimination occurs even if the rules are in place beforehand and applied to everyone. As a result, there are two definitions of discrimination at work here. What purpose will be served by more dialogue between people who believe each view of what is meant by discrimination? Will I change my belief? No and will the others who disagree change theirs? I suspect not.
I think the reality of race relations in the U.S. is that there is a wide difference of opinion about the existence of discrimination which will make it very difficult to get past this divisive issue in politics and in everyday life.
It has been quite a while since I last posted on this blog. I finally decided to catch up by posting a series of remarks on a number of issues that are of interest to economists and (hopefully) others.
Disparate Impact Analysis
I teach in a university economics department. If you were to attend one of our faculty meetings, you would observe that nobody in the room is a seven-foot Chinese basketball player. Does that mean the faculty in my department discriminated against the seven-foot Chinese basketball players in the world who wanted to be on our staff and attend this meeting? If you were to use a nonsensical theory known as disparate impact analysis, then if seven-foot Chinese basketball players were a politically-protected group, the answer is yes and my university could be charged with discrimination in federal court.
To say the least, disparate impact analysis ignores the scientific method which most of us learned in primary school. The fact that a person has the disease known as AIDS does not imply how the person got that disease. The reason is that medical science has determined that the disease can be contracted in more than one way. Similarly, if one group of individuals makes less money than another group, there are many reasons why this may be so. One of those reasons could be discrimination but how do we know this to be true? Put differently, there are causal relationships in an economy and there are many random events that can make a group of individuals have the demographic characteristics that they have. Read more…
Michigan voters will soon be asked to vote on a sales tax increase and other measures partly designed to raise additional revenue for the repair of state roads which are widely regarded to be in poor condition. These initiatives seem to me to be a sign of government incompetence or an inability of government to function to serve the interests of the voters. In California, a state where these ballot proposals have often occurred, the traditional explanation is that the legislature is unable to function because it is so polarized and, as a result, the voters must step in to get things accomplished that ought to be done by the state government. But there is another aspect of the Michigan ballot which is troubling.
“Logrolling” is a word used to describe a practice in government of attaching laws with weak support to a bill containing other policies with strong support. The idea is to get a weak law passed which would not pass on its own. This seems to happen regularly at the federal level. And so one additional aspect of the Michigan ballot measure will contain an expansion of tax subsidies using the Earned Income tax credit which I suspect is a feature of the state tax code that would not garner widespread support.
I intend to vote against the Michigan ballot proposal despite the fact that I, like most voters, agree that state roads are poorly maintained. My reasons are as follows.
- I regard road maintenance as a responsibility of government. If the Legislature can’t meet this basic responsibility, why do I need them?
- Voters cannot be well-informed about budget matters compared to politicians. We solve an agency problem when we vote, electing agents (politicians) to represent the interests of the principals (the voters) in the state. Policymaking done by voters can’t possibly be better-informed than when policies are implemented by the managers that we elect. I simply don’t have the time to do the job of politicians that we elect. Poor policies are more likely to occur when ballot initiatives are used.
- A sales tax is a poor way to fund roads. User fees are the proper way to do this and so taxes on gasoline are a better way to fund road maintenance.
- I am suspicious of the logrolling that is in the ballot proposal. I find it most interesting that there seems to be little discussion of the proposal outside of the road maintenance aspect of it.
- Finally a message needs to be sent to the Legislature. Do your job. Or perhaps we need a new set of politicians serving the interests of the voters.
So far, polls show that the ballot proposal is not supported by the majority of taxpayers in the state. I hope this is still true when the vote is actually done. This ballot proposal s a monument to the low quality of government in Michigan.
I recently saw a media report that the murder rate in New York City is increasing. I decided to collect some data that might provide part of the basis for this claim. I found a report by the Police Department in the City of New York (NYC_Report). If you look at the first line of the table, the year-to-date increase in the murder rate for 2015 is just over 20 percent compared to 2014. That data clearly raises a red flag that would catch the attention of the media.
This isn’t much data upon which to base a conclusion about the causes of the apparent increase in the murder rate. In particular, there is no evidence presented here about changes in the Stop and Frisk policy of the Police Department (there are reports that the policy has been changed in some fashion). But there is little doubt that this is a developing story that bears watching. The emerging evidence will reveal some information about the value to society of the Stop and Frisk policy.
Mayor Bill de Blasio is known to be a critic of the Stop and Frisk policy that was in place when he was elected. Whatever changes he has implemented will not jeopardize his safety while he is in elected office but there will be an impact, perhaps catastrophically, on the lives of citizens of New York.
Greece has a newly-elected government which campaigned on the promise that, if elected, it would renegotiate the bailout terms that previously were imposed upon the Greek economy by a previous government and its financial bailout partners. The reason for the desire to renegotiate terms is that Greece has been in recession with high unemployment and declining output for some time and the terms of the bailout require higher taxes and reduced spending, among other things, as a requirement for loans to keep the government from defaulting on its debt. This drama seems to me to offer a number of lessons for the U.S. and other countries running persistent government deficits.
The Fallacy of Composition
Economists know that what is true for an individual in an economy is not necessarily true in the aggregate economy. This fact is known as the Fallacy of Composition. So if Greek politicians promise transfer payments to some Greek citizens, this does not imply that those politicians can promise such payments to all citizens. Once you add up all the promises, one needs to ask how this will be financed and in many countries, such as the U.S., the answer is borrowing to keep these promises. Each individual wants what he or she has been promised but, if a government is unable to borrow, then what is true at the individual level cannot be true in the aggregate. Greece cannot keep all of the promises that it has made because it will not be able to continuously borrow to do so.
Greece and the EU
Greece is a member of the EU and so it cannot print money to cover its deficits if it is unable to borrow. The reason is that Greece does not control the EU Central Bank. If it did control its own money stock, it would undoubtedly be in the throes of a hyperinflation because it would be printing money to finance its deficits. Since it cannot print money, it sought loans to keep the party going but reduced spending and higher taxes were the price it paid for its bailout. The recession resulting from these terms are what has prompted the desire to renege on its previous agreement.
Ultimately, structural reforms are needed to promote economic growth, much like those discussed previously in this blog in connection with Italy which has problems similar to Greece (see Why Italy Declines). These reforms are so-called supply-side policies that remove regulatory and other impediments that reduce economic growth. These reforms appear not to be part of the bailout requirements but these reforms are the only way that the Greeks can achieve real economic progress.
I recently saw an amusing and informative article by Michael Munger, an economist at Duke University (the article is here). The article concerns how one can explain the behavior of people who advocate more government while, at the same time, expressing disgust with many government policies, politicians, and so on.
Professor Munger has observed academic economists regularly express their disapproval of government actions and then, once they observe what they perceive to be poor policies, advocate more government to fix the perceived problems. This is logically inconsistent in the extreme and he puzzled over this (as I and other colleagues have done over the years) and finally realized that those who advocate more government, after expressing disapproval of government, expect a government that does not exist to solve problems they see. Thus Professor Munger sees his colleagues as wishing for a unicorn to exist. They want government to be what they imagine that it should be, not the one that we have.
For some recent evidence supporting this detachment from reality, consider a liberal economist who recently wrote that we should want the government to narrow the income distribution because this will improve the “supply-side” of the economy. How you ask? Well doing so, which I presume will follow an increase in tax rates paid by the rich however defined, will lead to some programs, programs unspecified by the liberal economist engaging in this advocacy, that will improve the quality of the workforce, thus raising productivity in the economy. So the same government that brought us healthcare.gov, the site so successful that people could not use it, will then turn around and successfully design programs to raise the human capital of the impoverished. To me, this “supply-side” story reveals a staggering ignorance of the reality of government.
I have been an academic economist for many years and I can say, based upon my own observations over the years, that Michael Munger has it right. Many academics are oblivious to the real world that surrounds them.
I have regularly seen statements in the press suggesting that many writers in the media think that we should have open borders, an immigration policy that literally allows anyone to enter the U.S. Indeed there are people who correctly point out that the U.S. had open borders in the past and they use this fact to argue that this evidence implies that we should do this now. The fact that we did this in the past is irrelevant for the following reasons.
In the nineteenth century, my ancestors came to the U.S. knowing that they would need to fend for themselves once they got here. There was no welfare that they would get and the state was not going to provide health care without requiring payment. Many immigrants did not attend public schools or did so for only a short time. In short, coming to the U.S. meant that the individual was on his or her own to survive once in the U.S. Compare that to the situation now.
Illegal aliens can now get health care, school access, food stamps, and other benefits once they are in the U.S. How does the existence of these subsidies affect the characteristics of the the potential immigrants to the U.S.? Clearly we will attract some people willing to get on the public dole once they are in the U.S. Those people will ultimately draw public resources, raising government deficits or requiring increases in marginal tax rates. The latter reduce Potential GDP. So the existence of the welfare state makes past immigration policies irrelevant to what would happen now if the U.S. had open borders. More generally, why do we want people to come here who only have an interest in getting on the government dole?
Once again, policy design requires thinking about economic incentives. Open borders is a bad idea because of the incentives that it creates.