• social security...15645_5.15_000011461971XSmall

    The Young Old

    May 15 • Government, Regulation • 257 Views

    Having read that Greek fiscal austerity involves raising their average retirement age from 53 to 67 and that their life expectancy is 79.5 years, I thought of the Social Security Act of 1935 and then 2035.

    When Social Security was enacted in 1935, 5.4% of the U.S. population was over 65. With social security old age benefits starting at 65, life expectancy was close to 62. By contrast, in 2035, 20% of the U.S. population is projected to be 65 or older. The last of the baby boomers (born 1946-1964) will have turned 65 in 2030, when the over 65 population will have reached 20% and then stabilized. Even now, close to 13% of the population is 65 and over with life expectancy close to 78 years. “Full retirement age” for receiving social security benefits is 67. 

    Should old age benefits start closer to life expectancy projections as they did when the social security system made its first payments?

    The Economic Lesson

    Social security is a pay-as-you-go system; today’s workers pay the benefits for today’s recipients. When social security began, there were 42 workers for each beneficiary (life expectancy was close to 62 and benefits began at 65). Today there are close to 3.3 workers for each beneficiary while for 2030 the projection is 2.2.

    Intentionally created as a universal system rather than a poverty program, social security was designed to support elderly people who could not work. Today, the Census Bureau calls the 65-74 group the “young old.”


    No Comments

    Read More
  • 15643_3.29_000011656552XSmall

    Orderly Markets

    May 14 • Demand, Supply, and Markets, Financial Markets • 286 Views

    No one has figured out the cause of the “flash crash”. Some background information might help, though, when we try to understand what happened.

    1. On May 6th, the Dow Jones Industrial Average plunged close to 1000 points, then made up some of its loss, and closed down 348. Most of the drop happened from 2:40 to 3:00.
    2. Historically, the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) was the epicenter of buying and selling stock. Yes, there were other stock markets but the NYSE was king.
    3. Now, the NYSE is only one of many stock markets in which NYSE listed companies’ stock trade each day. For example, before 2003, Procter & Gamble shares were traded almost exclusively through the NYSE. Now, as shown on an Economist chart titled “Flash Crash Mish Mash,” Nasdaq, ArcaEx, Direct Edge, and BATS, and others also trade NYSE listed equities.
    4. Simplifying considerably, we can say that not only are stocks individually traded, but also “packages” of stocks are traded, and beyond that, people trade stocks that are based on stocks. And beyond all of this, not only are people buying and selling, but also, trying to make pennies on each transaction, we have computers doing very speedy trades with other computers.  In fact, these high frequency trades now represent more than 60% of daily stock trading.
    5. Fundamentally, stock prices fall when the number of shares people (and computers) want to sell exceeds the amount people want to buy. If there is an avalanche of sell orders, the NYSE has slow down rules that are designed to let it maintain an orderly market. The other markets have (or don’t have) their own rules and no one necessarily has the same rules.

    Can you see why no one knows why the Dow dove suddenly? And yet, to maintain investor confidence, regulators need to prevent it from happening again. 

    The Economic Lesson

    The first rule of “Investing 101″ is, “Maintain an orderly market.” Orderly means that upward or downward price changes should unfold in steady increments; it means that trading will be halted whenever the buy or sell side becomes unmanageable. For several centuries “specialists” in trading posts on the floor of the NYSE were charged with maintaining orderly markets in the securities when they matched buyers and sellers. On May 6th, with no new news about the company, consulting firm Accenture’s stock tumbled 99% to one penny from above $40 a share and then returned to prior levels. Most of the drop occurred between 2:40 at 3:00. For Accenture, the market was not orderly.

    No Comments

    Read More
  • 15641_5.13_000008110001XSmall

    A Woman’s Impact

    May 13 • Gender Issues, Households, Labor • 280 Views

    In a Washington Post article with the heading, “‘Potty Parity’ hearing set for today,” I discovered that the U.S. Congress was working on a bill to increase the number of female restrooms in federal buildings. Testimony began yesterday.

    Watching the PBS NewsHour, I also learned that with two women on the Supreme Court, attorneys occasionally referred to each by the other’s name because they were the “female” justices. Now, they wondered whether a third woman on the court would become the “tipping point,” normalize the female presence, and all would blend as justices.  

    These new facts started me thinking about how the number of working women had changed. I found some answers in a BLS paper on women’s changing participation rates. Some stats follow. Called participation rates, the percents represent the women who are in the labor force compared to those who could be in the labor force.     

    1960: 37.7%;  1970: 43.3%;  1980: 51.6%;  1990: 57.5%;   2000: 59.9%;  2005: 59.3%;  2008: 59.5%

    A very interesting participation rate stat: For women 65 and older, the rate was 8.1% in 1980, 13.3% in 2008 and projected to be 17.5% in 2016.

    The Economic Lesson

    Formally defined, the participation rate is a statistic that compares the size of the labor force to its potential total.  When we refer to women’s participation rates, we are looking at the women who are in the labor force compared to all who could be in the labor force. For example, if 100 women could be in the labor force and 40 of those 100 are in the labor force, the participation rate is 40%. 

    No Comments

    Read More
  • 15639_5.12_000008715889XSmall

    A Plastic Penny?

    May 12 • Government, Money and Monetary Policy • 298 Views

    How do you feel about the penny and the nickel? If you care about the federal budget, you might want to mint them more inexpensively. But, if you own a laundromat, you disagree.   

    Pennies are actually copper coated pieces of zinc while nickels are nickel (but mostly copper). It costs close to two cents to mint a penny and sometmes as much as nine cents for a nickel. Making them more cheaply could mean replacing the copper in a penny with an aluminum alloy. The nickel and the penny could both be made of plastic.

    However, just switching from copper to zinc in the penny was controversial when President Reagan proposed it in 1981. A recent WSJ article described the uproar.  Some said we should not become dependent on foreign zinc suppliers (Canadian). Others said tradition was crucial. Vendors wanted to avoid retooling their coin machines. Plastic coins stir up even more emotion.

    Do care if your penny is plastic?

    The Economic Lesson

    Anything can be money, a piece of paper, a circle of zinc, or a seashell, if it has three basic attributes:

    1. It is accepted as a medium of exchange. For example, you and I are willing to use the commodity in a supermarket. A peso or a tie is not a medium of exchange in the United States. The nickel is a medium of exchange.
    2. It is a unit of value. We all know how much purchasing power a nickel represents but not necessarily the yen.
    3. It is a store of value. We all like our money to retain its purchasing power if we do not spend it immediately.


    No Comments

    Read More
  • 15637_5.11_000009897716XSmall

    Choosing Means Refusing

    May 11 • Economic Debates, Government, Thinking Economically • 296 Views

    In yesterday’s Washington Post, Robert Samuelson reminded us that most developed nations will have a growing proportion of senior citizens. Comparing 2005 and 2030, for Greece, the 65 and older group will increase from 18% to 25%, for Spain, from 17% to 25%. According to 2000 US census projections, between 2010 and 2030, the 65 and older population will pop from 12.97% to 19.3%.  

    Calling it a “welfare state death spiral,” Samuelson believes that this simultaneous aging across borders eliminates the chance that one nation can extricate itself from a “bind” through help from a healthier country. Because, he says, of everyone’s unemployment insurance, health insurance, and old age assistance, governments will have excessive expenses that will be difficult to fund.

    The Economic Lesson

    Also, the causes relate to opportunity cost. Let’s assume that a politician can vote for or against an old age benefit. Therefore, the opportunity cost would be the best alternative that was not selected: choosing means refusing. One benefit of voting “yes” is reelection. Another benefit is giving money to a very needy person. By contrast, the benefits of voting “no” could include creating less debt for grandchildren and slowing economic growth. Each alternative has a high opportunity cost.

    Your choice?


    No Comments

    Read More