Subscribe to our RSS feed
EconLife.com connects economics to everyday life, current events and history.

Tag Archives: opportunity cost

gasoline...nozzle..gas pump..15483_iStock_000006386775XSmall

Sort of like lunch and parking, there is no such thing as free gas.

Lunch? Even when someone else takes the check, you have sacrificed time or a future payback to that person.

Parking? Time spent looking for a space and unproductive use of valuable urban real estate are 2 costs of free parking.

And now, we can add gasoline to the list.

Although Venezuelans enjoy 4 cents a gallon gasoline and 5.8 cents for premium, they pay in a host of other ways. Starting with oil production, the cost is inefficiency. Low prices mean less revenue that could be used to update facilities and produce more oil. Thinking of the law of demand, when something is cheap, we use more of it, even when its marginal utility plunges. Venezuelans use almost 7 times as much gasoline as neighboring Colombians who pay a market price.

Less tangibly, cheap gas creates perverse incentives. Driving unnecessarily, Venezuelans emit more greenhouse gases. Seeing the opportunity to sell gas to neighboring Colombians, they smuggle. In large, gas guzzling 1970s vehicles with full tanks, “pimpineros” drive across the border. If you pay close to 5 cents and then sell it for $2, depending on how much gas you burn in traffic jams, you can earn $25 a day.

And finally, the distortion takes us to post-Chavez politics. A mainstay of the Hugo Chavez regime, gas subsidies will be tough to eliminate. Any economically savvy candidate who wants to diminish government support and grow the economy will probably be defeated. As a result, the cost of the cheap gas is also wise leadership that will grow GDP (below from WSJ).

Fossil Fuel Subsidy-GDP Cost

Not quite as high as in Venezuela, fossil fuel subsidies that help consumers abound in developing nations. Areas in red indicate the world’s highest fossil fuel subsidy rates, 2009-2011 (based on IEA data).

Areas in red indicate the world's highest fossil fuel subsidy rates.

Fossil Fuel Subsidies based on IEA data from

Any benefits? The WSJ tells us that one 2011 report concluded that Yemeni fossil fuel subsidies diminished their poverty rate by making more money available to spend elsewhere.

Still, whether looking at cost or benefit, fossil fuel subsidies that benefit the consumer will always return us to the law of demand. When price falls, we are willing and able to buy more because we experience a lower opportunity cost.

Sources and Resources: Two excellent articles on fossil fuel subsidies were here, at WSJ.com (the source of my Venezuela facts and the GDP graph above) and here in the Guardian. Complementing the articles, more data and discussion are at the IEA website, in an OECD report (source for map), and at the Institute for Energy Research, my source for the bottom graph. In addition, this interactive map from National Geographic is fascinating and includes supply side subsidies like those in the US. Finally, this econlife post has more on Venezuelan market distortions.

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , , , ,
Comments (0) Add a Comment

Do cities need more “big data?” NYC’s sewer story provides an answer.

NYC had a clogged sewer problem. To solve it, officials had to find the restaurants that were pouring grease down their drains. Because the city’s Office of Policy and Strategic Planning collects huge quantities of statistics ranging from the number of pedestrians on a certain street between 4 and 7 pm to the zip code with the most 311 calls (the “whine district”), they had a solution. Just identify the eating establishments that had reported compliance with the city’s grease carting mandate. Because non-complying firms were more likely to be pouring used cooking oil down their drains, the city could target the suspects. “Big data” let them replace the old method of catching a busboy dumping oil down the drain with a more effective technological detective. Less money could be spent on the sewage system and on regulatory compliance.

Our bottom line? Cities will certainly need the technological innovation that will make municipal finance more efficient. Advocated by Brookings researchers, governments at all levels need to implement technological collaboration and innovation.

Should we be concerned, though, that cities  like New York have considerable fiscal potential while others like Detroit are struggling? With more affluent municipalities investing in technological innovation, will we have a larger gap between have and have not municipalities? And finally, don’t we also have the opportunity cost of privacy?

Sources and Resources: Describing NYC’s Big Data, this NY Times article had some good stories and lots of detail. Much more scholarly, this Brookings Institute report complemented it as did this Business Insider article.

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , , ,
Comments (0) Add a Comment

happy...humor...16598_7.6_000012689719XSmall

Conveying their special type of economic humor, the Onion has done a series called Onion Talks. They sound like TED talks, they look like TED talks but they are not really TED talks. Describing the series, its head writer Sam West said it would resemble TED, “only instead of a good idea it would be a ludicrous one.”

Tag lines?

  • For TED it is “Ideas worth spreading.”
  • For the Onion, “No mind will be left unchanged.”

 

For example, as a counterpoint to a TED talk in which the merits of silence are demonstrated through  Gandhi, Rosa Parks and Eleanor Roosevelt, the Onion talks speaker pontificates about the power of loudness.

The best one that I watched (below) is, “Compost-Fueled Cars: Wouldn’t That Be Great?”

Our economic bottom line: Enjoy! It is worth the opportunity cost.

Sources and Resources: This New Yorker article tells more about Onion Talks and here is the series on YouTube.

 

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , , ,
Comments (0) Add a Comment

Ecuador with Yasuni

Should the world pay Ecuador to preserve its rain forest?

Here are 2 answers from a Time journalist:

Yes:

“The Yasuni plan would be a first for global environmental policy: recognition that the international community has a financial responsibility to help developing nations preserve nature.”

No:

“Of course, from another perspective, the Yasuni initiative might look like environmental blackmail: Pay us or the forest gets it.”

Here is the story:

Ecuador’s Yasuni National Park has been called an  “ecological bulls-eye.” Home to 150 frog species, 655 tree species, 200 mammal species–more species than anyone could imagine–the park covers almost 4000 square miles. The only species you could have trouble finding is people. Almost uninhabited, only 2 isolated tribes live there.

What to do, then, about the oil?

Huge reserves lay beneath the Park’s surface. A deforestation process would begin when roads and pipelines were bult. It would continue with the influx of people that a transportation infrastructure woud facilitate.

To preserve its rain forest, Ecuador has asked the world for half of the oil revenue it is willing to forgo. Totaling $360 billion, the money, if raised, would be used for green-related projects in Ecuador. But progress has been slow. As of last year, the fund had $200 million from assorted countries and individuals.

Ecuador might be having a tough time raising money because some people believe their approach establishes a bad precedent. Others look to Ecuadorian politics. From 1996-2006, they had 6 presidents and 2 constitutions. In 2008, Ecuador’s president said that the country’s national debt was illegitimate. Furthermore, when I visited the UN site that runs the fund, its revenue spreadsheet had no entries—just a note saying it would be updated during April 2014.

Is the world helping itself by enabling a developing country to preserve a resource?  Or,  is it contributing to a scheme doomed to failure and corruption?

We could analyse the dilemma with some opportunity cost logic. Just list the benefits of supporting the fund and the benefits of opposing it. Then, whichever you select, you sacrifice the other alternative and its benefits.

Please let us know what you think.

Yasuni residents:

A Harpy Eagle

A Harpy Eagle

A Poison Dart Frog

A Poison Dart Frog

Sources and Resources: The most extensive descriptions of Yasuni were in this National Geographic article and the Time article from which I got my quote. It also was interesting to see the UN site for the fund, here, and to learn here, that financially struggling euro zone nations have been donors. And finally, a hat tip to NPR’s Planet Money.

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , ,
Comments (0) Add a Comment

Job Gains in Texas and Losses in Caifornia and Florida

Should you support a $9.00 minimum wage?

Expressed in a Boston Fed report, the competing arguments on both sides are persuasive. Proponents emphasize the additional spending that will be created, the minimal, if any, job losses, and their support for low wage workers. Meanwhile, opponents of a higher minimum wage cite jobs lost, higher business costs and price increases.

But who is right?

Some say that it all depends on which study you cite. Here are two that disagree:

During 2004 Santa Fe, NM increased its minimum wage by 65% to $8.50 for all businesses employing more than 25 people. Looking at the impact, researchers concluded that unemployment appreciably rose, the number of hours worked decreased, and demand for unskilled workers declined.

By contrast, a 1992 study co-authored by Alan Kreuger, chair of the President’s Council of Economic Advisers, concluded a New Jersey 80 cent minimum wage increase to $5.05 was primarily beneficial. Surveying 410 fast-food establishments like Wendy’s and Burger King, they found that employment was stable and non-wage benefits were unaffected or even improved. As for prices, yes, they did rise but only by 3% with little impact.

Where does this leave us?

Economists who support the traditional view against the hike might draw a floor (please see below) to show a shortage of jobs or fringe benefits while those for the increase could cite a minimal demand elasticity for labor that means little response to price change.

Instead though, it made sense to me to listen to the Neumark/Wascher paper that summarizes many of the existing studies and concludes that the preponderance of evidence supports the traditional view. However, even more crucially, their final sentence is the perfect advice: “But given that the weight of the evidence points to disemployment effects, the wisdom of pursuing higher minimum wages hinges on the tradeoffs between the effects of minimum wages on different workers and other economic agents, and on whether other policies present more favorable tradeoffs.”

In other words, because your decision about a $9.00 minimum wage touches countless variables, as always, it all comes down to tradeoffs.

The excess supply of worker hours reflects the jobs losses that opponents of the minimum wage hike predict.

The excess supply of worker hours reflects the job losses that opponents of the minimum wage hike predict.

 

 

From 2012, this minimum wage "map" does not include January 1, 2013 cost of living increases (COLAs) in 10 states.

From 2012, this minimum wage “map” from the NY Times does not include January 1, 2013 cost of living increases (COLAs) in 10 states.

Sources and Resources: A perfect example of the minimum wage battle and a summary of many of the pro and con studies in the US and beyond, this 124 page paper from David Neumark and William Wascher is a superb minimum wage reference while the Boston Fed report I cite is much briefer. To gain insight into the President’s thinking, this PBS talk with Alan Kreuger is excellent. Finally, here is the Santa Fe paper for the con side and the Kreuger/Card paper for the pros.

 

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , , ,
Comments (0) Add a Comment