Mark WeisbrotThe Hill, July 7, 2017

July 7, 2017

July 7, 2017

July 7, 2017 (Jobs Byte)

Deborah JamesLa Agencia Latinoamericana de Información (ALAI), 27 de junio, 2017

Rosemary Batt and Eileen AppelbaumThe American Prospect, July 3, 2017

President Trump and Republicans in Congress have repeatedly charged that the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is collapsing. They point to insurers dropping out of the exchanges and endlessly cite the fact that more than 1300 counties across the United States only have one insurer operating in the exchanges and that some will not have any in 2018.

The lack of competition in the exchanges is a serious problem. While people can still buy insurance in the individual market off of the exchange, and still benefit from the ACA prohibition against discrimination based on pre-existing conditions, they are not eligible for ACA subsidies unless they buy insurance through the exchanges. These subsidies are necessary to make insurance affordable for millions of people.

So, the lack of a vibrant market in many counties is a serious issue for the ACA. However, there is an important part of the story that Trump and other Republicans forget to mention. The lack of competition in the exchanges is overwhelmingly a problem for people living in states controlled by Republican governors.

The graph below shows the number of people living in counties that only have one insurer in their exchange by the party of the state’s governor.

As can be seen over 40 million of the people in counties with only one insurer in the exchanges live in states with Republican governors. By comparison, just 10.7 million people who only have one insurer in the exchanges live in states with Democratic governors.

Dean Baker
HuffPost, July 3, 2017

Annie Bird y Alexander MainThe New York Times en Español, 1 de julio, 2017

Annie Bird and Alexander MainThe New York Times, July 2, 2017

Donald Trump is apparently considering imposing some tariffs on some imports from our trading partners. This prospect has many folks, including Paul Krugman, terrified. I don’t share his fear.

Before getting into any substance, I should be clear. I have no idea what Trump may be planning by way of tariffs. During the campaign, he threatened to put a 35 percent tariff on imports from Mexico and 45 percent tariffs on imports from China. These tariffs would, in fact, be scary. They would certainly create large disruptions of the type Krugman talks about. It would also be almost certain that they would lead to a trade war with both countries retaliating.

I should also say that tariffs are not my preferred way of dealing with the country’s trade deficit, which I do consider a problem. Anyone who thinks secular stagnation (i.e. not enough demand in the economy) is a problem should believe the trade deficit is a problem. If the trade deficit were 1.0 percent of GDP rather than 3.0 percent of GDP, we would have been approaching full employment many years ago.

But the normal mechanism for reducing a trade deficit is an adjustment in currency values. This means that the currency of the country (the United States) with the deficit falls and the country with the surplus (much of the rest of the world) rises. When the dollar falls in value relative to other currencies, U.S. made goods and services become more competitive internationally. That will lead to more U.S. exports, and fewer imports, bringing trade closer to balance.

This adjustment in currency values has not taken place primarily because foreign governments have bought up massive amounts of dollars. This is partly as a reserve currency to protect themselves against financial crises. (It is a failure of the International Monetary Fund that large amounts of reserves are considered necessary for this purpose.)

There has probably never been a National Bureau of Economic Research working paper that produced as much glee in the media as last week's report showing that Seattle's minimum wage law may have led to a net loss in wages for low wage workers. According to the analysis, there was a reduction in average hours worked among those in the low wage labor market that more than offset the gain in wages. The result was a net loss in wages for exactly the group of people the law was intended to benefit.

This finding was quickly picked up in every major news outlet. While some, notably the New York Times, reported the finding with appropriate cautions, others (e.g. here, here, here, here, and here) were nearly gleeful at the idea that workers in Seattle were losing their jobs. Most of the reporting ignored the fact that the same week a team of researchers from Berkeley produced an analysis using a very similar methodology that found no statistically significant impact on employment.

There are important differences in the studies. The Berkeley study follows much prior research and only looks at the restaurant industry, a major employer of low wage workers. The University of Washington NBER paper looked at all workers getting paid less than $19 an hour. It also had two additional quarters of data. However, the Washington study also excluded the roughly 40 percent of the workforce that worked at multi-site employers (think Starbucks and McDonald's).

In other words, it it not obvious that the Washington study is the "better" analysis. The Berkeley team has produced much of the cutting edge research on the minimum wage over the last fifteen years. I doubt that many of the reporters touting the Washington study would be able to explain why it is a better analysis of the impact of Seattle's minimum wage hikes.