Mike Konczal

Roosevelt Institute Fellow

Recent Posts by Mike Konczal

  • Rortybomb's Best of 2012 Roundup and Linkfest

    Dec 31, 2012Mike Konczal

    I want to thank everyone who has read, commented, emailed, tweeted, shared and otherwised engaged with me and this blog over the past year. Especially as I moved from the old blog to the new one here. I'm pretty happy with how 2012 went, and I hope to keep it going into 2013. Here's a recap of the best stuff I was up to in 2012 for those who would want a best of list. (Here's the equivalent list for 2011.)

    One goal for 2012 was writing some longer think pieces, and that went went pretty well. Some of my favorites were a piece on the ideology of mass incarceration for Jacobin, the death of public higher education and the Master Plan for Dissent (with Aaron Bady), a lead essay for a forum on debt reduction and the recession for Boston Review, and a piece against coupon government and for public provisioning for New America (a shorter version in Dissent here).

    The most read blog post of the year (which may be the most read thing I've written) was an animated gif explanation to the recent Jackson Hole conference on monetary policy, both here and at Business Insider. The election provided most-read posts number two and three: I wrote a post showing how Mitt Romney's 5-point economic plan was the same plan from 2008 and 2004, and I argued for a policy agenda that followed from the "you didn't build that" comment. Back when everyone was trying to figure out why the Federal Reserve wasn't being aggressive, my interview with Joe Gagnon on the Fed started a debate on the topic. I also analyzed four histories of the 47 percent meme after Mitt Romney's blunder tape.

    Personal favorite blog posts that are a little extra econ-geeky: updated my topological map of theories of the recession with latest information, an argument for why taxing capital income is fair, as well as taking apart that dubious "uncertainty index" that floats out there in the economic debates.

    At the end of the year I started contributing economic articles to the American Prospect, and you can see the list of articles here. I'm trying to build out where liberalism will evolve post-Obama, and I've written about how liberals will fight over full employment, and the future of the welfare state. The second was read widely on the right, as Bryon York went around Fox News, conservative radio and articles about how it was the liberal agenda. As he wrote, "Obama's liberal supporters do have a second-term agenda, and it is a far-reaching one. That agenda, laid out a new article in the liberal magazine the American Prospect, is enough to set off alarm bells among conservatives in Washington and around the country."

    Four things: I'm going to engage more with comments at this site, now that I have a mechanism to see when they are posted easier. Second, if you are looking to expand your magazine subscriptions in 2013, consider subscribing to some of the magazines I've had the privilege of writing for in the past year. These magazines are nurturing all kinds of new talent, and that pipeline is important for the years ahead. Third, feel free to leave a comment with some ideas, either specific to this webpage or more general, about what you'd like to see here in the year ahead. And fourth, thanks for reading and hope to see you in the new year!

    Follow or contact the Rortybomb blog:

      

    I want to thank everyone who has read, commented, emailed, tweeted, shared and otherwised engaged with me and this blog over the past year. Especially as I moved from the old blog to the new one here. I'm pretty happy with how 2012 went, and I hope to keep it going into 2013. Here's a recap of the best stuff I was up to in 2012 for those who would want a best of list. (Here's the equivalent list for 2011.)

    One goal for 2012 was writing some longer think pieces, and that went went pretty well. Some of my favorites were a piece on the ideology of mass incarceration for Jacobin, the death of public higher education and the Master Plan for Dissent (with Aaron Bady), a lead essay for a forum on debt reduction and the recession for Boston Review, and a piece against coupon government and for public provisioning for New America (a shorter version in Dissent here).

    The most read blog post of the year (which may be the most read thing I've written) was an animated gif explanation to the recent Jackson Hole conference on monetary policy, both here and at Business Insider. The election provided most-read posts number two and three: I wrote a post showing how Mitt Romney's 5-point economic plan was the same plan from 2008 and 2004, and I argued for a policy agenda that followed from the "you didn't build that" comment. Back when everyone was trying to figure out why the Federal Reserve wasn't being aggressive, my interview with Joe Gagnon on the Fed started a debate on the topic. I also analyzed four histories of the 47 percent meme after Mitt Romney's blunder tape.

    Personal favorite blog posts that are a little extra econ-geeky: updated my topological map of theories of the recession with latest information, an argument for why taxing capital income is fair, as well as taking apart that dubious "uncertainty index" that floats out there in the economic debates.

    At the end of the year I started contributing economic articles to the American Prospect, and you can see the list of articles here. I'm trying to build out where liberalism will evolve post-Obama, and I've written about how liberals will fight over full employment, and the future of the welfare state. The second was read widely on the right, as Bryon York went around Fox News, conservative radio and articles about how it was the liberal agenda. As he wrote, "Obama's liberal supporters do have a second-term agenda, and it is a far-reaching one. That agenda, laid out a new article in the liberal magazine the American Prospect, is enough to set off alarm bells among conservatives in Washington and around the country."

    Four things: I'm going to engage more with comments at this site, now that I have a mechanism to see when they are posted easier. Second, if you are looking to expand your magazine subscriptions in 2013, consider subscribing to some of the magazines I've had the privilege of writing for in the past year. These magazines are nurturing all kinds of new talent, and that pipeline is important for the years ahead. Third, feel free to leave a comment with some ideas, either specific to this webpage or more general, about what you'd like to see here in the year ahead. And fourth, thanks for reading and hope to see you in the new year!

    Follow or contact the Rortybomb blog:

      

    Share This

  • How Do the Elderly Spend Money and the Difficulty of Protecting Against Social Security Cuts

    Dec 18, 2012Mike Konczal

    Dean Baker and Doug Henwood both have good analysis on the cuts involved in chaining inflation. Since the rumored cuts to Social Security will hinge on this way of calculating inflation, I want to dig one level into the data to convey what it will mean and then look at some of the distributional impact.

    I.

    Let's start with two groups of people. The first is urban wage earners and clerical workers, one select group of the population, who purchase a representative basket of goods and services. How much does the basket of goods they purchase increase in price over time? This cost is called CPI-W, and it is currently used for adjusting Social Security benefits. The second group is all people aged 62 and over. Since the 1980s, the government has calculated the cost of goods and services for this group as well, and it is referred to as CPI-E. What do they spend money on? Here's the relative importance of major categories of spending, provided by the BLS, for each group from December 2007:

    Green is where the group spends compartively less. As we can see, the elderly spend a lot more of their (more limited) money on housing, utilities, and medical care. And as you probably know, health care costs have been rising rapidly over the past several decades. With the notable exception of college costs, the things urban wage earners spend money on haven't increased in prices as fast as what the elderly purchase. As a result, the CPI-E has increased 3.3 percent a year from 1982 to 2007, while the CPI-W has only increased 3.0 a year.

    But wait, what's this chained thing that is being proposed? Picture that in response to a price increase for one good you could substitute similar items. So if the price of chicken goes up, you could eat more beef. Or if the price of a movie went up, you would rent movies more often. This substitution effect blunts some of the price increases. As such, inflation is lower when you take this into account. It's more complicated than that, but it is a start for a definition.

    But we don't have a "chained" version of the CPI-E. And the items that the elderly purchase probably aren't impacted in the same competitive way. If the price of beer goes up, you can drink more wine; if the price of utilities go up, your options are limited. The areas where the elderly pay more don't have the same competitive pressures, and their geography is going to be more limited. We could get a chained version of the CPI-E if Congress told economists to make one. However it's likely not to have the cuts built in the same way.

    II.

    Brad Delong, who signed a letter from over 300 economist experts and social scientists organized by EPI arguing that there's no empirical basis for the COLA change, says that "Chained-CPI" is code for "let's really impoverish some women in their 90s!" This will fall on those who live the longest and rely on Social Security the most. But can we find a way to have this impact the poor less so that it doesn't fall too hard on those with the least?

    The White House is saying that there will be such a set of protections, and think tanks have proposed some, but we won't know what they'll entail until they are better reported. No matter what additional measures are proposed, it's important to understand how compressed the distribution of income is for those receiving Social Security. From the Social Security Administration, here's a chart on the importance of Social Security relative to total income by income quintile for beneficiary families over 65 years of age (Table 9.B6):

    I hate using charts that have so many percents of a percent of a percent, but this data is really important. To get a sense of what this chart is telling us, let's look at a box. From this chart, in the botom 20 percent of income, or those that make $11,417 or less, 65 percent of beneficiaries families get 90 percent of their income from Social Security. So the poorest are very dependent on Social Security, and a large cut will impact them harshly.

    But let's say we wave a policy wand and protect those in the bottom 20 percent. The problem is that the income here is very compressed, and that Social Security is a major source of income up the ladder. Even for those in the 60-80 percent of income bracket, 41 percent of their income comes from Social Security. The group around the middle, in the third quintile, have only around $20,000 a year to live on and get a majority of their income from Social Security.

    This is not a program that just helps the destitute; it provides a broad level of income security in old age for the majority of retirees. The average elderly family receiving Social Security gets 58.2 percent of their income from the program. A quarter of families get 90 percent or more of their income from Social Security. Once you leave the top income quintile, Social Security is the major source of retirement security. It is hard to see how means-testing these across-the-board cuts will be sufficient to prevent this from having a serious impact on our most vulnerable.

     

    Follow or contact the Rortybomb blog:

      

    Dean Baker and Doug Henwood both have good analysis on the cuts involved in chaining inflation. Since the rumored cuts to Social Security will hinge on this way of calculating inflation, I want to dig one level into the data to convey what it will mean and then look at some of the distributional impact.

    I.

    Let's start with two groups of people. The first is urban wage earners and clerical workers, one select group of the population, who purchase a representative basket of goods and services. How much does the basket of goods they purchase increase in price over time? This cost is called CPI-W, and it is currently used for adjusting Social Security benefits. The second group is all people aged 62 and over. Since the 1980s, the government has calculated the cost of goods and services for this group as well, and it is referred to as CPI-E. What do they spend money on? Here's the relative importance of major categories of spending, provided by the BLS, for each group from December 2007:

    Green is where the group spends compartively less. As we can see, the elderly spend a lot more of their (more limited) money on housing, utilities, and medical care. And as you probably know, health care costs have been rising rapidly over the past several decades. With the notable exception of college costs, the things urban wage earners spend money on haven't increased in prices as fast as what the elderly purchase. As a result, the CPI-E has increased 3.3 percent a year from 1982 to 2007, while the CPI-W has only increased 3.0 a year.

    But wait, what's this chained thing that is being proposed? Picture that in response to a price increase for one good you could substitute similar items. So if the price of chicken goes up, you could eat more beef. Or if the price of a movie went up, you would rent movies more often. This substitution effect blunts some of the price increases. As such, inflation is lower when you take this into account. It's more complicated than that, but it is a start for a definition.

    But we don't have a "chained" version of the CPI-E. And the items that the elderly purchase probably aren't impacted in the same competitive way. If the price of beer goes up, you can drink more wine; if the price of utilities go up, your options are limited. The areas where the elderly pay more don't have the same competitive pressures, and their geography is going to be more limited. We could get a chained version of the CPI-E if Congress told economists to make one. However it's likely not to have the cuts built in the same way.

    II.

    Brad Delong, who signed a letter from over 300 economist experts and social scientists organized by EPI arguing that there's no empirical basis for the COLA change, says that "Chained-CPI" is code for "let's really impoverish some women in their 90s!" This will fall on those who live the longest and rely on Social Security the most. But can we find a way to have this impact the poor less so that it doesn't fall too hard on those with the least?

    The White House is saying that there will be such a set of protections, and think tanks have proposed some, but we won't know what they'll entail until they are better reported. No matter what additional measures are proposed, it's important to understand how compressed the distribution of income is for those receiving Social Security. From the Social Security Administration, here's a chart on the importance of Social Security relative to total income by income quintile for beneficiary families over 65 years of age (Table 9.B6):

    I hate using charts that have so many percents of a percent of a percent, but this data is really important. To get a sense of what this chart is telling us, let's look at a box. From this chart, in the botom 20 percent of income, or those that make $11,417 or less, 65 percent of beneficiaries families get 90 percent of their income from Social Security. So the poorest are very dependent on Social Security, and a large cut will impact them harshly.

    But let's say we wave a policy wand and protect those in the bottom 20 percent. The problem is that the income here is very compressed, and that Social Security is a major source of income up the ladder. Even for those in the 60-80 percent of income bracket, 41 percent of their income comes from Social Security. The group around the middle, in the third quintile, have only around $20,000 a year to live on and get a majority of their income from Social Security.

    This is not a program that just helps the destitute; it provides a broad level of income security in old age for the majority of retirees. The average elderly family receiving Social Security gets 58.2 percent of their income from the program. A quarter of families get 90 percent or more of their income from Social Security. Once you leave the top income quintile, Social Security is the major source of retirement security. It is hard to see how means-testing these across-the-board cuts will be sufficient to prevent this from having a serious impact on our most vulnerable.

    Follow or contact the Rortybomb blog:

      

    Social Security cards image via Shutterstock.com.

    Share This

  • A Cost of Living Adjustment for Social Security in the Fiscal Cliff?

    Dec 17, 2012Mike Konczal

    I haven't been writing about the various trial balloons and back-and-forths in the fiscal cliff austerity phase-in negotiations. But I do want to make a comment on the latest one. From Ezra Klein, there's rumors that there will be more revenue, some extended unemployment insurance, and additional stimulus money. However, "the Democrats’ headline concession will be accepting chained-CPI, which is to say, accepting a cut to Social Security benefits." Krugman isn't sure if this is better than no deal.

    I think it's terrible, and the best way to understand it is by comparing it to the two reasons some liberals, Kevin Drum for instance, give for making a deal on Social Security. This is not my argument, but it's a useful comparison. The first reason is that by proactively changing Social Security you can secure a deal that has more revenue and fewer cuts than you would otherwise. The second reason is that by making a deal on Social Security you take the issue off the policy table. Sure, the people who think Social Security is a form of tyranny will still be after it. But all the deficit scolds will pack up and go home on the issue.

    This deal would do neither. You'd cut Social Security without putting in any new revenue. And it wouldn't be sufficient to close the long-term gap, so the issue would stay on the table. Indeed, it's obvious that Very Serious People would view this as a "downpayment" on future cuts, and require any future attempts to get more revenue for Social Security, say by raising the payroll tax cap, to involve significant additional cuts.

    From CBO's Social Security Policy Options, you can see 30 options for Social Security. 

    The CBO puts the 75-year actuarial balance deficit at 0.6 percent, and this chart shows how much of that 0.6 percent would be filled by various options. The last one, basing the cost-of-living-adjustments (COLA) on the chained CPI-U, is only 0.2, or about a third of what the deficit hawks will say is necessary. From the CBO, it would only extend the trust fund four years. There will be demands for going back to Social Security in the years ahead, and those changes will not come solely from revenue increases. That's giving up a major piece for nothing in terms of Social Security, which is a very bad deal.

    Personally, I think changing the COLA is a bad idea in general. The elderly face a higher rate of inflation since their spending is so dependent on health care, which is difficult to adjust or comparison shop for (the idea behind chaining the inflation rate). More importantly, of the three legs of the stool of retirement security - Social Security, private savings and employer savings plans - the two that aren't Social Security are struggling. Employer pensions will become less secure and less available going forward. Housing wealth was wiped out in the crash. 401(k)s appear to have been a great way to shovel tax savings to the rich, but are in no shape to take over for a lack of pensions. Median wages have dropped in the recession, and are likely to show little growth in the years ahead, which makes building private savings harder. Social Security will become more important, not less, in the decades ahead. Its benefits should be expanded, not cut.

    UPDATE: Kevin Drum has a similar conclusion on the deal.

    I haven't been writing about the various trial balloons and back-and-forths in the fiscal cliff austerity phase-in negotiations. But I do want to make a comment on the latest one. From Ezra Klein, there's rumors that there will be more revenue, some extended unemployment insurance, and additional stimulus money. However, "the Democrats’ headline concession will be accepting chained-CPI, which is to say, accepting a cut to Social Security benefits." Krugman isn't sure if this is better than no deal.

    I think it's terrible, and the best way to understand it is by comparing it to the two reasons some liberals, Kevin Drum for instance, give for making a deal on Social Security. This is not my argument, but it's a useful comparison. The first reason is that by proactively changing Social Security you can secure a deal that has more revenue and fewer cuts than you would otherwise. The second reason is that by making a deal on Social Security you take the issue off the policy table. Sure, the people who think Social Security is a form of tyranny will still be after it. But all the deficit scolds will pack up and go home on the issue.

    This deal would do neither. You'd cut Social Security without putting in any new revenue. And it wouldn't be sufficient to close the long-term gap, so the issue would stay on the table. Indeed, it's obvious that Very Serious People would view this as a "downpayment" on future cuts, and require any future attempts to get more revenue for Social Security, say by raising the payroll tax cap, to involve significant additional cuts.

    From CBO's Social Security Policy Options, you can see 30 options for Social Security. 

    The CBO puts the 75-year actuarial balance deficit at 0.6 percent, and this chart shows how much of that 0.6 percent would be filled by various options. The last one, basing the cost-of-living-adjustments (COLA) on the chained CPI-U, is only 0.2, or about a third of what the deficit hawks will say is necessary. From the CBO, it would only extend the trust fund four years. There will be demands for going back to Social Security in the years ahead, and those changes will not come solely from revenue increases. That's giving up a major piece for nothing in terms of Social Security, which is a very bad deal.

    Personally, I think changing the COLA is a bad idea in general. The elderly face a higher rate of inflation since their spending is so dependent on health care, which is difficult to adjust or comparison shop for (the idea behind chaining the inflation rate). More importantly, of the three legs of the stool of retirement security - Social Security, private savings and employer savings plans - the two that aren't Social Security are struggling. Employer pensions will become less secure and less available going forward. Housing wealth was wiped out in the crash. 401(k)s appear to have been a great way to shovel tax savings to the rich, but are in no shape to take over for a lack of pensions. Median wages have dropped in the recession, and are likely to show little growth in the years ahead, which makes building private savings harder. Social Security will become more important, not less, in the decades ahead. Its benefits should be expanded, not cut.

    UPDATE: Kevin Drum has a similar conclusion on the deal.

    Share This

  • Are High College Costs Redistributive?

    Dec 11, 2012Mike Konczal

    Aaron Bady has a fantastic piece on the boosters who argue that MOOCs and other forms of online education will fundamentally transform higher education, addressed as a response to Clay Shirky. There's a few important moves to watch when people make this line of argument. Many who prize the "disruptive innovation" of higher education usually concede that what it will mostly do is provide a cheaper but poorer alternative to the large number of non-elite public institutions that educate the majority of those who seek higher education. The talk is all "Watch out Harvard and Yale! This online education company is going to take you down like Napster took down the record companies." Then it quickly reverts to the idea of providing "access," which gets much of its power through the ongoing dismantling of mass public higher education.

    Note that, given that online education's success will be a function of the weakness of public education, there's a huge incentive for for-profit higher education firms to participate in that dismantling project. And sure enough, there's a great new article by Sarah Pavlus at the American Independent, "University of Phoenix fought against community college expansion." There's "so much money to be made online, and [for-profit schools] didn’t want community colleges coming in at a much lower tuition rate,” she writes. Public institutions are attempting to innovate and provide better services to citizens, but for-profit schools are trying to stop them to bolster their own bottom lines.

    This is why the debate about the actual quality of online education is important. Online education can succeed not by providing a better service at a cheaper price, but instead by just providing "access" if public education slowly becomes unavailable. If there's no public option, then the quality issue becomes moot - then it is just about providing the now missing access to meet the large demand our country has for higher-level education.

    Also watch for when online education boosters make an argument of higher education decline rather than online success. They do a rhetorical move to argue that the problems in the non-profit private education institutions extend to public ones. Kevin Carey, for instance, argues that "college spending is the driving force behind affordability or lack thereof in the long run" before noting several paragraphs later that "Inflation-adjusted per-student spending at private research universities, in particular, increased sharply." He quickly notes that "private universities set the aspirational standards for the industry as a whole," but public higher education cost inflation is driven mostly by declining public support, not a competitive war with private schools.

    As Josh Mason pointed out, this is the equivalent of saying that since the private savings vehicle of 401(k)s have turned out to be a bit of a bust, we should scale back the public retirement vehicle of Social Security. That's not the case at all! And, if anything, we should view the public option as a version that works.

    Tuition as Redistribution

    But maybe higher tuition isn't a real problem. Maybe higher costs are driven by the rich paying more to help out the poor in a private form of egalitarian redistribution. A few weeks ago, Evan Soltas at Bloomberg wrote a version of this argument, which Matt Bruenig picked up on his blog (and here as well). Soltas argues that the huge rise in the advertised ("sticker") price of colleges is misleading, because the actual cost people pay ("net cost") is much lower and has been increasing at a lower rate. Soltas argues that "what has happened is a shift toward price discrimination -- offering multiple prices for the same product. Universities have offset the increase in sticker price for most families through an expansion of grant-based financial aid and scholarships." Bruenig and Soltas both emphasize that the rich pay more while the poorest pay less. They use data from the most recent Trends in College Pricing.

    There are a few critical points to bring up about this analysis. Contrary to Soltas, this is driven as much, if not more, by public policy, specifically the effect of of a significant expansion in public funding, notably in Pell Grants and military grants. (I believe Soltas' graph also uses data that includes the extensive network of tax credits, which add up to a lot of money; the cross-section graphs in Bruenig's graphs does not.) From Trends in Student Aid:

    This is one way of providing public funding. Another would be to drive down tuition directly. I took up the idea of supporting public provisioning directly, instead of coupons that provide targeted support, in my recent New America paper. If there are market imperfections, incumbents can capture some of the subsidy while driving up the price for all those who aren't getting the coupons. Public provisioning, in these cases, lowers the cost for everyone.

    Now if you look at the net price by income, you also see those in the top income bracket, here being those with incomes over $100K a year, paying more than the poor, those under $33,000. From Bruenig's piece:

    Soltas argues that "the cost burden of college has become significantly more progressive since the 1990s. Students from wealthier families not only now pay more for their own educations but also have come to heavily subsidize the costs of the less fortunate." He argues that differences in price reflects an institutional goal of cross-subsidization, where private firms make the rich pay more to compensate the poor. This didn't strike me as obvious from the data or other resources. In general, price discrimination should be thought of as a transfer from consumers to producers' surplus. Meanwhile, businesses usually don't cross-subsidize, and as we saw from the Pell Grant information, a big driver of this is poor people's payments beng compensated through public funding.

    Just to confirm that higher tuition wasn't redistribution, I emailed one of the authors of the study, Sandy Baum, who told me that "very few students pay more than the actual cost of their education. Affluent students are generally subsidized less than low-income students, but they aren't actually paying any part of the cost of education for low-income students. Taxpayers generally are subsidizing Pell Grant recipients. But that's quite different from students paying more than their educational costs to cross-subsidize low-income students."

    Another technical note worth making: Bruenig's graph also assumes that the poor are attending the same institutions as those who are better off. But they are almost certainly attending schools part-time instead of full-time, and cheaper institutions compared to more expensive ones. One can see this by just looking at the sticker cost of tuition. The sticker price by income has large differences that are slowly increasing.

    (Net room and board and other costs has a similar dynamic.)

     Making sure that the poor can access education through grants could work as a plan over the future, though we must understand that it is a plan, specifically government planning. There are other plans we could do as well.

     

    Follow or contact the Rortybomb blog:
      

    Aaron Bady has a fantastic piece on the boosters who argue that MOOCs and other forms of online education will fundamentally transform higher education, addressed as a response to Clay Shirky. There's a few important moves to watch when people make this line of argument. Many who prize the "disruptive innovation" of higher education usually concede that what it will mostly do is provide a cheaper but poorer alternative to the large number of non-elite public institutions that educate the majority of those who seek higher education. The talk is all "Watch out Harvard and Yale! This online education company is going to take you down like Napster took down the record companies." Then it quickly reverts to the idea of providing "access," which gets much of its power through the ongoing dismantling of mass public higher education.

    Note that, given that online education's success will be a function of the weakness of public education, there's a huge incentive for for-profit higher education firms to participate in that dismantling project. And sure enough, there's a great new article by Sarah Pavlus at the American Independent, "University of Phoenix fought against community college expansion." There's "so much money to be made online, and [for-profit schools] didn’t want community colleges coming in at a much lower tuition rate,” she writes. Public institutions are attempting to innovate and provide better services to citizens, but for-profit schools are trying to stop them to bolster their own bottom lines.

    This is why the debate about the actual quality of online education is important. Online education can succeed not by providing a better service at a cheaper price, but instead by just providing "access" if public education slowly becomes unavailable. If there's no public option, then the quality issue becomes moot - then it is just about providing the now missing access to meet the large demand our country has for higher-level education.

    Also watch for when online education boosters make an argument of higher education decline rather than online success. They do a rhetorical move to argue that the problems in the non-profit private education institutions extend to public ones. Kevin Carey, for instance, argues that "college spending is the driving force behind affordability or lack thereof in the long run" before noting several paragraphs later that "Inflation-adjusted per-student spending at private research universities, in particular, increased sharply." He quickly notes that "private universities set the aspirational standards for the industry as a whole," but public higher education cost inflation is driven mostly by declining public support, not a competitive war with private schools.

    As Josh Mason pointed out, this is the equivalent of saying that since the private savings vehicle of 401(k)s have turned out to be a bit of a bust, we should scale back the public retirement vehicle of Social Security. That's not the case at all! And, if anything, we should view the public option as a version that works.

    Tuition as Redistribution

    But maybe higher tuition isn't a real problem. Maybe higher costs are driven by the rich paying more to help out the poor in a private form of egalitarian redistribution. A few weeks ago, Evan Soltas at Bloomberg wrote a version of this argument, which Matt Bruenig picked up on his blog (and here as well). Soltas argues that the huge rise in the advertised ("sticker") price of colleges is misleading, because the actual cost people pay ("net cost") is much lower and has been increasing at a lower rate. Soltas argues that "what has happened is a shift toward price discrimination -- offering multiple prices for the same product. Universities have offset the increase in sticker price for most families through an expansion of grant-based financial aid and scholarships." Bruenig and Soltas both emphasize that the rich pay more while the poorest pay less. They use data from the most recent Trends in College Pricing.

    There are a few critical points to bring up about this analysis. Contrary to Soltas, this is driven as much, if not more, by public policy, specifically the effect of of a significant expansion in public funding, notably in Pell Grants and military grants. (I believe Soltas' graph also uses data that includes the extensive network of tax credits, which add up to a lot of money; the cross-section graphs in Bruenig's graphs does not.) From Trends in Student Aid:

    This is one way of providing public funding. Another would be to drive down tuition directly. I took up the idea of supporting public provisioning directly, instead of coupons that provide targeted support, in my recent New America paper. If there are market imperfections, incumbents can capture some of the subsidy while driving up the price for all those who aren't getting the coupons. Public provisioning, in these cases, lowers the cost for everyone.

    Now if you look at the net price by income, you also see those in the top income bracket, here being those with incomes over $100K a year, paying more than the poor, those under $33,000. From Bruenig's piece:

    Soltas argues that "the cost burden of college has become significantly more progressive since the 1990s. Students from wealthier families not only now pay more for their own educations but also have come to heavily subsidize the costs of the less fortunate." He argues that differences in price reflects an institutional goal of cross-subsidization, where private firms make the rich pay more to compensate the poor. This didn't strike me as obvious from the data or other resources. In general, price discrimination should be thought of as a transfer from consumers to producers' surplus. Meanwhile, businesses usually don't cross-subsidize, and as we saw from the Pell Grant information, a big driver of this is poor people's payments beng compensated through public funding.

    Just to confirm that higher tuition wasn't redistribution, I emailed one of the authors of the study, Sandy Baum, who told me that "very few students pay more than the actual cost of their education. Affluent students are generally subsidized less than low-income students, but they aren't actually paying any part of the cost of education for low-income students. Taxpayers generally are subsidizing Pell Grant recipients. But that's quite different from students paying more than their educational costs to cross-subsidize low-income students."

    Another technical note worth making: Bruenig's graph also assumes that the poor are attending the same institutions as those who are better off. But they are almost certainly attending schools part-time instead of full-time, and cheaper institutions compared to more expensive ones. One can see this by just looking at the sticker cost of tuition. The sticker price by income has large differences that are slowly increasing.

    (Net room and board and other costs has a similar dynamic.)

     Making sure that the poor can access education through grants could work as a plan over the future, though we must understand that it is a plan, specifically government planning. There are other plans we could do as well.

     

    Follow or contact the Rortybomb blog:
      

    Share This

  • What Does the New Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) Paper Tell Us?

    Dec 11, 2012Mike Konczal

    There are two major, critical questions that show up in the literature surrounding the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act (CRA).

    The first question is how much compliance with the CRA changes the portfolio of lending institutions. Do they lend more often and to riskier people, or do they lend the same but put more effort into finding candidates? The second question is how much did the CRA lead to the expansion of subprime lending during the housing bubble. Did the CRA have a significant role in the financial crisis?
     
    There's a new paper on the CRA, Did the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) Lead to Risky Lending?, by Agarwal, Benmelech, Bergman and Seru, h/t Tyler Cowen, with smart commentary already from Noah Smith. (This blog post will use the ungated October 2012 paper for quotes and analysis.) This is already being used as the basis for an "I told you so!" by the conservative press, which has tried to argue that the second question is most relevant. However, it is important to understand that this paper answers the first question, while, if anything, providing evidence against the conservative case for the second.
     
    Where is the literature on these two questions? One starting point is the early 2009 research of two Federal Reserve economists, Neil Bhutta and Glenn B. Canner, also summarized in this Randy Kroszner speech. On the first question Kroszner summarizes research by the Federal Reserve, the latest being from 2000, arguing that "lending to lower-income individuals and communities has been nearly as profitable and performed similarly to other types of lending done by CRA-covered institutions." The CRA didn't cause changes to banks' portfolios, but instead required them to find better opportunities. More on this in a minute.
     
    What about the second question? Here the Bhutta/Canner research notes that only six percent of higher-priced loans (their proxy for subprime loans) were extended by CRA-covered lenders to lower-income borrowers or CRA neighborhoods. 94 percent of these loans were either made by non-traditional banks not covered by the CRA (the "shadow banking system"), or not counted towards CRA credits. As Kroszner noted, "the very small share of all higher-priced loan originations that can reasonably be attributed to the CRA makes it hard to imagine how this law could have contributed in any meaningful way to the current subprime crisis."
     
    How did those loans do? Here the research compared the performance of subprime and alt-A loans in neighborhoods right above and right below the CRA's income threshold, and found that there was no difference in how the loans performed. Hence the idea that a CRA-driven subprime bubble isn't found in the data. (The FCIC's final report, starting at page 219, has more on this and other research.)
     
    So what does this new research do? It takes banks that were undergoing a normal examination to see if they were in compliance with the CRA, and thus under heightened regulatory scrunity, and compares their loan portfolios with banks that were not undergoing a CRA examination. It finds that the CRA exam increases loans 5 percent every quarter surrounding the event and those loans default 15 percent more often, under the idea that those banks were ramping up their loans to pass the CRA exam.
     
    But this is question 1 territory. 94 percent of higher priced loans came outside CRA firms and outside CRA loans, and this research doesn't really change that. Since we are talking about regular mortgages - more on that in a second - that higher default isn't that scary. To put that in perspective, loans made in the quarter following the initiation of a CRA exam in a non-CRA tract are 8.3 percent more likely to be 90 days delinquent. That sounds scary, but it is an increase of 0.1, from 1.2 percent to 1.3 percent. In the CRA tract it is 33 percent more likely to default, going from 1.2 percent to 1.6 percent. FICO scores drop 7 points from 713.9 to 706.9. That's an increase I wouldn't want in my portfolio, but it is light-years away from 25%+ default rates, and very low FICO scores, on actual subprime.
     

    This research, if anything, pushes against movement conservative CRA arguments. In light of the evidence in question 2, many conservatives argue that regulators used CRA to push down lending standards, which then impacted other firms. But this paper finds that extra loans aren't more likely to have higher interest rates, lower loan-to-value, or be balloon/interest-only/jumbo/buy-down mortgages, although there is a slight increase in undocumented loans. And their borrowers aren't more likely to have risky characteristics themselves. The authors conclude that "this pattern is consistent with banks’ strategic attempts to convince regulators that the loans they extend that meet CRA criteria are not overtly risky."

    Read that again. The authors argue, from their empirical evidence, that regulators were trying to make sure these loans had high standards, and CRA banks tried to comply with that as best they could on the major, visible risks of their loans. This is the opposite argument made by people like John Carney, who believes the CRA "encourag[ed] lenders to adopt loose standards for mortgages." It also pushes against people like Peter Wallison, who, in his FCIC dissent, argued that CRA loans were more likely to have subprime characteristics or riskier borrowers in ways not captured by a higher-price variable. Not the case.

    It also finds that loan volume and risk increases the most during 2004-2006, and points to the private securitization market as an important channel. This, along with characteristics above, pushes back against the idea that the CRA primed a subprime pump in the late 1990s and early 2000s, another favorite of movement conservative finance writers. If anything, banks undergoing CRA exams were caught up in the same mechanisms that were causing the housing bubble itself.

    I'm not sure I buy all of the research. If CRA banks take on too many loans during examination, why wouldn't they just loan less afterwards, balancing out? The paper jumps to argue the opposite, as it is worried that "adjustment costs may cause banks to keep elevated lending rates even after the CRA exam is formally completed." This is meant to establish their results as a lower-bound, rather than an upper-bound. But really? They managed to ramp up their lending in enough time during this time. Either way it would throw a very different set of interpretations on their research. I'm interested in seeing how other researchers react to these problems. But for now these results don't change the way we approach the financial crisis.

     

    Follow or contact the Rortybomb blog:
      

     

    There are two major, critical questions that show up in the literature surrounding the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act (CRA).

    The first question is how much compliance with the CRA changes the portfolio of lending institutions. Do they lend more often and to riskier people, or do they lend the same but put more effort into finding candidates? The second question is how much did the CRA lead to the expansion of subprime lending during the housing bubble. Did the CRA have a significant role in the financial crisis?
     
    There's a new paper on the CRA, Did the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) Lead to Risky Lending?, by Agarwal, Benmelech, Bergman and Seru, h/t Tyler Cowen, with smart commentary already from Noah Smith. (This blog post will use the ungated October 2012 paper for quotes and analysis.) This is already being used as the basis for an "I told you so!" by the conservative press, which has tried to argue that the second question is most relevant. However, it is important to understand that this paper answers the first question, while, if anything, providing evidence against the conservative case for the second.
     
    Where is the literature on these two questions? One starting point is the early 2009 research of two Federal Reserve economists, Neil Bhutta and Glenn B. Canner, also summarized in this Randy Kroszner speech. On the first question Kroszner summarizes research by the Federal Reserve, the latest being from 2000, arguing that "lending to lower-income individuals and communities has been nearly as profitable and performed similarly to other types of lending done by CRA-covered institutions." The CRA didn't cause changes to banks' portfolios, but instead required them to find better opportunities. More on this in a minute.
     
    What about the second question? Here the Bhutta/Canner research notes that only six percent of higher-priced loans (their proxy for subprime loans) were extended by CRA-covered lenders to lower-income borrowers or CRA neighborhoods. 94 percent of these loans were either made by non-traditional banks not covered by the CRA (the "shadow banking system"), or not counted towards CRA credits. As Kroszner noted, "the very small share of all higher-priced loan originations that can reasonably be attributed to the CRA makes it hard to imagine how this law could have contributed in any meaningful way to the current subprime crisis."
     
    How did those loans do? Here the research compared the performance of subprime and alt-A loans in neighborhoods right above and right below the CRA's income threshold, and found that there was no difference in how the loans performed. Hence the idea that a CRA-driven subprime bubble isn't found in the data. (The FCIC's final report, starting at page 219, has more on this and other research.)
     
    So what does this new research do? It takes banks that were undergoing a normal examination to see if they were in compliance with the CRA, and thus under heightened regulatory scrunity, and compares their loan portfolios with banks that were not undergoing a CRA examination. It finds that the CRA exam increases loans 5 percent every quarter surrounding the event and those loans default 15 percent more often, under the idea that those banks were ramping up their loans to pass the CRA exam.
     
    But this is question 1 territory. 94 percent of higher priced loans came outside CRA firms and outside CRA loans, and this research doesn't really change that. Since we are talking about regular mortgages - more on that in a second - that higher default isn't that scary. To put that in perspective, loans made in the quarter following the initiation of a CRA exam in a non-CRA tract are 8.3 percent more likely to be 90 days delinquent. That sounds scary, but it is an increase of 0.1, from 1.2 percent to 1.3 percent. In the CRA tract it is 33 percent more likely to default, going from 1.2 percent to 1.6 percent. FICO scores drop 7 points from 713.9 to 706.9. That's an increase I wouldn't want in my portfolio, but it is light-years away from 25%+ default rates, and very low FICO scores, on actual subprime.
     

    This research, if anything, pushes against movement conservative CRA arguments. In light of the evidence in question 2, many conservatives argue that regulators used CRA to push down lending standards, which then impacted other firms. But this paper finds that extra loans aren't more likely to have higher interest rates, lower loan-to-value, or be balloon/interest-only/jumbo/buy-down mortgages, although there is a slight increase in undocumented loans. And their borrowers aren't more likely to have risky characteristics themselves. The authors conclude that "this pattern is consistent with banks’ strategic attempts to convince regulators that the loans they extend that meet CRA criteria are not overtly risky."

    Read that again. The authors argue, from their empirical evidence, that regulators were trying to make sure these loans had high standards, and CRA banks tried to comply with that as best they could on the major, visible risks of their loans. This is the opposite argument made by people like John Carney, who believes the CRA "encourag[ed] lenders to adopt loose standards for mortgages." It also pushes against people like Peter Wallison, who, in his FCIC dissent, argued that CRA loans were more likely to have subprime characteristics or riskier borrowers in ways not captured by a higher-price variable. Not the case.

    It also finds that loan volume and risk increases the most during 2004-2006, and points to the private securitization market as an important channel. This, along with characteristics above, pushes back against the idea that the CRA primed a subprime pump in the late 1990s and early 2000s, another favorite of movement conservative finance writers. If anything, banks undergoing CRA exams were caught up in the same mechanisms that were causing the housing bubble itself.

    I'm not sure I buy all of the research. If CRA banks take on too many loans during examination, why wouldn't they just loan less afterwards, balancing out? The paper jumps to argue the opposite, as it is worried that "adjustment costs may cause banks to keep elevated lending rates even after the CRA exam is formally completed." This is meant to establish their results as a lower-bound, rather than an upper-bound. But really? They managed to ramp up their lending in enough time during this time. Either way it would throw a very different set of interpretations on their research. I'm interested in seeing how other researchers react to these problems. But for now these results don't change the way we approach the financial crisis.

     

    Follow or contact the Rortybomb blog:
      

     

    Share This

Pages