Economics

Job Market Still Red-Hot; Inflation and High Rates Not Going Away Soon

Scott BuchananLeave a comment

As noted earlier, the main driver in inflation since 2021 has not been supply chain issues, but ongoing wage increases in (mainly) the service industry, fueled by a tight labor market. Some headlines note recent decreases in job openings, etc., suggesting that the end of inflation is near. The point of this post is that measures of labor market tightness remain at very high levels, and so it will be a while yet before the Fed can claim victory over inflation and start meaningfully reducing interest rates.

Below I will post a set of charts (courtesy of Seeking Alpha article by Wolf Richter) which make the following point: most measure of labor tightness remain at least as high as they were in late 2019, just before the pandemic hit. It is true that things have loosened up in the past few months, but that just means the labor market has gone from white-hot to merely red-hot. Let the data speak:

We hold that the current  tightness of the labor market is largely a result of pandemic policies which incentivized a whole tranche of experienced workers to take early retirement and also put lots of cash in our pockets which we are spending generously on services .  Those workers are not coming back, but at some point in the next 1-2 years the excess Covid cash will run out and we may finally get the long-expected recession. But if the government rushes in with enhanced unemployment benefits to ease the recession pain, we would expect inflation to remain well above the nominal 2% target

Minor Investment

Zachary Bartsch8 Comments

Gary Becker, the Nobel laureate in economics, applied economic reasoning to social circumstances and particularly to families. He argued that children are a normal consumption good, and people consume more children with higher incomes. However, he also emphasized a quantity-quality trade-off. More children in a family means fewer resources and attention for each child. Higher-income couples may opt to invest in classes, training, and spend more time with a unitary child rather than increasing the number of children.

However, goods have multiple attributes and children do not merely provide a stream of consumption value while in the household. They offer access to future resources when they become employed themselves. Having more children or higher-quality children increases the economic benefits that older parents can enjoy, such as more help with household activities and the ability to travel with their adult children. Old-age benefits such as social security now serve the function of insulating people from their prior investments in future consumption.

Continue reading →

Hospitals Just Got Easier to Build in West Virginia

James Bailey1 Comment

West Virginia just repealed their Certificate of Need requirement for hospitals and birthing centers. Until now anyone wanting to open or expand a hospital needed to apply to a state board for permission. The process took time and money and could result in the board saying “no thanks, we don’t think the state needs another hospital”.

Now anyone wanting to open or expand a hospital and birthing center can skip this step and get to work. This means more facilities and more competition, which in turn leads to lower health care spending relative to trend.

Of course, the rest of West Virginia’s Certificate of Need requirements remain in place; if you want to open many other type of health care facilities, or purchase major equipment like an MRI, you must still get the state board to approve its “necessity”. In some cases, you shouldn’t even bother applying; West Virginia has a Moratorium on opioid treatment programs. Ideally West Virginia would join its neighbor Pennsylvania in a complete repeal of Certificate of Need requirements.

But making it easier to build hospitals and birthing centers is a major step. Hospitals are the largest single component of health spending in the US, and improved facilities might help reduce West Virginia’s infant mortality from its current level as the 4th worst state.

Update 4/7/23: A knowledgable correspondent suggests that the law may only allow existing hospitals to expand without CON (while totally new hospitals would still require one), citing this article. The text of the bill itself seems ambiguous to me. The section “Exemptions from certificate of need” adds “Hospital services performed at a hospital”. For birthing centers by contrast, new construction is clearly now allowed by right: exemptions from CON now include “Constructing, developing, acquiring, or establishing a birthing center”.

Whiteboard Macroeconomics

Jeremy Horpedahl1 Comment

There’s nothing that economists love more than a good blackboard (or in modern times, a whiteboard) to work out some basic models of how we think the world works. Supply and demand rules in microeconomics, but macroeconomics has a few good blackboard models too.

So I was excited to see when a member of Congress was using a whiteboard to work through some basic economic logic, as Rep. Katie Porter did in this video she tweeted using the textbook macroeconomics aggregate demand and aggregate supply model:

However, while I haven’t taught macroeconomics in about a decade, it seems there are a few flaws in her analysis. Flaws enough that this probably wouldn’t get a passing grade on an oral exam. I could detail them myself, but… I will leave this to the readers as an exercise! For fun, even if you don’t think this is the best model in the world, just assume it’s a good model. What did Rep. Porter miss? Leave a comment.

Work From Home Sours Financing for Office Buildings, Which Threatens Regional Banks

Scott Buchanan1 Comment

As you drive through cities and many suburbs near cities, you see lot and lots and lots of office buildings. Employees by the tens of millions used to get dressed and fight their way through traffic to get to these building every weekday, park, and go up to their desks to do their white-collar jobs.

The demand for new office space seemed endless, and so developers borrowed money to build more office buildings, and firms like real estate investment trusts (REITs) also borrowed money to buy such buildings in order to rent them out.

Covid changed all that. Suddenly, in early/mid 2020, nearly all office buildings went dark, and people started working from home. With affordable computers and internet access, and with Zoom and other conferencing tools, it was found that workers could get their jobs done remotely. Even after vaccines rolled out in early/mid 2021, concerns over contagious Covid variants kept offices closed. 2022 was when things started opening up again big time, and by end 2022/early 2023 there were stories in the news about companies ordering employees back to their desks.

By January, 2023 Bloomberg could report “More than half of workers in major US cities went to the office last week, the first time that return-to-office rates crossed 50% of their pre-pandemic levels.”  However, that movement seems to have stalled, and has even reversed in some cases, as workers have pushed back strongly against being forced back to the cubes.  Notably, Elon Musk initially banned remote work at Twitter after taking it over in November, but after rethinking the costs of maintaining offices, has shut down Twitter’s offices in Seattle and Singapore, telling employees to work from home

Per the Morning Consult, “The pandemic lockdown triggered one of the swiftest, most significant behavior changes in human history. People’s habits changed overnight, and through the successive lockdowns, shutdowns and new standards, these new habits became ingrained. The experience triggered new, positive associations with working from home, working out with virtual trainers, cooking, gardening and more. A vast web of neural pathways formed to hold these new associations – and that web runs deep.”

And thus, many office buildings remain largely empty, which in turn is resulting in rising defaults on the loans for these buildings. A number of high profile corporate owners in recent months have deliberately (in their own pecuniary interest) defaulted on their loans, forfeited their equity interest in a building , and handed the keys back to the mortgage lenders, who are now stuck with big losses on their loans and with holding a building that nobody much wants.

There are many ramifications of these trends. The one I will focus on is how this extended underutilization of offices affects the parties that lent money to build or buy these buildings.  In many cases, those lenders were smaller (regional) banks. They have much greater exposure to commercial real estate loans than the larger banks, which may cause serious problems in the coming months.


Eric Basmajian calls out some key differences between large and small banks in the U.S.:

At large US banks, loans make up 51% of total assets.  Small banks have 65% loans as a percentage of total assets. So small banks have a lot of loans, and large banks have a lot of cash, Treasury bonds, and MBS.

…At small US banks, loans make up 65% of assets. Of that loan portfolio, real estate is 65%, meaning a lot of real estate exposure….Within that real estate loan portfolio, almost 70% was commercial real estate lending.  So small banks have a high concentration of commercial real estate loans…. Within the commercial real estate category, the highest concentration is “non-residential property,” which can include office buildings, retail stores, and data centers.

….So small banks have a potentially large problem. Deposits are starting to leave after the SVB crisis in search of more safety, but also in search of higher yields on safe assets like Treasury bills.  Deposit outflows will make it hard for small banks to grow lending and may cause a deleveraging.  If deposit outflows are severe, deleveraging will cause banks to sell securities or loans.

Securities can be pledged at the Fed for a relatively high-interest rate. This keeps a bank solvent but at a material hit to earnings.  The loan portfolio is a much bigger problem because the value of these potentially permanently impaired assets will be called into question.

Basmajian summarizes:

There are major differences between large and small US banks.

Large banks hold a lot of reserves, Treasuries, MBS, and residential real estate loans. The asset mix at large banks is very conservative.

Small banks have most of their assets in loans, with commercial real estate holding the highest weight.   Small banks appear to have outsized exposure to highly impaired office buildings which could generate significant losses.

It will be critical to monitor lending standards and availability at small banks because, in the post-2008 cycle, small banks are the lifeblood of credit to the private economy.

Fed Priority #1: Financial System Stability

Zachary Bartsch2 Comments

The Fed was founded after a spat of banking crises.

We know that the Federal Reserve also has the goals of full employment and steady, moderate inflation. Since the 1990s, that’s meant 2%. But it’s a relatively recent addition to the Fed’s policy goals. The primary purpose was initially and always has been financial system stability.


In 2008, the Fed demonstrated that it’s willing to attain financial stability at the cost of employment. After and during the financial crisis, the Fed purchased mortgage backed securities (MBS) from private banks at a time when their value was highly uncertain (and discounted). The purpose was to replace these assets of uncertain value with less risky assets. At the time, there was resentment that these security holders were insulated from losses while the homeowners whose loans composed the MBS did not get comparable relief. I remember arguing that the Fed, with the cooperation of congress, could have just paid part of the mortgages on behalf of the homeowners such that there were fewer foreclosures and fewer personal bankruptcies. That way, both the borrowers wouldn’t default and the debt holders would enjoy stable returns.


But, the primary goal of the Fed is financial system stability. Pre-financial crisis, banks had loaded-up on securities of uncertain value with the help of regulatory arbitrage and some lending shenanigans. The Fed needed to avoid the ensuing catastrophe that was a consequence of the greater-than-anticipated realized risk. Importantly, catastrophe to the Fed is financial-sector specific. Markets losing liquidity, bank-runs, and financial sector business failures all qualify as the stuff of concern (all of which occurred). While making mortgage payments for specific mortgages would have been popular amongst many debtors, it also would have taken much more time to implement. The Fed wanted to avoid more financial instability than had already occurred. And frankly, the Fed’s first priority isn’t to take care of the public. Given the alternative between a slow popular option and a quick adequate option, the Fed has demonstrated an inclination toward the latter.

Continue reading →

Is Equity Crowdfunding Beating Adverse Selection?

James Bailey2 Comments

Most new businesses are funded with a combination of debt and the owners’ savings; equity funding has traditionally been relatively rare:

Source: Kauffman Foundation

Partly this has been a regulatory issue. Raising equity adds all sorts of legal burdens. Traditionally businesses could only accept equity investments from accredited investors and a small number of friends and family unless they did a full IPO and became public (hard enough that there are less that 5000 public companies in the US out of millions of businesses). This changed with the JOBS Act of 2012, which allowed small businesses to raise money from large numbers of non-accredited investors without having to register with the SEC.

Following the JOBS Act, equity crowdfunding sites like WeFunder emerged to match new businesses with potential investors. But equity crowdfunding has taken off relatively slowly:

Total dollar amount raised by regulated CF crowdfunding campaigns. Source: FAU Equity Crowdfunding Tracker

Its seen more success recently with some additional regulatory relief and the overall market boom of 2020-2021. But at ~$400 million/yr, its still well under 1% of all venture investment (~$300 billon/yr), which is itself tiny relative to the public stock market ($40 trillion market cap).

Why has equity crowdfunding been slow to take off? Partly its new and most people still don’t know about it. Partly early-stage companies aren’t a good way for most people to invest a significant fraction of their money; you probably want to be at least close to accredited investor levels (~$300k/yr income or $1 million liquid wealth) for it to make sense, and those at the accredited investor level already have other options. WeFunder is up front about the risks:

The other issue here is with asymmetric information and adverse selection. Its hard to find out much information about early-stage companies to know if they are a good investment; part of the point of the JOBS Act is that the companies don’t need to tell you much. The companies themselves have a better idea of how well they are doing, and the best ones might not bother with equity crowdfunding; they could probably raise more money with less hassle by going to venture funds or accredited angel investors.

I’ve long thought this adverse selection would be the killer issue, but my impression (not particularly well-informed and definitely not investment advice) is that there are now quality companies raising money this way, or at least companies that could easily raise money elsewhere. WeFunder has a whole page of Y-Combinator-backed companies raising money there. This week Substack, an established company that has already raised lots of venture funding, offered crowd equity and reached the $5 million limit of how much they could legally accept in a single day.

Overall I think this model is working well enough that I’m no longer in a hurry to become an accredited investor. Accredited investors have many more options for companies they can invest in and aren’t subject to the $2,200/yr limit on how much they can invest in early-stage companies. But even if I completed the backdoor process of getting accredited without being rich, I wouldn’t want to put more than $2,200/yr into early-stage companies until I was a millionaire, at which point I’d be accredited the usual way. And while most companies aren’t raising crowd equity, enough are that there seem to me to be no shortage of choices.

Banking Crises: Are We Done Yet?

Scott Buchanan4 Comments

It has been a tumultuous several weeks in the world of finance. Just when “soft landing” (i.e., the notion that Fed rate hikes would tame inflation without causing a nasty recession) was the meme, a string of banks went belly-up. We summarized the history and status of this dismal parade of corpses a week ago.

On Friday, Germany’s Deutsche Bank (DB) was added to the list of endangered financial species. Its share price plunged as the cost of insuring its credit swaps soared, a sign of lack of confidence in DB among other financial parties. As best I can discern, however, DB is a relatively poorly-managed bank, but not one teetering on insolvency like Credit Suisse or the smaller American banks that have collapsed.

Silicon Valley Bank Getting Sold Off, Finally

On this side of the pond, the big news is that Silicon Valley Bank (SVB), whose spectacular implosion was really what brought “crisis” to banking, will be taken over by another regional bank, First Citizens Bank of North Carolina.  The first attempt to auction off SVB was a fizzle, so the feds tried again. They really, really wanted to get this kind of full takeover deal done (rather than breaking up SVB and selling off bits piecemeal), so First Citizens was able to drive a juicy bargain. First Citizens was a fairly modest-sized bank, about half the size of SVB at the end of last year. First Citizens will get SVB assets of $110 billion, deposits of $56 billion and loans of $72 billion, and will start operating the SVB branch offices again.    They will pay only $55 billion for the nominal $72 billion in loans that SVB had made, a 29% mark-down. The cost to the FDIC for this deal is about $20 billion. (I don’t know how First Citizens is paying for this acquisition). First Citizens stock skyrocketed on this news, so the market sees this as a sweet deal for First Citizens.

Going forward, the FIDC has pledged to share any losses (or gains) on those loans in the future, which offers further protection to First Citizens. FDIC gets shares of First Citizens valued up to $500 million. First Citizens decided not to take an additional $90 billion in securities that the FDIC will now have to sell on its own. These are likely the long-term bonds which sunk SVB when their value cratered with rising interest rates this past year. I’m not sure how much further losses the FDIC will bear on these bonds.

Anyway, so far, so good, kind of; it is sobering to note that this $20 billion cost to the FDIC just chewed up 1/6 of its total $128 billion kitty for backstopping all qualifying deposits at all banks in America. So we can’t readily afford too many more meltdowns of this magnitude.

Bank Deposits Continue to Flee, But Slower

A worrisome trend in the past month or so has been for depositors to pull their funds from bank checking/savings accounts, and stash their money instead in higher yielding money market funds or CDs or Treasury bills. Banks have borrowed records amounts from the Fed in recent weeks, in order to have lots of cash on hand if they have to pay off departing clients. And within the banking system, about half a trillion dollars has been moved from smaller regional banks to large banks.

I can’t find the reference now, but in the past two days I read an article stating that rate of deposit withdrawals is slowing down, and will likely not of itself destabilize the system. I’m going with that narrative, for now.

An indirect fallout from all this bank turmoil is the reduced inclination of banks to extend loans to businesses. This will make for a slowdown in economic activity, which should cool off inflation – -which is exactly what Jay Powell was hoping would be the outcome of the Fed rate hikes.

Discrepancy in Views about Music Pirating

Joy Buchanan1 Comment

It’s unusual for the expert opinions on an issue to range all the way from zero to 100%.

Economists using an instrumental variable approach found that digital piracy did not hurt record sales in the 2000’s. Hammond (2014) found, incredibly, that file-sharing increased record sales. The picture above is of an article critiquing the Oberholzer-Gee and Strumpf (2007) conclusion that was published by a top journal.

Liebowitz reports that music industry professionals believed that digital piracy was the primary or complete cause of the decline of record sales. One would think that industry insiders have accurate data on the problem and a decent mental model relating the variables together.

The estimated effect of music file-sharing ranged from helping music sales to completely eliminating them. Where else can we find so much disagreement on the answer to a narrow empirical question?

Deaf Census Speculations

Zachary Bartsch1 Comment

Between 1850 and 1910, most US censuses asked whether an individual was deaf. There were four alternative descriptions among the combinations of deafness and dumbness. Seems straightforward enough. The problem is that these aren’t discrete categories, they’re continuous. That is, one’s ability to hear can be zero, very good, bad, or just middling. What constitutes the threshold for deafness? In practice, it was the discretion of the enumerator. Understandably, there was a lot of variation in judgement from one enumerator to another. A lot of older people were categorized as deaf, even if they had some hearing loss.

Continue reading →