new empirical research on unions and upward mobility

At various points during Anti-Mankiw's history we've devoted ourselves to a topic that is often completely ignored by the mainstream: institutions. And even when they are talked about, it's usually in the context of their distorting or enhancing effects on economic efficiency. Schooling, we are told, raises the productive potential of the individual by imparting on him or her the skills or signals conducive to success in the labor market. Unions, we are told, distort labor market equilibrium by artificially raising wages. No matter the story, you can bet that it has something to do, in the end, with economic efficiency. [Read this post which sums up Anti-Mankiw's view of the education debate with the mainstream quite well.]

Those devoted to a social economy approach, on the other hand, realize that mainstream economics' views about efficiency are overly simplified at best and downright biased at most. Boiling efficiency down to a simple, monetized concept of "welfare" in which outcomes are compared to an idealized market equilibrium is inappropriate when other social desiderata are relevant -- such as health, or stable living standards, or a sustainable environment. In the social economy approach, unions are signals of a stable society because collective bargaining can be used to counter employer power.

New state-level evidence from the U.S. presented by our colleague at UMass Eric Hoyt as well as CEPR senior economist John Schmitt shows that there is at least a weak positive relationship between union density and various measures of upward economic mobility (see the link for the details -- it's a short post and would be a great teaching resource in an intro-level course). Such evidence goes a long way in furthering the social economy approach to economics, in which economic mobility is dealt with in a concrete manner. While Mankiw may suggest time and again that education is the means by which economic opportunity is realized, neither the data nor the theory -- from a social-institutional standpoint -- validates his claim (at least, not as education is currently done in the U.S.!).

Hoyt and Schmitt, on the other hand, suggest an alternative institution for enhancing economic mobility and have the data to back it up.

keeping your head above water: anti-mankiw links

If someone is being "overpaid" here, it surely isn't workers

There are multiple things wrong with Professor Mankiw's recent post about comparing public and private sector employees by compensation.

First of all, the title of the post, "Are federal government workers overpaid?" is misleading. We usually say that someone is overpaid when they are contributing less than they are being compensated. But the CBO report is examining compensation differentials, which is a different issue. The problem is complicated by the fact that public sector workers are engaged in activities (such as education or security) which have clear positive externalities on society, so it's even more difficult to talk about being over or underpaid. (Are the participants in the securitization of bad loans over or underpaid?) It's clear what Mankiw is actually trying to accomplish in his post, and we at Anti-Mankiw can assure you that it has nothing to do with accurately conveying economic research.

Second of all, the report is only for workers in the federal government. In this excellent report by John Schmitt at the Center for Economic Policy Research it was found that state and local government employees are actually paid less than their private sector counterparts, after controlling for observable characteristics (similar to the methodology in the CBO report).

Finally, if a dynamic analysis were performed (i.e., examining the trend of wages in each sector over the last 30 to 40 years), readers would quickly realize that there are more pressing issues at play here. The most important of which may be the fact that wages for both public and private employees have been stagnating since the 1970s. Sure, public employees may have been paid more (according to the study from which the above graph is pulled, however, even that is a contested issue), but the story is more like: private sector wages are falling behind as public sector wages struggle to keep above water. Comparing with the elite 1% over the same 30, 40 year period, you see the drastic explosion of inequality that is the main subject of public debate today. In short, Mankiw is really doing a disservice to the more pressing macroeconomic issues by choosing to focus on whether one sector is more compensated than the other.

Here is another, similar report on this issue ("Public and Private Sector Workers Are in This Together") which focuses on college graduates: http://vox-nova.com/2011/03/17/public-and-private-sector-workers-are-in-this-together/.

Hardly a rosy picture -- for either public or private sector workers. Someone definitely seems to be overpaid here, but it's not workers!

anti-mankiw links; or, education and income inequality -- in which direction does the causal relationship go?

In this article from a few days ago, Mankiw links to a post which suggests that increased education, particularly graduate school training, is a way of lessening income inequality in the U.S.

How does Greg see the relationship between education and income distribution? For him, increased opportunity, fostered through more education, leads to gains in an individual's productive potential. This does not necessarily imply, for him, that education will automatically lead to gains in income -- just that the potential for gains will be increased. This view is reflected in this article from his blog.

But what if the causal mechanism actually goes the other way -- i.e., from economic backgrounds and economic inequality to human capital growth? That is the story behind this Crooked Timber article and the associated New York Times article it quotes. A collection of other works questioning the role of education as an engine for social mobility can be found here, at the Legal History Blog.

When "class matters" to human capital accumulation, we are, all of a sudden, in very different territory -- not just because financial resources become important -- but because of the disproportionate impact the rich have on democratic institutions (an argument which, we believe if push came to shove, Mankiw would not disagree with).

But, thankfully, it is not unfamiliar territory. As education theorists have known for decades, economic elites have a disproportionate impact on the educational system in terms of funding and also in terms of influence. A classic in this line of literature is Bowles and Gintis' Schooling in Capitalist America, which argued that classrooms operate as training grounds for an obedient and productive workforce. The Bowles-Gintis theory of human capital seems to be supported by more recent discussions on the importance, or lack thereof, of creativity in the classroom (via MarginalRevolution). Though Tabarrok is a libertarian, we are certain he would agree with a corollary of the argument advanced in his article that educational policy (influenced by elites with political power) promotes a docile student body.

In summary, there seems to be two main ways in which one can view education and the "human capital" question. One may view education as a source of increased opportunity for a productive workforce. On the other hand, one may think that the problem lies in economic inequality and its egregious influence on educational institutions -- which means that more education will not address the problems of inequality in society and that it may in fact promote such problems. Let us not forget that there is, historically or cross-sectionally, no unidirectional relationship between the average education of a society and economic inequality!

We at Anti-Mankiw believe that more attention should be placed on this latter issue, given that there is more convincing evidence of that thesis.

For whom exactly is inequality good?

According to a clip from Richard Epstein, inequality benefits everyone. His appearance on PBS, linked by Mankiw’s blog, gives the standard free-market trickle-down argument about income inequality. According to Epstein, when 1% of the people own ⅓ of the wealth, it gives the rest of us poor 99%'ers incentive to work hard, innovate, and strive for success, in the end creating an even bigger overall “pie” to distribute. Unequal distribution makes everyone is better off, so we should stop complaining about the haves and have-nots. But what is missing in Epstein’s rosy free-market idealist picture about the merits of inequality?

Decline of Real Wages

Epstein’s argument that all incomes have risen under neoliberal capitalism is wrong. Real wage data suggests that in fact real wages have stagnated over the last several decades, despite substantial increases in productivity and wealth. While the pie may indeed be bigger, certainly not everyone is better off. Further, the segment of the population most stricken by inequality and poverty are children and the elderly, who may be even worse off than originally estimated. 

Importance of Relative Income

Behavioral economists have been good at showing that what matters is not the absolute level of income, but rather how we earn relative to others. If more folks are falling at the bottom end of the income distribution, with lower and lower relative standing, then how are we all better off? In fact, some very influential behavioral economists from Mankiw's own institution and down the road at MIT, Michael Norton and Dan Ariely, have shown that most citizens would prefer a more equal society.

Political Power

It’s no news that income inequality undermines democracy. With resources concentrated at the top, some portions of the population can buy their way into political power and create major barriers to entry into elite circles. Epstein however idealizes perfect mobility in an unequal society. Even the Freakonomics blog was able to explain this point a while back, quoting Daron Acemoglu:

"First, people’s well-being may directly depend on inequality, for example, because they view a highly unequal society as unfair or because the utility loss due to low status of the have-nots may be greater than the utility gain due to the higher status of the haves. Second and more importantly, equality of opportunity may be harder to achieve in an unequal society … Third and most importantly, inequality impacts politics. Economic power tends to beget political power even in democratic and pluralistic societies. "

Deus ex machina in economics

Deus ex machina refers to a plot device in plays or stories, where a sudden solution emerges seemingly out of the sky to solve particularly perplexing problem in the story’s events. For the economic story and unemployment problem, the “machina” part becomes quite literal. When in doubt, blame machines and technology.

Back in the roaring 2000s, Mankiw posted this brief explanation of technology and inequality:

“1. There is little doubt that U.S. income inequality has been increasing for the past three decades. (The trend in world inequality is very different.) Most economists who study the topic attribute the trend primarily to changes in technology that reward skilled workers relative to unskilled workers. Education and other skills are more valuable now than they were in the past.”

That certainly fits in swimmingly with the standard neoclassical recipe- preferences, factor endowments, and technology- but should we really be blaming our income inequality and high unemployment on schools and machines? Exactly how does this work?

On Mankiw’s blog, he recently added some comments on his “it’s education, stupid” stance mentioned in our last post, with some words from economist Erik Brynjolfsson. Stagnation via technology is the premise of a new e-book by Brynjolfsson and Andrew McAfee entitled “Race Against the Machine”.  The authors claim that the digital age, with increasingly sophisticated computer usage and expansion in communications tools, has had a distinctly different effect on the economy than other periods of technical change. Instead of creating more jobs than it destroys, the digital form of mechanization has given us a net decrease in jobs by taking over much of the work. Maybe more importantly, the benefits of increased productivity are more likely to be unevenly distributed in favor of those “superstars” which the technology favors.

While Brynjolfsson and McAffee still pick focus on workers' skills not keeping pace with technology, the second part of their premise actually offers a much more in depth story as to exactly why technology may enhance inequality. Turns out, the authors claim that our social institutions that govern things like distribution of wealth have not kept up with these rapid changes in technology. Although the authors pick up the "blame the victim" rhetoric, I would argue against their claim that workers' skills are not keeping up with technical change, since of course, educational institutions and human capital investment are socially determined just like any other social institution. That means that ameliorating supposed skills mismatch through education doesn't work unless you radically alter the educational system itself, to something equitable and attainable. (In fact, education too may exacerbate inequality.)

Building on part of their argument then, it’s not education, technology, or inefficient workers; it’s inefficient and outdated institutions that have led to the divergence in income levels over the past several decades. 

The most introductory and famous example of sticky, inefficient institutions can be found in Paul David’s famous paper noting the presence of inefficient institutions, showing how the standard QWERTY keyboard layout caught on despite being slower than other options. So maybe institutionalized inequality, perpetuated in part by the logic and rhetoric of mainstream neoclassical economics, is a part of our inefficient and clunky distribution system that allows technology to exacerbate wealth and income inequality. 

In the story of unemployment then, machines and even education can no longer be our economic scapegoats. Instead, we should recognize it’s the social institutions that constitute our economy that should be of real concern. Let's start going to the root of the problem.