Via Coyoteblog
The immediate impact of the legislation is due to the fact that it wasn’t until Christmas eve in the middle of a snowstorm that the democrats wheeled a dying 117 year old man to vote that this was a done deal.
Via Coyoteblog
The immediate impact of the legislation is due to the fact that it wasn’t until Christmas eve in the middle of a snowstorm that the democrats wheeled a dying 117 year old man to vote that this was a done deal.
Posted in Government, Politics: National
Tagged Incentives Matter, Obamacare
I’ve long been an opponent of the unemployment policy usually advocated by our government. In my moments of most extreme Libertarian I can make the case for no unemployment benefit system at all. People, understanding that they won’t have a program to fall back on will make efforts to protect against the downside. This might take the form of more aggressive saving or, perhaps, not getting fired in the first place.
However, not all terminations are due to performance, many are due to economic conditions out of the control of the employee. Further, it’s unlikely that I’d be able to prevail in my rather “draconian” response to unemployment. So, knowing that benefits are going to be provided, how best to work within the system to create the best outcome?
Other than its existence, I have two problems with unemployment benefits:
The system creates the wrong incentives. In the first place, it reduces the value of working. For example, if I lose my $10 an hour job and can pull $325 in benefits, the marginal value of me returning to work is $75. [Maybe $125 or so - I seem to remember the first fifty is "free.] So the value of working 40 hours moves from $400 to $75. An hourly rate of $1.88. In the second place, the system is built with the incentive to delay returning to the workplace until the benefits expire.
So, what to do?
It seems to me that if I had bought into building a system that worked, that is I agreed to set aside the ideology and build a program I might not 100% agree with, I would first define the goals. It might go like this:
And the method I would use to build the program that solves both of these goals would be this:
This satisfies the [dubious] requirement of the government providing assistance in the face of adversity while also removing the perverse incentive not to return to the workforce. In fact, it might actually provide the incentive to return more quickly; who can pass-up on “double dipping.”
Posted in Economics, Government, Welfare
Tagged Incentives Matter, Unemployment
BP has been issued a bill for the oil spill in the Gulf back in 2010:
NEW ORLEANS — BP said Thursday that it will pay $4.5 billion in a settlement with the U.S. government over the disastrous 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico and plead guilty to criminal charges related to the deaths of 11 workers and lying to Congress.
The day of reckoning comes more than two years after the nation’s worst offshore oil spill. The figure includes nearly $1.3 billion in criminal fines — the biggest criminal penalty in U.S. history — along with payments to certain government entities.
…
The settlement, which is subject to approval by a federal judge, includes payments of nearly $2.4 billion to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, $350 million to the National Academy of Sciences and about $500 million to the Securities and Exchange Commission. The SEC accused BP of misleading investors by lowballing the amount of crude spewing from the ruptured well.
Now, I’m all for BP having to pay for the cleanup to all agencies that were harmed by the spill. I think that allowing companies to poison rivers that does nothing to harm the company is a moral hazard that creates problems for everyone.*
And I don’t mind that government sets the amounts of those fines. What I DO object to is the nature in which these fines are arrived at; politics, deal making and more than likely cronyism.
If we want to protect ourselves from oil spills we have to acknowledge two things:
If we’re able to do this, and codify it so that the rules are clear and understandable, the oil companies will understand this and include it in their business models. In fact, I suspect that the fines will be significantly high that those companies will have to take out insurance policies to protect them in the event of a spill. And this is a good thing.
See, if the oil company requires insurance they’ll have to get it from another company that sells insurance. These insurance companies, being rational, will not issue said policy UNLESS the oil company can demonstrate adequate safety processes. In short, the insurance will drive increased safety and prevention. And it will do it in a mostly free market way. Today prevention agencies are government run and filled with execs from oil companies that are named based on politics. These agencies aren’t adequate in writing and enforcing the rules. But if insurance companies are in charge of that, we can be MORE sure that the whole thing is more modern and appropriate.
So, hell yeah BP should pay. But the fine should have been known and predictable up front. If it was, I claim that the next oil spill will occur further in the future than it otherwise would and be restored much quicker and wit less overall damage to the environment.
* I do NOT object to the poisoning of rivers that DOES harm the polluter. In this case “rivers” is the name I’m giving to the general environment.
Posted in Energy, Environment, Politics: National
Tagged BP, Incentives, Incentives Matter, Insurance, Moral Hazard, Oil Spill
I’ve seen this going around my Facebook. Thought I’d repost:
Let’s get one thing clear.
Okay, that’s two, but the second is important. The government has a role. And that role is to act as the referee in disputes. It is to make sure that we all face the same rules and laws. Sure, there is a cost in maintaining a government, so we tax to pay for it. But that role of government is not meant to take money from those who have it and just flat out GIVE it to those who don’t.
When that role is given to the government, bad things happen. Really bad things.
It creates incentives that aren’t natural. People begin to look for ways to avoid paying their taxes and people begin to look for ways to maximize their TAKE of people’s taxes. Neither system works well.
When people slide around money to avoid taxes, the revenues realized aren’t as high as expected, so taxes are raised. While generating the income, it increases the incentive to defraud the government. This further punishes the honest man at the benefit of the crook. Further, taxes relieve a man of his property. What the government takes is first private property.
People forget this.
The money being taken first belonged to someone who earned it. Confiscation of that property should be done with significant reluctance.
Most importantly, by taking one man’s property and giving it to another, the second man is less incented to earn his own. Life becomes simply a series of cons and loopholes meant to get through today. We lose the productivity of the second man and the power of the money had it been spent in more productive ways.
We lose on both sides.
Some highlights:
I’m not sure if the end makes me laugh or cry. She was actually suing him for rent.
Posted in Government, Idiots on Parade
Tagged Entitlements, Incentive, Incentives Matter
Don’t think that incentives matter?
Don’t think that government programs that enlarge the nanny state don’t result in poor behavior?
Think again.
Posted in Idiots on Parade, Politics: International, Welfare
Tagged Entitlements, Incentives Matter, Unemployment
Incentives drive behavior. I firmly believe this. Because I believe this I would look to see the number of additional Facebook accounts increase:
SEATTLE — When Justin Bassett interviewed for a new job, he expected the usual questions about experience and references. So he was astonished when the interviewer asked for something else: his Facebook username and password.
…
Since the rise of social networking, it has become common for managers to review publically available Facebook profiles, Twitter accounts and other sites to learn more about job candidates. But many users, especially on Facebook, have their profiles set to private, making them available only to selected people or certain networks.
Companies that don’t ask for passwords have taken other steps — such as asking applicants to friend human resource managers or to log in to a company computer during an interview. Once employed, some workers have been required to sign non-disparagement agreements that ban them from talking negatively about an employer on social media.
Not sure how I’d handle this if I was out of work for an extended period of time or if my current employer asked me to for the same information. However, now that I see this growing trend, I may just create a duplicate Facebook account that I keep for just such occasions.
Ugh.
Tagged Facebook, Incentives Matter, Privacy
I’ve argued time and time again that incentives matter. And why people think this wouldn’t apply to the incentive not to work is beyond me. But now there is evidence of just how strong that incentive is: via Dan Mitchell
The extension of UI [unemployment insurance] is found to have a positive and significant impact on the national unemployment rate…. The UI benefit extensions that have occurred between the summer of 2008 and the end of 2010 are estimated to have had a cumulative effect of raising the unemployment rate by .77 to 1.54 percentage points.
That seems pretty significant to me.
Posted in Economics, Economy, Politics: National
Tagged Incentives Matter, Unemployment
A recent analysis of bus drivers for the Minnesota Metro Transit system provided some interesting data:
The incentives are undeniable. For a system that demands flexibility; traffic doesn’t occur in neat 8 hour blocks, the rules prohibit the proper response. Further, regulations surrounding benefits, those benefits that include vacation, retirement and health care, make it more cost effective to work an already employed person than to hire someone else. And lastly, being a Metro Transit driver isn’t all that bad; 50 large is a good deal of money.
Finally I’d like to point out that for at least one of these drivers, the overtime is a feature and not a bug. And it’s a feature because of decisions HE’S made in HIS life:
Lance Wallace is happy to drive a few extra hours if it means his wife can stay home with their four children – all younger than 5.
The New Hope man is among the top 5 percent of overtime earners at Metro Transit. Picking up extra shifts and working nearly every day, he averages 60 to 70 hours a week. The $37,700 in overtime he earned last year pushed his total earnings to $86,400.
“I don’t really want to work overtime,” Wallace said. “But I do it to make up the income.”
The extra work doesn’t make him “overly tired,” Wallace said. In fact, after working two jobs before, he “feels good” to now work where he can dictate his own hours.
Mr. Wallace is a father. A father of FOUR. A father of FOUR in a family that has the mother stay home. And of those FOUR kids, all are younger than 5. And this father of four young children is happy that he’s able to work the hours he does in order to prevent having to carry two jobs.
My point? Incentives matter. Raising the cost of hiring means that you will see less hiring. Wage earners will enjoy working more hours if it benefits them, not the other way around. Government union work pays well. People who have 4 kids in 4 years time have a more limited ability to dictate their time.
Posted in Liberty, Life, Middle Class
Tagged Bus Drivers, Incentives, Incentives Matter, Metro Transit, Minneapolis, Minnesota, St. Paul, Unionista, Unions