Economics 07/04/2010: Another lesson from Greece

The lessons for Ireland from Greece are just keep on coming. In the weeks when the Irish Government is engaging in talks with the Unions concerning the reversal of budgetary reductions passed in Budget 2010, the Greeks are offering a somber reminder of what happens to the countries with runaway public finances.

The most important news in the last week or so was the renewal of the upward crawl in the spread of Greek bonds over German bund. The spreads have jumped from about 300bps to 400bps with Greek 10-year bond yields hitting a high of 7.161%.

Let us put this number into perspective. Irish Government currently is borrowing at around 4.6% per annum. This means that annually we are paying €46 million interest bill per each €1 billion borrowed. Through 2015, the total cumulative and compounded Irish Government cost of borrowing will equal, therefore, to €309.8 million per each €1 billion borrowed.

Now, were we borrowing at Greek rates, the same bill would be €514 million or 66% higher than current. Taking official projections for deficit, this means that at Greek rates of recklessness, Ireland Inc would be facing a deficit financing cost of €18.3 billion, as opposed to the current projected cost of €11.2 billion.

Short term borrowing would also be a problem, with Greek 2-year bonds yields jumping up by more than 1.2% to 6.48% overnight last – a record for any sovereign country.

Now, of course the Greeks are a basket case. Latest Eurostat revisions of its budgetary data show that actual deficit reached 13% of GDP in 2009. But Ireland is a close second here – with our deficit as a fraction of our real economy (GNP) being bang on with the Greek latest revisions. Worse than that, Greek economy has shrunk only by about 1/5 of the decline experienced by Ireland.

If you think that Greek rates extreme moves are a temporary blip on the market radar, think again. Greeks are preparing a Yankee bond offer in the US, and per Bloomberg reports, the markets are expecting pricing in the region of 7.25% yield for 10 year paper, or 410bps premium on the German bunds. Per Bloomberg report, Greek yields are now consistent with corporate junk bond yields.

And in a final note to the Unions here at home, Les Echos Jacques Delpla makes a very strong point that based on Fisher’s theory of debt deflation, it is a mountain of private debt, not public debt, that implies PIIGS are even in more deep trouble than the bond markets might suggest. Wage inflation (in real terms outpacing economic growth) and private debt increases (also in excess of real growth in the economy) during the boom times are now inducing a deleveraging withdrawal of consumers and investors from PIIGS. In the end, this is a much greater threat than the Exchequer deleveraging.

Good luck to all our Bearded Keynesians (or shall me say ‘Marxists’, for I doubt Keynes would have favoured an idea of piling up more Exchequer liabilities when deficits are running in double digits).

Economics 29/03/2010: PS productivity deal will cost us all

Per latest reports on the talks with the Unions, it now appears that the Government will yield on the Budget 2010 pay cuts and accept a premise that our vast structural deficit can be corrected through a long-term change in work practices in the public sector.

This position represents a drastic reversal of the attempted correction of the structural deficit and has the following long-run implications for Ireland:

1. Since productivity gains do not address the issue of reducing actual spend in the public sector, the entire burden of correcting the structural deficit can be expected to fall on the shoulders of the taxpayers;
2. If the deal commits the Government to no future cuts in public spending in Budgets 2011-2013, the deal will mean that the entire €13-14 billion in Budget adjustments needed before 2014 will have to be carried by the Irish taxpayers. This means taxes will have to rise by a massive €13,000 per annum per current tax payer - a move that would trigger a meltdown in the economy;
   
3. Since higher earning taxpayers are already paying more than half of the income tax bill, the new taxes will have to disproportionately impact lower middle classes, thus in effect inflicting pain on the very workers whom the unions are allegedly aiming to protect;
4. Since the structural deficit will remain unaddressed, Ireland will not reach 3% deficit target by 2014, or for that matter by 2020, implying that we will be facing excruciatingly high cost of borrowing through the next 10 years or so, a cost, once again to be carried by our middle and lower-middle classes.

Using a simple prisoners' dilemma game, one can easily show that the Government currently has all the incentives to run the economy deeper into depression. Such a move will ensure that the poisoned chalice the current Government passes to the opposition will be even more toxic, thus giving Fianna Fail stronger chances of election victory in the next 5 years.

In other words, if the Government does indeed sign up to the unions'-conjured 'plan' for 'efficiency'-exit from the deficit, it will be implicitly acting to derail any hope of a fiscal and economic recovery, while optimising its own political objectives.



PS: For all those who are keen on accusing me of being anti-Fianna Fail: nothing I write is designed to attack any political party in general or its members in totality. There are plenty of very good people in FF, and some of my friends are members of the party. There some competent, well-meaning and experienced members of the Government. Sometimes I disagree with them on policies, sometimes on ideologies, sometimes we agree. I express these views in public and privately. I always prefer an open debate.

The collective actions of the current Government, in my view, deserve very severe criticism. And that criticism I tend to provide: not behind the back, but in the open, publicly accessible fora.

Economics 07/02/2010: Human Capital, Immigrants and Social safety Nets

A very interesting piece of research that tends to support my view that higher minimum wages and more extensive welfare nets / social services nets are acting to reduce overall levels of productivity amongst the immigrants.

One paper, published this week, titled Indian Entrepreneurial Success in the US, Canada and the UK, by Robert W. Fairlie - University of California, Santa Cruz, Harry Krashinsky - University of Toronto, Julie Zissimopoulos – RAND and Krishna B. Kumar – RAND (available here) takes a look at the differences in entrepreneurship (incidence and outcomes) and education amongst one large sub-group of immigrants to the US, UK and Canada. Having a culturally homogenous and relatively large group of immigrants allows the authors to set aside the need for measuring sending country attributes, thus improving substantially the accuracy of their results.

What they found is pretty interesting.

Indian immigrants in the US and other wealthy countries are successful in entrepreneurship. But how successful these entrepreneurs are once they reach different countries and encounter different social systems, and what are the sources of their success?

The study finds that “in the US Indian entrepreneurs have average business income that is substantially higher than the national average and is higher than any other immigrant group. High levels of education among Indian immigrants in the US are responsible for nearly half of the higher level of entrepreneurial earnings while industry differences explain an additional 10 percent. In Canada, Indian entrepreneurs have average earnings slightly below the national average but they are more likely to hire employees, as are their counterparts in the US and UK. The Indian educational advantage is smaller in Canada and the UK contributing less to their entrepreneurial success.”

Hmmm… why so, you might ask?

Immigrants are most likely to enter both the US and UK as ‘family sponsored.’ Since the 1960s U.S. immigration policy has strongly favored family reunification. The UK’s immigration policies over the past four decades have shifted towards emphasizing family reunification and employment. On the other hand, Canada's point-based system which awards immigration admission points based on education, language ability (English or French), years of experience in a managerial, professional or technical occupation, age, arranged employment in Canada, and other factors leads to more skilled immigrants compared to the US.

So far so good – Canada has longer lasting and much more selective immigration policies than the US and UK.

Because of the point-based system, in Canada, roughly half of all immigrants are admitted through employment-based preferences. In contrast, slightly more than 10 percent of immigrants in the US are admitted under this classification.

Again, sounds like Canada should be really the land of entrepreneurial and higher quality immigrants.

The related category of employment creation or investors who face minimum net worth and business experience requirements, and self-employed immigrants who must have relevant experience in occupations. A larger (but still relatively small – just 7%) share of immigrants in Canada are admitted under these policies than in the US (0.1%) and UK (2.4%).

So, ex-ante data analysis, it is pretty clear that “Canada's point-based immigration system results in a higher share of employment-based immigrants compared to the US and UK. On the other hand, the UK admits a much higher share of immigrants under its refugee and asylee programs than the US or Canada. All else equal, we would expect skill levels of immigrants to be the highest in Canada and the lowest in the UK.” (emphasis is mine)

In other words: the authors “find some evidence that the educational advantage of Asian immigrants compared to the national average is lower in the UK than in the US, [consistent with differences in immigration policies]. But, we also find that the educational advantage in the US is higher than it is in Canada, which runs counter to the greater emphasis of Canada's immigration policy on rewarding points for the general skill level of immigrants.”


Why? “A more generous redistribution system, more egalitarian earnings, and other institutional and structural factors, however, may make Canada less attractive to higher skilled immigrants such as Indian immigrants.”

Boy, this is some statement – especially considering the EU policies to achieve ‘Social’ economy – economy based on greater earnings equality, greater rights-based outcomes equalization and maintaining a very generous welfare and redistribution systems. And this is serious, folks. Canada, US and UK are much younger – demographically – societies than EU-core states. This means that in general, the EU has a much more acute need to import younger entrepreneurial talent and skills in order to pay even comparable welfare rates to those in Canada, US and UK. Let alone to afford a more generous system of benefits. The prospects of this happening are not that good, folks.


Let us get back to the study, though:

“We find that Indian entrepreneurs are much more successful than the national average in the US. Indian businesses also perform well in Canada and the UK, but the evidence is not as strong. In the US, Indian entrepreneurs earn 60 percent more than white entrepreneurs and have the highest average business income of any immigrant group.”

No, wait – income inequality is actually favoring ethnic minorities in the US? Without an EU-styled rights legislation that polices allocations of income to specific ethnic groups? Who would have thought that to be possible!

“Estimates from business-level data sources also indicate that Indian firms have higher profits, hire more employees, and have lower failure rates than the average for all U.S. firms.”

Ouch - higher profits = hire more workers + have lower failure rates? And all without help of SIPTU/ICTU/etc to protect the interests of workers and to curb profiteering? Who could have thought?


But what drives such astounding results?

“To explain to relative success of Indian entrepreneurs we focus on the role of human capital. ...We test the hypothesis that a highly-educated Indian entrepreneurial-force is responsible for their superior performance in business. Indian immigrants in all three countries have education levels that are higher than the national average, and in the US the education levels of Indian immigrants are particularly high relative to the entire population. In the US, 68 percent of Indian entrepreneurs have a college education which is twice the rate for whites or the national average. Some of the variation in the education of Indian immigrants across the US, Canada and UK is likely due to immigration policy. Another possibility is that the higher returns to education in the US result in a more selective immigrant pool in the US compared to Canada and the UK.”

Bu wait – ‘higher returns to education’ = greater income inequality between educated and non-educated. Again, who could have thought that this might be a good thing, especially for a ‘knowledge economy’?

“When we examine business income, we find large, positive effects of education in the US and Canada. We also find large positive effects of education on employment in Canada, but smaller positive effects in the UK. The findings for education imply that the relatively high levels of education among Indian entrepreneurs have a large effect on business performance at least in the US and Canada. Decomposition estimates provide exact estimates of the contribution of higher levels of education among Indian entrepreneurs to their higher business incomes and employment levels.

• In the US, higher levels of education among Indian entrepreneurs result in a business income advantage of 21 log points, which represents 43.9 percent of the gap.
• High levels of education also contribute substantially to why Indian entrepreneurs earn more in Canada (12.5 log points), but the difference is not as large as in the US.
• “The combination of the larger education advantage held by Indian entrepreneurs and the larger return to education is responsible for the increased importance of education as an explanatory factor in the US compared to Canada.
• “In contrast to these results, the smaller educational advantage and lower returns to education in the UK result in less explanatory power in the UK.”
  

But sectoral and cultural decompositions also matter: “Lower concentrations of Indian entrepreneurs in agriculture and construction, lower female share*, higher marriage rates, and favorable regional distributions also generally contribute to why Indian businesses perform better than white businesses or the national average.”

Again, give it a thought, folks. The above says that Indian entrepreneurs are so spectacularly successful in all three countries because they avoid investing in ‘losing’ sectors and regions. So where does it put state-led efforts to pump money into such ‘losing’ sectors as, for example, agriculture? And where does this leave Ireland’s ‘National Spatial Development Plans’ that reallocate cash to ‘losing’ regions/areas? In the category of ‘luxury goods’ – an affordable (in certain times) cost of keeping at bay social discontent amongst those who are falling behind?

And it also says that higher marriage rates are positively associated with higher returns to entrepreneurship. Who could have thought?


Some food for thought for our immigration policy bureaucrats and our national development authorities, then…



*[Aside - the issue of lower female share of entrepreneurship is, in my view, a simple statistical legacy. Women entrepreneurs tend to run businesses that are on average younger than those for men, hence, some increased risk in statistical measures. Over time, I would expect as female entrepreneurship gains fully similar footing in types of business, sources of financing etc as male entrepreneurship, this difference will disappear completely.]

Economics 01/12/2009: A real breakthrough of Mr Cowen

So per latest reports, the nation is saved. Facing a systemic deficit of €14bn per annum, the leaders of the Social Partnership have been contemplating a dramatic reduction in the cost of Government business. The dramatic news from the Government buildings, suggested a pay cut for public sector workers of 5% gross, or less than 3% net, delivering something to the tune of €836mln in gross savings (as claimed by the unions). Which, of course, will be clawed back to less than €600mln through automatic stabilizers (taxes on earnings paid through taxes and so on - per reported estimates by the DofF). For a moment, it all looked like our Taoiseach Brian Cowen reigned over the business-as-usual at the Partnership Table.

Credit for derailing this 'savings' deal goes to the public outcry, the media, a handful of backbenchers, the Department of Finance and also to Brian Lenihan - all of whom have managed to restore our policy back to senses. The numbers bandied around by the unions' heads were simply not adding up.

For a moment - it all looked like:
As one fellow economist described the 'New Deal' to me: “a Dora the Explorer bandaid on a shark bite”. Optimist he is – more like a prehistoric shark bite, judging by its gaping size.

Now recall, Brian Lenihan has promised three things to the nation and the EU:

1. cut €4bn in deficit this year and the same next;
2. no new taxes (except for carbon tax and, may be, higher taxes on the so-called 'rich');
3. cut €1.3bn in public sector spending
   

As long as the talks with the Partners are dragging on, this is becoming an impossible trinity of policy objectives. Will Joseph Brodsky's ending for his Elegy serve as a perfect descriptor of the Government's real legacy in the history of Ireland?

... And it says on the plinth
'commander in chief'. But it reads 'in grief', or 'in brief'
or 'in going under'.

Oh, and one last thingy - if you think that €600mln in 'savings' ever had a chance of materialising, think of public sector workers taking a 14-day holiday who will have an option to do agency work to replace their own jobs... earning a nice tidy premium...

Economics 11/07/2009: Public Servants earn more than their employers

Time to get outraged, folks. Per latest CSO annual National Employment Survey, public sector pay is completely beyond any reasonable comparatives with the private sector. Here is a table (courtesy of Davy - yes, credit is due to Davy for an excellent note on this):"Median earnings were 52% higher in the public jobs", said Davy. "or the equivalent occupation, education level or experience, the smallest gap is 25% and the largest is 76%. The gap between public and private pay cannot be justified by saying that public sector employees are more
experienced, better educated or do different jobs. For example, how can we explain the fact that security personnel in the public sector get paid 46% more than their private sector peers?"

The Unions love babbling about the bulls***t poor low-paid entry jobs in the public sector. Table above shows that younger age cohorts and lower experience cohorts are earning vastly greater wages in the public sector than in the private sector.

Workers with 20-29 years of experience achieve a wage that is 36% higher in the public service
than in the private service. What does this mean? It means that the actual gap for those with greater tenure is even wider than that because workers in the private sector in this category of experience have to save 25-30% of their disposable income in pensions, while their counterparts in the public sector are enjoying lavish retirement plans benefits.

Davy note: "In February, the first attempt was made to rectify the imbalance. But the public pension levy only matched the wage cuts in the private sector, so the gap has probably
not closed. The public pay bill of €20bn in 2009 amounts to more than one-third of voted public expenditure. Further pay cuts of at least 10% are justified by these data." Oh, dear - can't we actually have some ambition? These figures show that public pay bill should be cut by ca40-45% through an equal measure of reduced wages (-25-30%) and reduced numbers employed (-20%). This will still produce a public sector employment premium, but it will at the very least force them to work more productively.

Davy concluded the note with the following statement: "Hourly earnings are 48% on average higher in the public sector. But average annual earnings are 32% higher because public employees work fewer hours. But it is not the case that bonuses are much higher in the private sector. In 2002, bonuses (and benefit-in-kind) in the private sector amounted to €1565 (or 5% of average annual earnings) versus only €149 in the public service. Five years on in 2007, bonuses in the public service had almost caught up at €1,807 versus €2,211."

Another interesting fact is the distribution of various grades in private and public sector. Notice the relative proportions of managerial and admin staff vs professional staff. This is not a sign of the public sector depth of expertise (high ratio of professionals), but of inflation in terminology. When an elementary school teacher or a basic nurse are considered professional grade employees, academics should be called demi-gods...
What all of us are forgetting is that as taxpayers - we employ them, not the other way around. It is time to start issuing pink slips. And by the way - if you hear once again anyone talking about 'not creating a conflict between the two sectors' - guess what: by granting themselves these gratuitous increases in wages, they - the public sector - have taken hard earned money from all of us, rich and poor. It was an involuntary transaction that enriched them alone. The state has presided over this system of wealth transfer under the guise of Social Partnership. We have every right to demand our money back. It is conflict time!