Well, it turns out that working longer is indeed an option, according to the Employee Benefit Research Institute latest study. The only problem is that the latest research shows that you’ll have to work much longer than you anticipated. In fact, many Americans will have to keep on working well into their 70s and 80s to afford retirement, according to the study, titled “The Impact of Deferring Retirement Age on Retirement Income Adequacy.”
Embrace the rat race, even in retirement
Don't just sit there, embrace the rat race! That's the advice of economist Todd Buchholz in his book "Rush," who says competition makes people smarter and more satisfied.
What’s more, it’s even worse for low-income workers, according Jack VanDerhei, one of the co-authors of the study. Those who earned (on average over the course of their careers) less than $11,700 per year, the lowest income quartile, would need to defer retirement till age 84 before 90% of those households would have just a 50% chance of affording retirement.
Those who earned between $11,700 and $31,200 will need to work till age 76 to have a 50% chance of covering basic expenses in retirement. Those who earned between $31,200 and $72,500 will need to work to age 72 to have a 50% chance and those who earned more than $72,500, those in the highest income quartile, catch a break; they get stop working at age 65 to have a 50/50 chance of funding their retirement.
So what can be done to make sure you have enough income in retirement? Well, the sad truth is that not working is no longer an option and working past age 65 is fast becoming a fact of life, at least for those in the lowest three income quartiles.
One bright spot, according to John Nelson, co-author of ‘What Color is Your Parachute? For Retirement’ is that working works: “For those in the lower half of the income spectrum, delaying retirement from 65 to 69 has a profound effect,” he said. “It increases retirement income adequacy by 25% to 50%! That’s a powerful incentive.”
The new normal
Now the reality about EBRI’s findings is that many Americans — who are able to continue working and whose skills are still in demand — are already working past age 65. In 2009, 17.2% of Americans age 65 and older were in the labor force, according to recent AARP Public Policy Institute report, “Family Income Sources for Older People, 2009.”
And about 14.2 million older persons (36.7% of the older population) had family incomes from earnings in 2009. The median family income from this source was $32,330, while the mean was nearly 1.6 times as large — $50,971. Read the AARP report here.
And the new normal isn’t that people are working past age 65, rather it’s this: They are also hunting for second jobs as all, according to Art Koff, founder of RetiredBrains.com. “Even those older Americans who are still working are looking for ways to make additional monies,” he said.
And many, judging from the page views at RetiredBrains.com’s website, are often exploring ways to work from home. “Those older Americans who are looking for a job, those who have already retired and those who are working but need additional income or want to start something that they can continue into their retirement years are all reading (the work-from-home) pages,” Koff said.
Making it work
To be sure, many Americans haven’t figured out how to make working later a real option, instead of just a fantasy. And for them, Nelson has this advice: “You need to pay attention to your career and your health.”
“First, for your career, do some in-depth research and planning. Second, for your body, take a health risk assessment. You may need to keep both of them in shape longer than you thought,” he said.
Work and save
Working past age 65 is certainly one way to make sure you have enough income to fund retirement expenses. But EBRI also noted that Americans who work past age 65 who continue to save for retirement in a 401(k) or some such account earmarked for retirement increase the odds of having enough income in their golden years. “One of the factors that makes a major difference in the percentage of households satisfying the retirement income adequacy thresholds at any retirement age is whether the worker is still participating in a defined contribution plan after age 65,” the co-authors of the report. “This factor results in at least a 10 percentage point difference in the majority of the retirement age/income combinations investigated.” The EBRI report can be found at this website.
A new compact
Others, meanwhile, have a different take on EBRI’s study and findings. “This report just reinforces the need for a new social compact that provides increased financial security in return for increased contribution,” said Marc Freedman, author of “The Big Shift: Navigating the New Stage Beyond Midlife and CEO of Civic Ventures.”
“We need to enable the many people who want and need to work longer, without hurting those who are not able to,” Freedman said.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/many-of-us-wont-be-able-to-retire-until-our-80s-2011-06-09
Friday, June 10, 2011
China ratings house says US defaulting: report
A Chinese ratings house has accused the United States of defaulting on its massive debt, state media said Friday, a day after Beijing urged Washington to put its fiscal house in order.
"In our opinion, the United States has already been defaulting," Guan Jianzhong, president of Dagong Global Credit Rating Co. Ltd., the only Chinese agency that gives sovereign ratings, was quoted by the Global Times saying.
Washington had already defaulted on its loans by allowing the dollar to weaken against other currencies -- eroding the wealth of creditors including China, Guan said.
Guan did not immediately respond to AFP requests for comment.
The US government will run out of room to spend more on August 2 unless Congress bumps up the borrowing limit beyond $14.29 trillion -- but Republicans are refusing to support such a move until a deficit cutting deal is reached.
Ratings agency Fitch on Wednesday joined Moody's and Standard & Poor's to warn the United States could lose its first-class credit rating if it fails to raise its debt ceiling to avoid defaulting on loans.
A downgrade could sharply raise US borrowing costs, worsening the country's already dire fiscal position, and send shock waves through the financial world, which has long considered US debt a benchmark among safe-haven investments.
China is by far the top holder of US debt and has in the past raised worries that the massive US stimulus effort launched to revive the economy would lead to mushrooming debt that erodes the value of the dollar and its Treasury holdings.
Beijing cut its holdings of US Treasury securities for the fifth month in a row to $1.145 trillion in March, down $9.2 billion from February and 2.6 percent less than October's peak of $1.175 trillion, US data showed last month.
Foreign ministry spokesman Hong Lei on Thursday urged the United States to adopt "effective measures to improve its fiscal situation".
Dagong has made a name for itself by hitting out at its three Western rivals, saying they caused the financial crisis by failing to properly disclose risk.
The Chinese agency, which is trying to build an international profile, has given the United States and several other nations lower marks than they received from the the big three.
http://m.yahoo.com/w/news_america/china-ratings-house-says-us-defaulting-report-054309883.html?orig_host_hdr=ca.news.yahoo.com&.intl=ca&.lang=en-ca
"In our opinion, the United States has already been defaulting," Guan Jianzhong, president of Dagong Global Credit Rating Co. Ltd., the only Chinese agency that gives sovereign ratings, was quoted by the Global Times saying.
Washington had already defaulted on its loans by allowing the dollar to weaken against other currencies -- eroding the wealth of creditors including China, Guan said.
Guan did not immediately respond to AFP requests for comment.
The US government will run out of room to spend more on August 2 unless Congress bumps up the borrowing limit beyond $14.29 trillion -- but Republicans are refusing to support such a move until a deficit cutting deal is reached.
Ratings agency Fitch on Wednesday joined Moody's and Standard & Poor's to warn the United States could lose its first-class credit rating if it fails to raise its debt ceiling to avoid defaulting on loans.
A downgrade could sharply raise US borrowing costs, worsening the country's already dire fiscal position, and send shock waves through the financial world, which has long considered US debt a benchmark among safe-haven investments.
China is by far the top holder of US debt and has in the past raised worries that the massive US stimulus effort launched to revive the economy would lead to mushrooming debt that erodes the value of the dollar and its Treasury holdings.
Beijing cut its holdings of US Treasury securities for the fifth month in a row to $1.145 trillion in March, down $9.2 billion from February and 2.6 percent less than October's peak of $1.175 trillion, US data showed last month.
Foreign ministry spokesman Hong Lei on Thursday urged the United States to adopt "effective measures to improve its fiscal situation".
Dagong has made a name for itself by hitting out at its three Western rivals, saying they caused the financial crisis by failing to properly disclose risk.
The Chinese agency, which is trying to build an international profile, has given the United States and several other nations lower marks than they received from the the big three.
http://m.yahoo.com/w/news_america/china-ratings-house-says-us-defaulting-report-054309883.html?orig_host_hdr=ca.news.yahoo.com&.intl=ca&.lang=en-ca
Thursday, June 9, 2011
Conservatives Protest Secret RGGI Carbon Auction in NYC Today
Opponents of state level cap and trade schemes will hold a rally in front of the offices of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, 90 Church Street in New York City at 12:00 noon today.
This rally will take place at the same time as RGGI officials conduct their latest secret Internet auction of carbon permits which will result in higher energy costs for families and businesses across Delaware.
The rally is taking on a national scope as the list of special guests and media attending continues to grow.
Republican Presidential candidate, Herman Cain will be one of the main speakers at the conference. Mr. Cain is a leading conservative who believes that heavy-handed government politics, high taxes and out-of-control regulations are destroying jobs and stifling economic growth in this country.
John Stossil of FOX NEWS is set to cover the rally.
Here's Politico's coverage of the event:
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=70BB1F14-37EC-4F52-B23C-96039298C3FD
This rally will take place at the same time as RGGI officials conduct their latest secret Internet auction of carbon permits which will result in higher energy costs for families and businesses across Delaware.
The rally is taking on a national scope as the list of special guests and media attending continues to grow.
Republican Presidential candidate, Herman Cain will be one of the main speakers at the conference. Mr. Cain is a leading conservative who believes that heavy-handed government politics, high taxes and out-of-control regulations are destroying jobs and stifling economic growth in this country.
John Stossil of FOX NEWS is set to cover the rally.
Here's Politico's coverage of the event:
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=70BB1F14-37EC-4F52-B23C-96039298C3FD
Lack of buyers may force Treasury to boost rates
The U.S. Treasury next month will go back to relying on the kindness of strangers like never before to purchase the nation’s burgeoning debts — and taxpayers may have to pay higher interest rates to attract enough foreign investors, analysts say.
Though a significant rise in interest rates could be toxic for a softening U.S. economy, the Federal Reserve has said it will end its program of purchasing $600 billion in U.S. Treasury bonds as planned on June 30. The Fed is estimated to have bought about 85 percent of Treasury’s securities offerings in the past eight months.
That leaves the Treasury, which is slated to sell near-record amounts of new debt of about $1.4 trillion this year, without its main suitor and recent source of support, and forces it back into the vagaries of global markets. Among the countries that will have to step forward to prevent a debilitating rise in interest rates are China, Japan and Saudi Arabia — and even hostile nations such as Iran and Venezuela with petrodollars to invest, according to one analysis.
The central bank launched the unusual bond-buying campaign last fall in an effort to lower interest rates and boost the sagging economy — and it was successful at drawing down long-term interest rates to record lows last winter. In particular, 30-year fixed mortgage rates fell to unprecedented lows near 4 percent and spawned a refinancing wave that helped consumers to discharge debts, purchase homes and increase spending.
But by the start of the year, a pickup in inflation — led by a surge in oil and other commodity prices that some economists blamed on the Fed’s easy money policies — wiped out the boon for consumers and home buyers and started to weigh on the economy. With the economy relapsing back to tepid rates of growth around 2 percent, some Fed officials argue that it should continue the easing program, but fear that the commodity boom could turn into a serious inflation threat makes it difficult for the Fed to do so.
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke said in a speech Tuesday that the Fed remains on track to withdraw from the Treasury market, stressing that the central bank must remain vigilant against inflation at the same time it tries to nurture the economy back to healthy growth.
Not an easy task
The end of the Fed’s program would never be easy given the huge onslaught of scheduled Treasury borrowing, but the task will be more difficult because foreign investors in the past six months have been reducing their sizable holdings of U.S. debt, not increasing them.
That means to get those buyers back, the Treasury may have to raise the rates it pays on the debt.
“With the Fed pretty much out of the picture after June, it seems clear that foreign demand for Treasuries holds the key going forward,” said David Greenlaw, an analyst at Morgan Stanley. “Continued heavy buying by the largest foreign holders of Treasuries will probably be necessary” to prevent interest rates from rising, he said.
China and Japan remain the largest foreign buyers of Treasury debt, followed by oil exporters such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Even oil exporters that are hostile to the U.S. such as Iran and Venezuela have been among the buyers supporting the Treasury in the past, according to Morgan Stanley estimates.
China and many of the oil exporters often channel their investments through London and such offshore investment havens as the Channel Islands, so the origin of the funding is sometimes difficult to track. The uncertainty of where the money is coming from in itself will cause rates to rise and increase volatility in the Treasury market after the Fed exits, Mr. Greenlaw said.
Brazil, Taiwan and Russia also are among the Treasury’s major creditors. But many countries have been cutting back on their purchases of U.S. securities in the past six months out of concern about the rapid decline of the U.S. dollar and rising inflation, which hurts their investment values.
Vassillli Serebriakov, an analyst at Wells Fargo, said many foreigners were put off by the Fed’s bond-purchase program, which appeared to trigger a foreign sell-off of about $100 billion in Treasury holdings since last fall.
In some countries, the program was portrayed as the Fed “printing money” to finance profligate congressional spending and tax cuts — a charge the Fed vehemently denies.
Still, given the wariness overseas about the Fed’s policies and untamed federal deficits, going back to relying on foreign buyers to finance the lion’s share of the debt could be tricky, he said.
“The key question is to what extent one can expect the recent deterioration in the long-term capital flows to be reversed,” he said.
An undetermined future
Foreign investors have applauded the Fed’s decision to end the program as it improves the prospects for keeping a lid on inflation. But they will continue to be concerned about uncontrolled deficits and declines in the dollar that diminish the value of their investments, he said.
“Some of the reduction in FedTreasury purchases could be replaced by increased demand from foreign investors, but this channel is less certain,” he said.
Peter Schiff, president of Euro Pacific Capital, said he does not expect enough foreign or private buyers to step forward and purchase Treasury’s huge slate of debt offerings — a potentially catastrophic development that he thinks will force the Fed to backpedal and renew its bond-buying program.
“Do they expect the Chinese to reverse course on their current policy and start heavily buying U.S. debt once again?” he asked.
“That seems extremely unlikely given” that China has been investing less in Treasury bonds partly in response to demands from the United States that it stop skewing trade relations between the countries by hoarding huge surpluses of dollars it earned through trade and reinvesting them in Treasuries.
Mr. Schiff noted that Bill Gross, the head of America’s own Pimco bond fund, the largest buyer of bonds worldwide, recently reduced Pimco’s holdings of Treasuries to zero out of concern that they weren’t yielding enough given the risks of inflation and deficit spending.
“It is not clear what would convince Gross to get back into the market with both feet, but one might expect at minimum it would take much higher interest rates,” Mr. Schiff said.
Jeffrey Kleintop, chief market strategist at LPL Financial, said he is not worried about the Treasury finding buyers or about other market disruptions as the Fed pulls back.
“While interest rates are likely to rise modestly, we do not anticipate a spike resulting from the lack of Fed buying that would put the economy at risk,” he said.
A failure by Congress and the White House in coming weeks to agree on a plan to curb deficits would be a much bigger problem for the markets, Mr. Kleintop said.
“The budget and debt-ceiling debate may be of more importance since fiscal policy could tighten sharply or a failure to control the deficit could spike interest rates, in either case putting the economy at risk,” he said.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jun/7/lack-of-buyers-may-force-treasury-to-boost-interes/#.Te-NUHDWTmc;email
Though a significant rise in interest rates could be toxic for a softening U.S. economy, the Federal Reserve has said it will end its program of purchasing $600 billion in U.S. Treasury bonds as planned on June 30. The Fed is estimated to have bought about 85 percent of Treasury’s securities offerings in the past eight months.
That leaves the Treasury, which is slated to sell near-record amounts of new debt of about $1.4 trillion this year, without its main suitor and recent source of support, and forces it back into the vagaries of global markets. Among the countries that will have to step forward to prevent a debilitating rise in interest rates are China, Japan and Saudi Arabia — and even hostile nations such as Iran and Venezuela with petrodollars to invest, according to one analysis.
The central bank launched the unusual bond-buying campaign last fall in an effort to lower interest rates and boost the sagging economy — and it was successful at drawing down long-term interest rates to record lows last winter. In particular, 30-year fixed mortgage rates fell to unprecedented lows near 4 percent and spawned a refinancing wave that helped consumers to discharge debts, purchase homes and increase spending.
But by the start of the year, a pickup in inflation — led by a surge in oil and other commodity prices that some economists blamed on the Fed’s easy money policies — wiped out the boon for consumers and home buyers and started to weigh on the economy. With the economy relapsing back to tepid rates of growth around 2 percent, some Fed officials argue that it should continue the easing program, but fear that the commodity boom could turn into a serious inflation threat makes it difficult for the Fed to do so.
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke said in a speech Tuesday that the Fed remains on track to withdraw from the Treasury market, stressing that the central bank must remain vigilant against inflation at the same time it tries to nurture the economy back to healthy growth.
Not an easy task
The end of the Fed’s program would never be easy given the huge onslaught of scheduled Treasury borrowing, but the task will be more difficult because foreign investors in the past six months have been reducing their sizable holdings of U.S. debt, not increasing them.
That means to get those buyers back, the Treasury may have to raise the rates it pays on the debt.
“With the Fed pretty much out of the picture after June, it seems clear that foreign demand for Treasuries holds the key going forward,” said David Greenlaw, an analyst at Morgan Stanley. “Continued heavy buying by the largest foreign holders of Treasuries will probably be necessary” to prevent interest rates from rising, he said.
China and Japan remain the largest foreign buyers of Treasury debt, followed by oil exporters such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Even oil exporters that are hostile to the U.S. such as Iran and Venezuela have been among the buyers supporting the Treasury in the past, according to Morgan Stanley estimates.
China and many of the oil exporters often channel their investments through London and such offshore investment havens as the Channel Islands, so the origin of the funding is sometimes difficult to track. The uncertainty of where the money is coming from in itself will cause rates to rise and increase volatility in the Treasury market after the Fed exits, Mr. Greenlaw said.
Brazil, Taiwan and Russia also are among the Treasury’s major creditors. But many countries have been cutting back on their purchases of U.S. securities in the past six months out of concern about the rapid decline of the U.S. dollar and rising inflation, which hurts their investment values.
Vassillli Serebriakov, an analyst at Wells Fargo, said many foreigners were put off by the Fed’s bond-purchase program, which appeared to trigger a foreign sell-off of about $100 billion in Treasury holdings since last fall.
In some countries, the program was portrayed as the Fed “printing money” to finance profligate congressional spending and tax cuts — a charge the Fed vehemently denies.
Still, given the wariness overseas about the Fed’s policies and untamed federal deficits, going back to relying on foreign buyers to finance the lion’s share of the debt could be tricky, he said.
“The key question is to what extent one can expect the recent deterioration in the long-term capital flows to be reversed,” he said.
An undetermined future
Foreign investors have applauded the Fed’s decision to end the program as it improves the prospects for keeping a lid on inflation. But they will continue to be concerned about uncontrolled deficits and declines in the dollar that diminish the value of their investments, he said.
“Some of the reduction in FedTreasury purchases could be replaced by increased demand from foreign investors, but this channel is less certain,” he said.
Peter Schiff, president of Euro Pacific Capital, said he does not expect enough foreign or private buyers to step forward and purchase Treasury’s huge slate of debt offerings — a potentially catastrophic development that he thinks will force the Fed to backpedal and renew its bond-buying program.
“Do they expect the Chinese to reverse course on their current policy and start heavily buying U.S. debt once again?” he asked.
“That seems extremely unlikely given” that China has been investing less in Treasury bonds partly in response to demands from the United States that it stop skewing trade relations between the countries by hoarding huge surpluses of dollars it earned through trade and reinvesting them in Treasuries.
Mr. Schiff noted that Bill Gross, the head of America’s own Pimco bond fund, the largest buyer of bonds worldwide, recently reduced Pimco’s holdings of Treasuries to zero out of concern that they weren’t yielding enough given the risks of inflation and deficit spending.
“It is not clear what would convince Gross to get back into the market with both feet, but one might expect at minimum it would take much higher interest rates,” Mr. Schiff said.
Jeffrey Kleintop, chief market strategist at LPL Financial, said he is not worried about the Treasury finding buyers or about other market disruptions as the Fed pulls back.
“While interest rates are likely to rise modestly, we do not anticipate a spike resulting from the lack of Fed buying that would put the economy at risk,” he said.
A failure by Congress and the White House in coming weeks to agree on a plan to curb deficits would be a much bigger problem for the markets, Mr. Kleintop said.
“The budget and debt-ceiling debate may be of more importance since fiscal policy could tighten sharply or a failure to control the deficit could spike interest rates, in either case putting the economy at risk,” he said.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jun/7/lack-of-buyers-may-force-treasury-to-boost-interes/#.Te-NUHDWTmc;email
Australia poised to allow camel cull
Killing a camel to earn a carbon credit may seem a curious way to tackle climate change, but one country is poised to allow investors to do precisely that.
The camel culling plan is one of the first to arise under the Australian government’s new “carbon farming initiative”, a scheme that lets farmers or investors claim carbon credits if they can show they have cut greenhouse gas emissions.
To read the rest of this article, click here
The camel culling plan is one of the first to arise under the Australian government’s new “carbon farming initiative”, a scheme that lets farmers or investors claim carbon credits if they can show they have cut greenhouse gas emissions.
To read the rest of this article, click here
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
Decline and fall of the American empire
The economic powerhouse of the 20th century emerged stronger from the Depression. But faced with cultural decay, structural weaknesses and reliance on finance, can the US do it again?
America clocked up a record last week. The latest drop in house prices meant that the cost of real estate has fallen by 33% since the peak – even bigger than the 31% slide seen when John Steinbeck was writing The Grapes of Wrath.
Unemployment has not returned to Great Depression levels but at 9.1% of the workforce it is still at levels that will have nerves jangling in the White House. The last president to be re-elected with unemployment above 7.2% was Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
The US is a country with serious problems. Getting on for one in six depend on government food stamps to ensure they have enough to eat. The budget, which was in surplus little more than a decade ago, now has a deficit of Greek-style proportions. There is policy paralysis in Washington.
The assumption is that the problems can be easily solved because the US is the biggest economy on the planet, the only country with global military reach, the lucky possessor of the world's reserve currency, and a nation with a proud record of re-inventing itself once in every generation or so.
All this is true and more. US universities are superb, attracting the best brains from around the world. It is a country that pushes the frontiers of technology. So, it may be that the US is about to emerge stronger than ever from the long nightmare of the sub-prime mortgage crisis. The strong financial position of American companies could unleash a wave of new investment over the next couple of years.
Let me put an alternative hypothesis. America in 2011 is Rome in 200AD or Britain on the eve of the first world war: an empire at the zenith of its power but with cracks beginning to show.
The experience of both Rome and Britain suggests that it is hard to stop the rot once it has set in, so here are the a few of the warning signs of trouble ahead: military overstretch, a widening gulf between rich and poor, a hollowed-out economy, citizens using debt to live beyond their means, and once-effective policies no longer working. The high levels of violent crime, epidemic of obesity, addiction to pornography and excessive use of energy may be telling us something: the US is in an advanced state of cultural decadence.
Empires decline for many different reasons but certain factors recur. There is an initial reluctance to admit that there is much to fret about, and there is the arrival of a challenger (or several challengers) to the settled international order. In Spain's case, the rival was Britain. In Britain's case, it was America. In America's case, the threat comes from China.
Britain's decline was extremely rapid after 1914. By 1945, the UK was a bit player in the bipolar world dominated by the US and the Soviet Union, and sterling – the heart of the 19th-century gold standard – was rapidly losing its lustre as a reserve currency. There had been concerns, voiced as far back as the 1851 Great Exhibition, that the hungrier, more efficient producers in Germany and the US threatened Britain's industrial hegemony. But no serious policy action was taken. In the second half of the 19th century there was a subtle shift in the economy, from the north of England to the south, from manufacturing to finance, from making things to living off investment income. By 1914, the writing was on the wall.
In two important respects, the US today differs from Britain a century ago. It is much bigger, which means that it benefits from continent-wide economies of scale, and it has a presence in the industries that will be strategically important in the first half of the 21st century. Britain in 1914 was over-reliant on coal and shipbuilding, industries that struggled between the world wars, and had failed to grasp early enough the importance of emerging new technologies.
Even so, there are parallels. There has been a long-term shift of emphasis in the US economy away from manufacturing and towards finance. There is a growing challenge from producers in other parts of the world.
Frenzy
Now consider the stark contrast between this economic recovery and the pattern of previous cycles. Traditionally, a US economic recovery sees unemployment coming down smartly as lower interest rates encourage consumers to spend and the construction industry to build more homes. This time, it has been different. There was a building frenzy during the bubble years, which left an overhang of supply even before plunging prices and rising unemployment led to a blitz of foreclosures.
America has more homes than it knows what to do with, and that state of affairs is not going to change for years.
Over the past couple of months, there has been a steady drip-feed of poor economic news that has dented hopes of a sustained recovery. Optimism has now been replaced by concern that the United States could be heading for the dreaded double-dip recession.
In the real estate market, which is the symptom of America's deep-seated economic malaise, the double dip has already arrived. Tax breaks to homeowners provided only a temporary respite for a falling market and millions of Americans are living in homes worth less than they paid for them. The latest figures show that more than 28% of homes with a mortgage are in negative equity. Unsurprisingly, that has made Americans far more cautious about spending money. Rising commodity prices exacerbate the problem, since they push up inflation and reduce the spending power of wages and salaries.
Macro-economic policy has proved less effective than normal. That's not for want of trying, though. The US has had zero short-term interest rates for well over two years. It has had two big doses of quantitative easing, the second of which is now ending. Its budget deficit is so big it has led to warnings from the credit-rating agencies, in spite of the dollar's reserve currency status. And Washington has adopted a policy of benign neglect towards the currency, despite the strong-dollar rhetoric, in the hope that cheaper exports will make up for the squeeze on consumer spending.
Policy, as ever, is geared towards growth because the great existential fear of the Fed, the Treasury and whoever occupies the White House is a return to the 1930s. Back then, the economic malaise could be largely attributed to deflationary economic policies that deepened the recession caused by the popping of the 1920s stock market bubble. The feeble response to today's growth medicine suggests that the US is structurally far weaker than it was in the 1930s. Tackling these weaknesses will require breaking finance's stranglehold over the economy and measures to boost ordinary families' spending power and so cut their reliance on debt. It will require an amnesty for the housing market. Above all, America must rediscover the qualities that originally made it great. That will not be easy.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/jun/06/us-economy-decline-recovery-challenges
America clocked up a record last week. The latest drop in house prices meant that the cost of real estate has fallen by 33% since the peak – even bigger than the 31% slide seen when John Steinbeck was writing The Grapes of Wrath.
Unemployment has not returned to Great Depression levels but at 9.1% of the workforce it is still at levels that will have nerves jangling in the White House. The last president to be re-elected with unemployment above 7.2% was Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
The US is a country with serious problems. Getting on for one in six depend on government food stamps to ensure they have enough to eat. The budget, which was in surplus little more than a decade ago, now has a deficit of Greek-style proportions. There is policy paralysis in Washington.
The assumption is that the problems can be easily solved because the US is the biggest economy on the planet, the only country with global military reach, the lucky possessor of the world's reserve currency, and a nation with a proud record of re-inventing itself once in every generation or so.
All this is true and more. US universities are superb, attracting the best brains from around the world. It is a country that pushes the frontiers of technology. So, it may be that the US is about to emerge stronger than ever from the long nightmare of the sub-prime mortgage crisis. The strong financial position of American companies could unleash a wave of new investment over the next couple of years.
Let me put an alternative hypothesis. America in 2011 is Rome in 200AD or Britain on the eve of the first world war: an empire at the zenith of its power but with cracks beginning to show.
The experience of both Rome and Britain suggests that it is hard to stop the rot once it has set in, so here are the a few of the warning signs of trouble ahead: military overstretch, a widening gulf between rich and poor, a hollowed-out economy, citizens using debt to live beyond their means, and once-effective policies no longer working. The high levels of violent crime, epidemic of obesity, addiction to pornography and excessive use of energy may be telling us something: the US is in an advanced state of cultural decadence.
Empires decline for many different reasons but certain factors recur. There is an initial reluctance to admit that there is much to fret about, and there is the arrival of a challenger (or several challengers) to the settled international order. In Spain's case, the rival was Britain. In Britain's case, it was America. In America's case, the threat comes from China.
Britain's decline was extremely rapid after 1914. By 1945, the UK was a bit player in the bipolar world dominated by the US and the Soviet Union, and sterling – the heart of the 19th-century gold standard – was rapidly losing its lustre as a reserve currency. There had been concerns, voiced as far back as the 1851 Great Exhibition, that the hungrier, more efficient producers in Germany and the US threatened Britain's industrial hegemony. But no serious policy action was taken. In the second half of the 19th century there was a subtle shift in the economy, from the north of England to the south, from manufacturing to finance, from making things to living off investment income. By 1914, the writing was on the wall.
In two important respects, the US today differs from Britain a century ago. It is much bigger, which means that it benefits from continent-wide economies of scale, and it has a presence in the industries that will be strategically important in the first half of the 21st century. Britain in 1914 was over-reliant on coal and shipbuilding, industries that struggled between the world wars, and had failed to grasp early enough the importance of emerging new technologies.
Even so, there are parallels. There has been a long-term shift of emphasis in the US economy away from manufacturing and towards finance. There is a growing challenge from producers in other parts of the world.
Frenzy
Now consider the stark contrast between this economic recovery and the pattern of previous cycles. Traditionally, a US economic recovery sees unemployment coming down smartly as lower interest rates encourage consumers to spend and the construction industry to build more homes. This time, it has been different. There was a building frenzy during the bubble years, which left an overhang of supply even before plunging prices and rising unemployment led to a blitz of foreclosures.
America has more homes than it knows what to do with, and that state of affairs is not going to change for years.
Over the past couple of months, there has been a steady drip-feed of poor economic news that has dented hopes of a sustained recovery. Optimism has now been replaced by concern that the United States could be heading for the dreaded double-dip recession.
In the real estate market, which is the symptom of America's deep-seated economic malaise, the double dip has already arrived. Tax breaks to homeowners provided only a temporary respite for a falling market and millions of Americans are living in homes worth less than they paid for them. The latest figures show that more than 28% of homes with a mortgage are in negative equity. Unsurprisingly, that has made Americans far more cautious about spending money. Rising commodity prices exacerbate the problem, since they push up inflation and reduce the spending power of wages and salaries.
Macro-economic policy has proved less effective than normal. That's not for want of trying, though. The US has had zero short-term interest rates for well over two years. It has had two big doses of quantitative easing, the second of which is now ending. Its budget deficit is so big it has led to warnings from the credit-rating agencies, in spite of the dollar's reserve currency status. And Washington has adopted a policy of benign neglect towards the currency, despite the strong-dollar rhetoric, in the hope that cheaper exports will make up for the squeeze on consumer spending.
Policy, as ever, is geared towards growth because the great existential fear of the Fed, the Treasury and whoever occupies the White House is a return to the 1930s. Back then, the economic malaise could be largely attributed to deflationary economic policies that deepened the recession caused by the popping of the 1920s stock market bubble. The feeble response to today's growth medicine suggests that the US is structurally far weaker than it was in the 1930s. Tackling these weaknesses will require breaking finance's stranglehold over the economy and measures to boost ordinary families' spending power and so cut their reliance on debt. It will require an amnesty for the housing market. Above all, America must rediscover the qualities that originally made it great. That will not be easy.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/jun/06/us-economy-decline-recovery-challenges
Monday, June 6, 2011
Why we must end Medicare ‘as we know it’
Almost everyone agrees that America’s health-care system has the incentives all wrong. Under the fee-for-service system, doctors and hospitals get paid for doing more, even if added tests, operations and procedures have little chance of improving patients’ health. So what happens when someone proposes that we alter the incentives to reward better care, not more care? Well, Rep. Paul Ryan and Republicans found out. No surprise: Democrats slammed them for “ending Medicare as we know it.”
This predictably partisan reaction — preying upon the anxieties of retirees — must depress anyone who cares about the country’s future. It is only a slight exaggeration to say that unless we end Medicare “as we know it,” America “as we know it” will end. Spiraling health spending is the crux of our federal budget problem. In 1965 — the year Congress created Medicare and Medicaid — health spending was 2.6 percent of the budget. In 2010, it was 26.5 percent. The Obama administration estimates it will be 30.3 percent in 2016. By contrast, defense spending is about 20 percent; scientific research and development is 4 percent.
Uncontrolled health spending isn’t simply crowding out other government programs; it’s also dampening overall living standards. Health economists Michael Chernew, Richard Hirth and David Cutler recently reported that higher health costs consumed 35.7 percent of the increase in per capita income from 1999 to 2007. They also project, that under reasonable assumptions, it could absorb half or more of the gain between now and 2083.
Ryan proposes to change that. Beginning in 2022, new (not existing) Medicare beneficiaries would receive a voucher, valued initially at about $8,000. The theory is simple. Suddenly empowered, Medicare beneficiaries would shop for lowest-cost, highest-quality insurance plans providing a required package of benefits. The health-care delivery system would be forced to restructure by reducing costs and improving quality. Doctors, hospitals and clinics would form networks; there would be more “coordination” of care, helped by more investment in information technology; better use of deductibles and co-payments would reduce unnecessary trips to doctors’ offices or clinics.
It’s shock therapy. Would it work? No one knows, but two things are clear.
First, as Medicare goes, so goes the entire health-care system. Medicare is the nation’s largest insurance program, with 48 million recipients and spending last year of $520 billion. About 75 percent of beneficiaries have fee-for-service coverage. If Medicare remains largely fee-for-service, the rest of the system will, too.
Second, few doubt that today’s health-care system has much waste: medical care that does no good; high overhead costs. In a paper, Cutler documented some evidence. In one survey, 20 percent of patients reported that doctors repeated tests because records were unavailable; the health-care sector has twice as many clerical workers as nurses and nine times as many as doctors; care of patients with chronic conditions is often slapdash, so that, for example, only 43 percent of diabetics receive recommended treatment.
Fee-for-service is open-ended reimbursement; the government’s main tool to control Medicare’s costs is to hold down reimbursement rates. Doctors and hospitals respond by ordering more services to offset the rate limits. For all its flaws, say Ryan’s critics, this system beats his. Indeed, the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that in 2022, Ryan’s plan would be more than a third costlier than the status quo, because Medicare’s size makes it more effective at restraining reimbursement rates.
If the CBO is correct, Ryan’s plan fails; beneficiaries’ out-of-pocket costs would roughly double to cover the added expense. But the CBO may be wrong. When a voucher system was adopted for Medicare’s new drug benefit, the CBO overestimated its costs by a third; the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services’ overestimate was 42 percent. When fundamental changes are made to a program, the green-eyeshade types can’t easily predict the results. Moreover, as health expert James Capretta notes, “managed care” plans in the Medicare Advantage program in 2010 did not have higher costs than Medicare’s fee-for-service for similar coverage.
Under Ryan’s plan, incentives would shift. Medicare would no longer be an open ATM; the vouchers would limit total spending. Providers would face pressures to do more with less; there would certainly be charges that essential care was being denied. The Obama administration argues that better results can be achieved by modifying incentives within the existing system. Perhaps. But history suggests skepticism. Presidents since Jimmy Carter have made proposals to control spending, with meager results. From 1970 to 2008, Medicare spending per beneficiary increased an average of 9 percent annually.
It’s Ryan’s radicalism vs. President Obama’s tinkering. Which is realistic and which is wishful thinking? This important debate should rise above cheap political rhetoric. Burdened by runaway spending, Medicare “as we know it” is going to end. The only questions are when and on whose terms.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-we-must-end-medicare-as-we-know-it/2011/06/05/AGs7AmJH_story_1.html
This predictably partisan reaction — preying upon the anxieties of retirees — must depress anyone who cares about the country’s future. It is only a slight exaggeration to say that unless we end Medicare “as we know it,” America “as we know it” will end. Spiraling health spending is the crux of our federal budget problem. In 1965 — the year Congress created Medicare and Medicaid — health spending was 2.6 percent of the budget. In 2010, it was 26.5 percent. The Obama administration estimates it will be 30.3 percent in 2016. By contrast, defense spending is about 20 percent; scientific research and development is 4 percent.
Uncontrolled health spending isn’t simply crowding out other government programs; it’s also dampening overall living standards. Health economists Michael Chernew, Richard Hirth and David Cutler recently reported that higher health costs consumed 35.7 percent of the increase in per capita income from 1999 to 2007. They also project, that under reasonable assumptions, it could absorb half or more of the gain between now and 2083.
Ryan proposes to change that. Beginning in 2022, new (not existing) Medicare beneficiaries would receive a voucher, valued initially at about $8,000. The theory is simple. Suddenly empowered, Medicare beneficiaries would shop for lowest-cost, highest-quality insurance plans providing a required package of benefits. The health-care delivery system would be forced to restructure by reducing costs and improving quality. Doctors, hospitals and clinics would form networks; there would be more “coordination” of care, helped by more investment in information technology; better use of deductibles and co-payments would reduce unnecessary trips to doctors’ offices or clinics.
It’s shock therapy. Would it work? No one knows, but two things are clear.
First, as Medicare goes, so goes the entire health-care system. Medicare is the nation’s largest insurance program, with 48 million recipients and spending last year of $520 billion. About 75 percent of beneficiaries have fee-for-service coverage. If Medicare remains largely fee-for-service, the rest of the system will, too.
Second, few doubt that today’s health-care system has much waste: medical care that does no good; high overhead costs. In a paper, Cutler documented some evidence. In one survey, 20 percent of patients reported that doctors repeated tests because records were unavailable; the health-care sector has twice as many clerical workers as nurses and nine times as many as doctors; care of patients with chronic conditions is often slapdash, so that, for example, only 43 percent of diabetics receive recommended treatment.
Fee-for-service is open-ended reimbursement; the government’s main tool to control Medicare’s costs is to hold down reimbursement rates. Doctors and hospitals respond by ordering more services to offset the rate limits. For all its flaws, say Ryan’s critics, this system beats his. Indeed, the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that in 2022, Ryan’s plan would be more than a third costlier than the status quo, because Medicare’s size makes it more effective at restraining reimbursement rates.
If the CBO is correct, Ryan’s plan fails; beneficiaries’ out-of-pocket costs would roughly double to cover the added expense. But the CBO may be wrong. When a voucher system was adopted for Medicare’s new drug benefit, the CBO overestimated its costs by a third; the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services’ overestimate was 42 percent. When fundamental changes are made to a program, the green-eyeshade types can’t easily predict the results. Moreover, as health expert James Capretta notes, “managed care” plans in the Medicare Advantage program in 2010 did not have higher costs than Medicare’s fee-for-service for similar coverage.
Under Ryan’s plan, incentives would shift. Medicare would no longer be an open ATM; the vouchers would limit total spending. Providers would face pressures to do more with less; there would certainly be charges that essential care was being denied. The Obama administration argues that better results can be achieved by modifying incentives within the existing system. Perhaps. But history suggests skepticism. Presidents since Jimmy Carter have made proposals to control spending, with meager results. From 1970 to 2008, Medicare spending per beneficiary increased an average of 9 percent annually.
It’s Ryan’s radicalism vs. President Obama’s tinkering. Which is realistic and which is wishful thinking? This important debate should rise above cheap political rhetoric. Burdened by runaway spending, Medicare “as we know it” is going to end. The only questions are when and on whose terms.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-we-must-end-medicare-as-we-know-it/2011/06/05/AGs7AmJH_story_1.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)