Posted tagged ‘Colin Gordon’

Iowa follows U.S. patterns on loss of employer-sponsored coverage

November 6, 2013

new report from the Economic Policy Institute traces the erosion of job-based health coverage across the last decade — and the slowing of that decline in the last year. Nationally, as EPI Director of Health Policy Research Elise Gould underscores, job-based health coverage has shed almost 14 million non-elderly Americans since 2000. But slow improvement in the national economy over the last year, coupled with key components of the Affordable Care Act (most notably the provision that young adults are allowed to stay on or join their parents health insurance policies) have slowed those losses since 2011.

The other important trend across this decade is the dramatic growth in public health insurance. Medicaid and CHIP (hawk-i in Iowa) have picked up coverage for at least some of those who have lost job-based coverage. While losses (2000 to 2012) in employer-sponsored insurance were greater among children than among non-elderly adults, for example, the share of children without any coverage actually fell 1.8 percentage points.

Basic RGBMuch the same pattern has played out in Iowa.  In 2000-2001, Iowa’s rate of job-based coverage for those under the age of 65 was 76.9 percent — one of the highest rates in the nation; by 2011-2012, that had fallen to 64.5 percent — closer to the middle of the pack among states.

As the graphic below shows (Iowa is the red dot), this was one of the steepest rates of loss in the nation (coverage down 12.4 percent) and represented a net loss in job-based coverage of over 200,000 non-elderly Iowans. Of those losing coverage, about half (97,075) were working-age adults and about half (111,839) were kids (indeed, the share of kids losing job-based coverage in Iowa, at 16 percent, was the highest in the country).

ESI changes in statesclick on graph for interactive version

Again, public programs pick up some of this slack. Since 2000, Iowa has enrolled about 120,000 more working age adults in Medicaid, and added another 80,000 to the ranks of the uninsured. For Iowa’s kids, public coverage (Medicaid and hawk-i) has been much more effective — picking up 140,000 Iowans under the age of 18 since 2000, while actually reducing the number of kids uninsured.

Colin GordonPosted by Colin Gordon, Senior Research Consultant

Defending the Top 1 Percent — and Failing at It

July 3, 2013

An academic heavyweight from Harvard has taken up the cause of America’s most affluent 1 percent. But his defense has done the nation’s rich no favors.

Note: This piece by IPP Senior Research Consultant Colin Gordon appeared July 2 on inequality.org at this link: http://inequality.org/defending-top-1-percent-failing/

By Colin Gordon

Harvard economist Greg Mankiw

Harvard economist Greg Mankiw

Harvard economist Greg Mankiw has made quite a splash with his spirited defense of the top 1 percent. His argument in a nutshell: Gains hoarded by the very rich amount to nothing more than an “entrepreneurial disturbance” in an otherwise egalitarian setting. High earners are high earners because they have made “significant economic contributions,” according to Mankiw — who goes on to proffer J.K. Rowling, Stephen Spielberg, and Steve Jobs as evidence.A lot of virtual ink has already spilled in response, much of it by the other contributors to the forthcoming issue of the Journal of Economic Perspectives that features the Mankiw essay. And the verdict, pretty decisively, is that Mankiw has it all — the backstory, the logic, the evidence, and the consequences — spectacularly wrong.

Consider the central claim that the gains of the top 1 percent are all about the supply and demand of skilled labor, that “changes in technology have allowed a small number of highly educated and exceptionally talented individuals,” as Mankiw concludes, “to command superstar incomes in ways that were not possible a generation ago.” This claim has three large holes.

First, Mankiw’s use of Rowling, Spielberg, and Jobs as examplars of the 1 percent is more than a little disingenuous. As Larry Mishel points out, drawing on the work of Jon Bakija and others, the 1 percent is largely populated by corporate executives and financial sector professionals, for whom the plaudits “innovator” and “significant economic contributor” seem somehow less apt. And, as Dean Baker reminds us, even the incomes of Rowling, Spielberg, and Jobs owe as much to government intervention — in the form of copyrights and patents — as they do to the genius of the market.

Second, there is no evidence — at the bottom of the income distribution or the top — that education or innovation has that sort of payoff. John Schmitt and Jannelle Jones, most recently in a paper on the prospects of black workers, have tirelessly made the case that wages and job quality have plummeted across the last generation — even as the experience and educational attainment of workers has shown dramatic gains. And Mishel shows that the trajectory of top incomes runs far ahead of any reasonable educational benchmark.

And finally, the counter argument — that the 1 percent’s gains reflect distortions of the market, and losses for the rest of us — is pretty powerful. In their contribution to the same Journal of Economic Perspectives issue, Mishel and Josh Bivens make the case that most of these gains, especially those flowing from a bloated financial sector and excessive executive pay, come in the forms of economic rent — income either generated through preferential status or income that exceeds the real market value of the service provided.

Mankiw closes his paper with a number of other unsupported — and unsupportable — claims, arguing in turn that the rich are already taxed enough and that rising inequality poses no threat to either economic efficiency or social mobility. By this point his argument has a sort of “pay no attention to that man behind the curtain” tone to it. Once he equates social policy with involuntary kidney donations, the tired economic orthodoxy seems more like a furious distraction than any argument at all.

Colin Gordon

Colin Gordon

Colin Gordon is Professor of History at the University of Iowa. For more on this issue, and the broader sources of our inequality, see our Inequality.Org interactive guide, Growing Apart: A Political History of American Inequality.

- See more at: http://inequality.org/defending-top-1-percent-failing/#sthash.JXRd5UmQ.dpuf

Iowa’s Recession: The Movie

May 30, 2013
Colin Gordon

Colin Gordon

OK, it’s not likely to offer much competition for World War Z or the Hangover 3, but this short video does provide a compelling look at Iowa’s slide into recession, and slow progress to recovery.

The unemployment rate, by county, is shaded from light to dark blue. And, as the months unfold from January 2007, the line graph at the bottom traces the trajectory of the recession — the blue line showing Iowa’s unemployment rate, the red showing that for the whole country.

Iowa escapes the early months of the national recession (which begins in December of 2007), but then sees the unemployment rate jump from 4.2 percent to 6.2 percent in late 2008.  It would be 32 months (September 2011) before it was back below 6 percent to stay, and another 20 months (to this March) to settle back below 5 percent.  Like a lot of summer movies, it starts dramatically and then drags on and on.

The final scene shows how little progress we’ve made, underscoring the magnitude of a jobs deficit composed of both the jobs we’ve lost, and those we’ve failed to create for new entrants to the labor force.  It’s not a happy ending, but it has that gritty realism that the Oscar voters love.

Unemployment in Iowa, 2007-2013 from Colin Gordon on Vimeo.

Posted by Colin Gordon, Senior Research Consultant

Looking past the distractions on job numbers

April 23, 2013

Colin Gordon

Colin Gordon

Each month about this time, the Bureau of Labor Statistics updates its regional and state job numbers. It’s an important monthly scorecard, an opportunity to measure the state’s performance against the experience of other states, the national picture, and our own recent employment trends. And it’s an important political moment — especially as Governors around the country (and here in Iowa) have tied policy and budgetary decisions to job creation or employment targets.

But this monthly flurry of interest can also distract us from the bigger picture. How many jobs we added this month or last, after all, is less important than the larger and longer term goal of real recovery from the Great Recession. And on that score, we still have some ground to cover.

The graph below (from our State of Working Iowa report, updated through March 2013) compares the 2007 recession to all other postwar recessions, for Iowa and the United States. For the country, the 2007 recession is deeper and longer than any other postwar downturn. Now more than five years (63 months) since the onset of the recession in December 2007, we are far short of pre-recession employment levels.  For Iowa, the picture is a little better — but we are still 7,700 jobs short of the pre-recession peak.

http://public.tableausoftware.com/shared/5DDG8FS3T?:display_count=no

This is only part of the story.  As the recessions (and weak recovery) have dragged on, the state has continued to add to its labor force:  now five year’s worth of immigration, in-migration, and high school or college graduations. So our real jobs deficit is not the number of jobs we are short of the pre-recession peak. It is the number of jobs, given our current labor force, we are short of returning to pre-recession rates of employment. That deficit, captured in the graph below, is over 65,000 jobs. In order to clear that deficit in the next three years (during which time the labor force will continue to grow), we would need to add over 80,000 jobs — about 2,000 a month over that span.  Over the past year, or rate of job creation has been about half that (averaging only 920 jobs/month).

Basic RGB

Posted by Colin Gordon, Senior Research Consultant

Iowa’s decline in job-based health insurance

April 11, 2013

The Cedar Rapids Gazette today offered an interesting look at the question of where Iowans get their insurance. It’s less and less something that comes through employment. And when the costs of insurance keep rising, that makes it tougher on the household budget — or results in people not having insurance.

This is a trend we’ve been watching and reporting on at the Iowa Policy Project for many years, as have several good research organizations such as the Economic Policy Institute.

The Affordable Care Act offers at least a partial remedy. As health insurance exchanges are developed, affordable insurance should be more readily available. Tax credits for employers providing insurance will provide a targeted incentive to offer employees a better option than what employees might find on the individual insurance market.

Colin Gordon

Colin Gordon

Our State of Working Iowa report for 2012 offers another good look at this issue. As author Colin Gordon observes, wage stagnation, erosion of good jobs and recession have combined to batter workers, at the same time non-wage forms of compensation, health and pension benefits, also have declined. This has eroded both job quality and family financial security, and increased the need for public insurance. In Chapter 3, “The Bigger Picture,” Gordon writes that Iowa is one of 15 states, including five in the Midwest, to lose more than 10 percent of job-based coverage in a decade. He continues:

These losses reflect two overlapping trends. The first of these is costs. Health spending has slowed in recent years, but still runs well ahead of general inflation. Both premium costs … and the employee’s share of premiums have risen sharply — especially for family coverage — while wages have stagnated.

In 1999, a full-time median-wage worker in Iowa needed to work for about 10 weeks in order to pay an annual family premium; by 2011, this had swollen to nearly 25 weeks. Steep cost increases have pressed employers to drop or cut back coverage, or employees to decline it when offered. High costs may also encourage more employees to elect single coverage — counting on spousal coverage from another source and kids’ coverage through public programs. The second factor here is the shift in sectoral employment outlined above: Job losses are heaviest in sectors that have historically offered group health coverage; and job gains (or projected job gains) are strongest in sectors that don’t offer coverage.

This graph looks at the rate of employer-sponsored coverage, by industry sector, from 2002 to 2012.

job-based coverage comparison, Iowa 2002-2012

An interactive version of that graph in the online report allows the reader to toggle between those two years; the colored balloons sink on the graph in moving from 2002 to 2012, as if they all are losing air — the result of declining rates of coverage.

Good public policy could help to fill them again.

2010-mo-blogthumbPosted by Mike Owen, Assistant Director

 

Digging a little deeper on Iowa jobs

January 16, 2013
Colin Gordon

Colin Gordon

Governor Branstad’s claim that Iowa’s economy has created 100,000 jobs in two years is nonsense. We make this case in this morning’s Des Moines Register, pointing out that the Governor’s measure counts (and miscounts at that) only one side of the ledger. The actual jobs record since January 2011 is a net of 18,700 nonfarm jobs.

Here are a couple of graphs to underscore this point. The first traces the trajectory of job creation in Iowa, the West North Central States, the entire Midwest, and the country as a whole. These are plotted with a common starting point: December 2007 (the start of the recession) is set at “100” for each measure, so that each line shows the percentage change in employment over time. The Branstad Administration (since January 2011) is shaded in yellow.

What jumps out here is a simple fact. There is nothing exceptional about the Iowa experience. Our job numbers closely track national and regional trends, although — as with the rest of the West North Central Region — insulation from the housing crash and high commodity prices cushioned us from the full impact of the recession. And the rate at which we are adding jobs (much too slowly) is virtually identical to that of the region and the nation.

Figure 1. Iowa Job Trends Follow Regional and National Trends

Basic RGB

What about the actual job creation record in Iowa? Figure 2 below plots the month-by-month gains (and losses) in nonfarm jobs since December 2007. Again, the period since January 2011 — the focus of the Governor’s claims — is shaded in yellow. Over that 22-month span, we gained jobs in 14 months and lost jobs in the other eight—for a net gain of 18,700 jobs, or about 850 jobs per month. There is nothing exceptional about this. Indeed, in the year preceding the current administration (January 2010 to January 2011) we added about 13,000 nonfarm jobs — over 1,000 per month.

Figure 2. Iowa Jobs Both Gain and Fall Over Last Two Years

Basic RGB

Posted by Colin Gordon, Senior Research Associate

Scrap the political math

January 16, 2013

At the Iowa Policy Project, we are pretty careful about the way we count. The way we use numbers reflects on our credibility as an independent, nonpartisan resource for all Iowans, no matter their political stripe. It is important for our state’s political debates to be fought on a foundation of facts, so that our leaders can better debate the issues on their merits, rather than political spin. That is why we’re here at the Iowa Policy Project.

We also have counted since our earliest days on the work of Colin Gordon, a professor of history at the University of Iowa and IPP’s senior research consultant. Colin is author of our annual State of Working Iowa report — he offered an innovative twist on it this year with interactive graphs that you can try out for yourself at www.stateofworkingiowa.org — and like the rest of us at IPP, he was disturbed to see Iowa job data being distorted in recent days by, of all sources, the Governor’s Office. The Governor in his Condition of the State address Tuesday used an inflated number to tout progress on Iowa jobs. He is choosing to count only jobs gained, not those lost. This is political math, not real math.

Gordon wrote about it today in The Des Moines Register. In the piece, Gordon notes that using the Governor’s approach to math, Iowa could have a $6 billion surplus. “Why not just count the revenues?” he asked. Excerpt:

And, of course, the governor’s political opponents could offer up a number of “gross jobs lost” since January 2011 — a measure (about 56,000 lost jobs) that would be just as impressive, and just as silly. …

In the bigger picture, these job numbers are not even shaped much by state policy, by what governors do or do not do. Jobs are won or lost by national economic conditions. States can try to pirate jobs or investment from other states, but the only sustained impact of state policy is on the quality of state jobs. Higher labor standards and better investments in education are places to make that impact.

Iowa’s leaders can move these discussions forward constructively, but that starts with ending the politicization of basic economic data, as the governor’s staff has done with numbers on job growth.

Posted by Mike Owen


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,665 other followers

%d bloggers like this: