The New York Times has another interesting story on News Corporation and its hacking scandal, this time reporting on a lawsuit that claims News of the World stole a scoop from two competitors by hacking a flack’s phone. Fun story.
More important: Remember when Rupert Murdoch & Co. claimed the scandal was all the fault of a rogue reporter?
Now the Times reports that evidence in a lawsuit suggests that one of the top editors may have actually done some of the hacking himself:
Evidence in Ms. Phillips’s case also suggests that Mr. Edmondson, the former news editor, had a central role in the hacking operation. The name “Ian” appears in court papers on several photocopied pages from the notebooks of Mr. Mulcaire seized by the police in August 2006.
The new documents, people familiar with the case say, support allegations that Mr. Edmondson specifically directed Mr. Mulcaire to gain access to Ms. Phillips’s phone — and may have hacked her phone himself.
— The Washington Post’s Steven Pearlstein zeroes in on an interesting idea from Tyler Cowen’s mini-book: That much of the economic growth in recent decades has been a mirage. And no, not just a financial-industry induced delusion, either.
It is no coincidence, he writes, that during the recent decades of slow growth in incomes and productivity, three of the fastest-growing sectors of the economy have been education, financial services and health care. And while government statistics show productivity in those sectors growing at the same pace as the rest of the economy, other data suggest otherwise.Although the United States spends at least twice as much on health care, per person, as other industrial countries do, Americans do not live any longer and often have measurably worse health.
Although spending on education has doubled in recent decades, average scores on standardized math and reading tests have remained about the same.
And what does the average American have to show for all that innovation and job growth in financial services over the past 20 years? A series of booms and busts that has left stock prices roughly where they began.
For Cowen, the central economic reality of the past three decades is that median household incomes have barely budged, even after adjusting for inflation and other factors. And his hypothesis is that too much money and talent and effort have gone into sectors where real productivity gains are hard to find.
— The Wall Street Journal reports that Wall Street pay will hit a new record this year, just two years after it nearly killed the economy and forced us all to bail it out with trillions of dollars of cash, loans, guarantees, and subsidies.
In 2010, total compensation and benefits at publicly traded Wall Street banks and securities firms hit a record of $135 billion, according to an analysis by The Wall Street Journal. The total is up 5.7% from $128 billion in combined compensation and benefits by the same companies in 2009.
But I don’t get this paragraph:
The increase was fueled by a revenue rebound as the financial crisis recedes in the rearview mirror. At 25 large financial firms that have reported full-year results, revenue rose to $417 billion, another all-time high, even though last year’s 1% increase was just a fraction of the industry’s revenue jolt from 2008 to 2009 as trading and investment banking sprang back to life.
The pay increase was fueled by a 1 percent increase in industry revenue? That doesn’t seem right.
I'm down with The Great Stagnation and all -- low growth and the rising inequality that characterize the U.S. economy over the past 35 years -- but this is a pretty bogus measure of it:
"Although the United States spends at least twice as much on health care, per person, as other industrial countries do, Americans do not live any longer and often have measurably worse health. "
I'm left scratching my head at what Pearlstein is getting at. Shouldn't the measure be a comparison of whether Americans live longer or have measurably better or worse health during the time period? And I think the answer to that is that Americans do live longer and do have measurably better health than they did 35 years ago. Life expectancy at any age is measurably longer, infant mortality and maternal mortality are dramatically lower than in 1975, the burden of disease and disability is smaller, survival rates for many formerly deadly diseases is higher, innovations in cancer, infectious disease, and emergency and trauma treatment have saved and improved countless American lives. (References available upon request.)
True enough, we could and should do better with our health care spending compared to the Europeans -- but I fail to see what relevance that has to the fact that American "median household incomes have barely budged."
Pearlstein (and Cowan) asserts "too much money and talent and effort have gone into sectors where real productivity gains are hard to find." Maybe so, but how exactly do you measure "output" with respect to medicine and health care delivery? It's very easy to find real innovations in medicine and health care and greatly diminished burden of disease in American life over the past 35 years and you don't have to look very hard. But does that translate into "productivity gains"? I don't know, but comparing our health care expenditures to Europe's certainly doesn't.
Maybe you should rethink your uncritical endorsement of Pearlstein's claims, @Ryan? I think that other factors better explain the stagnation of wages, perhaps you'd like to do a piece on that. And Krugman was writing earlier in the week about American productivity versus French here. To wit: Pearlstein's pretty much full of it on this one.
#1 Posted by James, CJR on Wed 2 Feb 2011 at 10:25 PM
What should be explained is why these three sectors (education, financial services and health care) are three of the fastest growing sectors of the economy (in cost as well as in size).
Financial Services is charging rents based on the obfuscation and complexity allowed in a deregulated market. The fact is, even with all their ballooning salaries and bonus structures, as a professional class tasked with managing complexity they are incompetent failures. They are more productive at selling imaginary products at extraordinary prices.
Health Services is actually three industries which compete for rents, all of which are driving the old style, employer insured jobs abroad. Insurance Corporations, Medical Professionals, and Pharmaceutical / Equipment Manufacturer companies are wrestling with each other over dimes - each blaming the other for driving the costs up.
Atul Gawande is the man to read, and he has a nifty article on cost controls this month:
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/01/24/110124fa_fact_gawande
Which brings us to education, why is education booming? In fact why is student loan debt, with their truly onerous terms, exceeding credit card debt?
Look at unemployment, salary data measured against education level. With the demise of manufacturing, the increased productivity of industrial farming (more product per labor = less labor), and competition from Mexican imports
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/02/01/107871/free-trade-us-corn-flows-south.html
the market for low skill labor is destroyed. People need an education, a good one, just to participate in the modern american labor market. Therefore, education demand is high and prices rise. Further driving up the price is the decrease in State contributions to education.
None of these cost increases result from the increased cost of quality. The services haven't really improved, the abilities to charge rents has. As resources develop an essential quality to them, like the professional who manages the complexity of finance or the human body, the premiums for service rise.
And they will rise to what the market will pay, which happens to be a lot when it comes to the essential.
#2 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Wed 2 Feb 2011 at 11:23 PM
An interesting link on the topic I'm talking about:
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2010/03/quelle-surprise-financial-innovation-benefits-innovators-leads-to-product-collapses.html
And how it comes about:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal-agent_problem
#3 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 3 Feb 2011 at 12:28 AM
I think Pearlstein's touching on this terrible fact that, economically speaking, our growth measurements (GDP) cannot differentiate muscle from cancer.
#4 Posted by edward ericson jr., CJR on Thu 3 Feb 2011 at 01:56 PM
Or, from this post:
http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2010/12/upon-what-meat-hath-our-financial-sector-fed-to-grow-so-great.html
differentiate between muscle and fat:
"Over the past thirty years we performed a kind of cosmetic surgery on our economy. First is what was sold as liposuction but turned out to be muscle removal: the move from roughly balanced trade to a permanent, structural trade deficit of 5% of GDP has left us with what would otherwise have been workers and firms producing an extra 5% of GDP in manufacturing missing...
Moving our economy into FIRE did not create lots of new high-paying middle-class jobs for the modern equivalent of past generations' engineers, technicians, and skilled blue-collar craft and assembly workers. Instead, we appear to have more-or-less doubled the profit margins and the pay of our financiers. The legions of bank clerks and back office workers did not see rapid pay increases nor achieve high incomes. It all went to the top...
When you think of it, for finance to collect 30% of corporate profits is terrifying. Finance collects savings from households and lends to younger Americans so that they can buy their houses. But mortgage finance is supposed to be a low-margin low-risk business, with the government providing a backstop. The interest payments on mortgages are supposed to flow through with very small subtractions to the interest earned on the savings accounts of other American households: they are not supposed to be profits...
And it is not all finance. Our newly redrawn map of the U.S. economy shows another leading sector besides finance. The administration of our ill-designed health care system now costs us about 4% of GDP over and above the costs of administering health care in other comparable countries.
Do not get us wrong: we do not hate service industries. But most service industries produce something of value in return for their profits. Health care administration simply produces denials of coverage. Finance as currently construed simply produces portfolios for individuals that involve them bearing extraordinarily large and idiosyncratic risks that they had no idea they were bearing. There are two ways to make money in health care: (i) by providing people with valuable treatments that they are willing to pay for, and (ii) by collecting insurance premiums and finding some excuse not to pay them out when people get sick. There are two ways to make money in finance: (i) to find people who are willing to bear risks that they understand, selling them risks that offer attractive risk-return tradeoffs, and collecting a commission; and (ii) by selling people risks that they don't understand. It looks to us very much as though our modern health-care administration and financial sectors are good at the second but not the first."
#5 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 3 Feb 2011 at 11:56 PM