Rural Hospitals Are No Longer Providing Maternity Care

The Daily Escape:

Perseid meteor shower, from Mt. Evans, CO – August 13, 2023 photo by Paul Blais Photography

Welcome to our Saturday Soother, but first, Wrongo intends to spin you up before eventually letting you slow down.

There’s a crisis in rural healthcare in America. Rural hospitals are closing at a rapid rate. Our county (Litchfield) in Connecticut has one of three remaining hospitals that are designated as rural in the state (Sharon Hospital).

A problem for rural hospitals is that many are closing down their labor and delivery services in order to try and remain economically viable. WSHU, a CT-based NPR affiliate, has covered the impact of these closures to Connecticut. They quote Peiyin Hung, a researcher on maternal and rural health at the University of South Carolina:

“My team has been tracking nationwide, hospital-based obstetric unit closures since 2008 up to 2022,…. Almost 300 hospitals closed their OB units.”

WSHU points out that more than 60% of those closures were in rural areas. Why are so many hospital groups moving away from delivering babies in rural locations?

WSHU quotes Dr. Robert Roose, chief medical officer at Johnson Memorial, a hospital in rural Stafford Springs, CT that closed its obstetric unit. He said that it’s a safety issue. Hospitals with fewer than 200 deliveries a year, like Johnson Memorial, are considered low-volume birthing centers:

“There is a clear and critically important correlation between volume and quality of services provided when it pertains to labor and delivery and maternity care…”.

Three years ago, Hartford HealthCare’s Windham Hospital in Willimantic, CT stopped delivering babies, citing the same concern.

Also, malpractice insurance rates go up for low birth-volume hospitals because insurers feel the risk is higher if doctors aren’t getting sufficient practice with birthing. Hung says another problem is the level of reimbursement:

“Medicaid…pays half as much on average [as] private insurance pays for labor and delivery across the country”.

That’s important because about four in 10 of all Connecticut deliveries are covered by Medicaid. Simply put, delivering babies doesn’t pencil out for many rural hospitals.

There are other factors: Rural America’s demographics skew older. Young families in general prefer living in the suburbs or exurban areas. Couple that with America’s lower birth rate and rural hospitals really can’t maintain the birthing volume they need to remain economically viable.

The Center for Healthcare Quality and Payment Reform, (CHQPR) a Pittsburg-based health policy group published “A Crisis in Rural Maternity Care in the United States” which shows the problem:

“Fewer than half (45%) of the rural hospitals in the US currently offer labor and delivery services, and in 9 states, less than one-third do. Over the past decade, more than 200 rural hospitals across the country have stopped delivering babies”.

More:

“Hundreds of additional communities are at risk of losing maternity care because of the financial challenges rural hospitals are facing….More than 1/3 of the rural hospitals that still have labor & delivery services have been losing money on patient services, so their ability to continue delivering maternity care is at risk.”

CHQPR reports that more than half of small rural maternity care hospitals lost money in 2021-22.

They suggest that a primary reason rural hospitals are losing money is that private insurance plans pay them less than what it costs to deliver many of the services they offer patients, not only maternity care. They point out that while rural hospitals are losing money on uninsured patients and Medicaid patients, the losses from private payers have the biggest impact on their overall profit margins.

CHQPR suggests that a potential solution is to require that health insurance payments actually cover the cost of rural maternity care. With more than 40% of births (on average) in rural communities paid for by private health plans, having the private insurers pay more would help keep rural maternity care viable:

“Payment amounts must be higher in communities that have difficulty attracting staff, and payments must also be higher in communities with smaller numbers of births to ensure that revenues cover the fixed costs.”

This means that the fee-for-service model isn’t working in low-volume hospitals. Rural hospitals are only paid when they actually provide a service, but a small hospital has proportionally higher overheads than larger hospitals, since they must be staffed and ready to deliver a baby at all times, even if there are no deliveries at all. Read CHQPR’s report “A Better Way to Pay Rural Hospitals”.

Back to Connecticut, Sharon Hospital has proposed closing its labor and delivery unit. There will be a public hearing to consider the closure later this year. But Sharon is about an hour from its affiliated hospital (Danbury Hospital) that has a fully-staffed labor and delivery facility. Sharon may actually be closer to two other unaffiliated hospitals in New York state than it is to its own parent facility.

It’s now time for our Saturday Soother. Litchfield County is having beautiful weather this weekend. We’re taking advantage of it by going to a live Baroque music concert, and possibly heading off to the annual fair in a local town.

To help you relax and zone out from all of the Trump indictment analysis, grab a chair outside in the shade and watch and listen to “Gortoz a Ran” (I’m Waiting) sung by Denez Prigent and Lisa Gerrard. The language in the song is Breton, spoken in Brittany, France. It is closely related to Cornish and Welsh, and all three are Celtic tongues. When the Angles, Saxons and Jutes invaded Britain in the fifth century (400-500 AD), many of the Britons in Cornwall, Devon, and the West Country fled across the English Channel to France. Because of the influx of Britons, the region became known as Brittany.

Most of the images in the video are of Scotland, England, Wales, and Brittany. Lisa Gerrard isn’t singing in any language; she’s just vocalizing. The Uilleann pipes, an Irish instrument, are heard at 3:50:

Lyrics: English Translation

I was waiting, waiting for a long time
In the dark shadow of grey towers
In the dark shadow of grey towers

In the dark shadow of rain towers
You will see me waiting forever
You will see me waiting forever

One day it will come back
Over the lands, over the seas

The blue wind will return
And take back with it my wounded heart

I will be pulled away by its breath
Far away in the stream, wherever it wishes

Wherever it wishes, far away from this world
Between the sea and the stars

The song describes waiting, possibly forever: Aren’t we all waiting? What are we waiting for? For whom are we waiting? Happy Saturday!

Facebooklinkedinrss

Reshoring The Semiconductor Industry: The Chips Act

The Daily Escape:

Sunset in Yarmouth Port, Cape Cod, MA – July 2023 photo by Cynthia Maciaga

The semiconductor industry is big, complex, and important. Semiconductors are also an important test case for America’s ability to revive its domestic manufacturing base. There’s a lot riding on Biden’s Chips Act that became law one year ago. It is a $50 billion package of subsidies, tax credits and other sweeteners designed to bring advanced chipmaking back to America.

As a result, Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) is investing $40 billion in Arizona. Samsung is investing $17 billion in Texas. Intel, America’s biggest chipmaker, will spend $40 billion on four semiconductor fabrication plants, or “fabs” in semiconductor parlance, in Arizona and Ohio. Both Democrats and Republicans regard it as a bipartisan legislative triumph.

But, finding highly skilled labor is key to the Act’s success. While America still has world-class semiconductor researchers and designers, we no longer have the kind of skilled labor that turns silicon wafers into electronic circuits. Chief Investment Officer magazine quotes Joseph Quinlan of Bank of America (BOA):

“America’s manufacturing renaissance could either be delayed or derailed by mounting structural headwinds….The US will have graduated only 108,000 technicians (who operate, maintain and fix electronic gear) by 2030, but demand is for 130,000 by then….Similarly, the nation will have produced 42,000 engineers and 21,000 computer scientists at that point, yet will need 69,000 and 34,000, respectively.”

BOA says that the other shortfall is construction workers. Construction of US factories has climbed 80% from a year ago, yet the nation has 374,000 unfilled construction jobs. We’re already seeing the problem. From the Economist:

“…The first of TSMC‘s factories was due to start production next year. But in July it announced that the launch would be put back to 2025 because it could not find enough workers with the expertise to install equipment at such a high-tech facility.”

The problem is during the delicate final phase of installing the most high-end equipment. Mark Liu, TSMC’s chair, said in a July earnings call:

“…there is an insufficient amount of skilled workers with those specialized expertise required for equipment installation in a semiconductor-grade facility.”

As a result, TSMC is sending skilled workers from Taiwan to teach Americans how to do the job. The Commerce Department forecasts that about 100,000 workers may be needed for the construction of these new fabs in the US.

The chip market breaks down into “leading edge” chips, followed by “advanced” chips and “trailing edge” chips, sorted from the smallest chips to the largest. The Economist says that by 2025, American chip factories expect to be churning out 18% of the world’s leading-edge chips (see chart below):

This seems highly optimistic if we can’t get these new plants built or staff them. Leading-edge fabs that are built in America will take longer to build and will be smaller than those in Asia. In China and Taiwan, companies can build out a new fab in 650 days. In America, the average construction time is expected to be 900 days, or 40% longer. Construction costs, therefore, can be 40% more in America than in Asia.

Regarding size, in Arizona, TSMC plans to make 50,000 wafers a month—equivalent to two “mega-fabs”, as the company calls them. In Taiwan, TSMC operates four “giga-fabs”, each producing at least 100,000 wafers a month. Size matters: The more chips a fab makes, the lower the unit cost.

More from the Economist: (emphasis by Wrongo)

“America will produce enough cutting-edge chips to meet only about a third of domestic demand. Apple will keep sourcing high-end processors for its iPhones from Taiwan.”

Overcapacity is a possible threat. The Economist says that in 2019, China made one fifth of “trailing-edge” chips, which go into everything from washing machines to cars and aircraft. But by 2025 it will produce more than a third of them. It’s possible that excess supply from China will put downward pressure on prices. In the long run, this could hurt higher-cost American fabs.

So, while there has been substantial progress in just a year, the US isn’t going to undo 20+ years of offshoring chip manufacturing in the next 24 months. The Commerce Department says it wants companies to collaborate on building up a construction workforce, so that workers trained for one project can move on to other fabs that are being built. In this respect, TSMC’s plan to import Taiwanese trainers is less of a bug than a feature, part of the process of helping to build knowledge.

Once the fabs are built, they’ll need technicians to operate them. Such workers have historically required two years of training at a community college or a vocational school. But companies and educators are experimenting with much shorter courses. Columbus State Community College in Ohio, where Intel is building two fabs, is offering a one-year program. The aim is for students to be job ready for Intel as their fabs come online.

But, will these companies be willing to put candidates with one year’s training anywhere near the multi-million-dollar machinery inside their fabs?

The fabs also need engineers to run them. Universities near some of the fabs under construction, including Arizona State and Ohio State, have expanded their offerings of semiconductor courses as part of degrees in engineering and physical sciences. Leading the charge is Purdue University in Indiana: last year it launched a semiconductor degree program for both undergraduates and graduates.

And the flow of students seems encouraging. Intel expected 100 registrants for its quick-start courses, but 900 showed up. At Purdue enrollment has also been very strong. Handshake, a job platform for recent graduates, reported that applications for full-time jobs at semiconductor companies were up by 79% compared with last year, versus 19% in other sectors.

Returning to having a strong, vibrant high tech manufacturing industry in the US is good, both strategically and economically. But for the immediate future, it remains a gamble: We’re saying that the economic reasoning for moving manufacturing offshore in the past still exists. But it’s important enough strategically that we (and these profit-seeking corporations) will somehow underwrite the cost disadvantages.

Relearning basic skills such as cutting wafers into chips and packaging them in hard plastic casings will take time. The welcome news for these new fabs is that colleges and universities see an opportunity in helping train the new labor force.

But we will still be dependent on other countries. We do not have a secure domestic supply of lithium, nickel, graphite and other minerals needed to expand production of solar panels, wind turbines, semiconductors and electric vehicles. BOA points out that American imports of lithium-ion batteries from China more than doubled in 2022, to $9 billion.

So, while there’s lots going on that may someday be positive, China represents a potentially dangerous choke point given that US-Sino bilateral relations are at a decade’s low. We’re depending on them to continue providing much of the materials crucial to our new manufacturing capacity, while we’re in the middle of a serious rift with them.

Reshoring manufacturing, especially high value manufacturing is America’s dream. But it will take unprecedented cooperation between the government, multinational firms and our higher education system to make it happen.

Facebooklinkedinrss

The Problems With Childcare

The Daily Escape:

Sunset with Cosmos flowers, Blue Ridge Mountains, Franklin, NC – August 2023 photo by Amy Barr

Monday’s Wake Up Call is that we’re in the middle of a childcare crisis, one that dates back to WWII. Daycare costs too much, daycare workers don’t earn enough, and many daycares don’t make money and are going out of business.

Today, anyone who has tried shopping for day care knows that it’s a tough marketplace. Care.com, an online platform where people can hire housekeepers, pet caretakers, nannies, and more, publishes a yearly Cost of Care Report to help US families understand the cost of childcare. Their June 2023 report found that on average, US parents spend 27% of their household income on childcare expenses:

 “Households with children make up 40% of the total US population. And with a national family median household income of $91K, child care costs for the typical American family are even more staggering:

– 45% of families earning less than $100K annually will spend more than $18,000 on childcare in 2023, amounting to 18% of their household income (HHI).

-43% of families earning less than $75K will spend more than $18,000, amounting to 24% of their HHI.

-39% of families earning less than $50K per year will spend more than $18,000, amounting to a whopping 36% of their HHI.”

And increasingly, economists are saying that more women would be working if childcare was available. From Axios:

“In a research note about Friday’s jobs report, the chief economist at consulting firm RSM US did something surprising: Instead of talking about rate hikes or soft landings, he made the case for universal child care.”

Axios quotes RSM’s Joe Brusuelas:

“Childcare for kids under the age of 5 is increasingly an issue for more mainstream economists who are concerned about the prospect of long-term labor shortages in the US. Universal childcare is the most realistic way to help expand the labor force at a time when the economy needs workers the most,”

More:

The US needs more workers, and there are more women sitting on the sidelines of the labor market than men.

-Right now, close to 86% of working-age men are employed compared with 75% of women. That’s a record for women, but it’s also far below the rates for men — there’s room to grow.

-Substantial childcare investments, like those proposed in the now defunct Build Back Better bill, could increase mothers’ employment by 7 percentage points, with bigger jumps for low-income families, according to estimates in an NBER paper published last year.”

The underlying problem is the economics of childcare. First, it’s difficult to get information about childcare costs either online or over the phone: Daycares often only share their prices after you have visited their facilities. And many daycares have waitlists stretching from six months to a year.

Economists say that long waitlists are a classic sign that something’s wrong with that particular marketplace. In this case, waitlists indicate that daycare prices are too low. But parents say that the price for daycare is actually too high. NPR reports that the median price in daycare for an infant in a large county in the U.S. is $17,000 a year. Also, more than 60% of families can’t afford the full cost of quality day care.

Meanwhile, daycare owners can barely afford to stay open. NPR interviewed a daycare provider in Iowa who said that salaries are 83% of their monthly budget:

“Five percent goes to their loan payment. 4% is operating expenses, cleaning supplies, snow removal, play kitchens, things like that. Three percent is utilities. Another 3% goes to groceries….And 2% is for their insurance and their building insurance and worker’s comp.”

Along with labor, that equals 100%, meaning the center makes no profit. It’s probable that the daycare owner’s pay is in the 83% labor total, but still it means zero profit. The Iowa daycare pays its staff between $12 to $15 an hour, while the local Chick-Fil-A advertises $16.75/hour to start. The Iowa daycare has a census of 72 kids, which requires 25 staff.

Daycares are required by law to hire a ratio of staff/per child, a higher number than other low-wage industries, like fast foods need. In fast food, labor is about 25% of the total costs, and the volume of sales is in the tens of thousands, not the 72 kids that a wage increase would effect in the Iowa daycare.

Since labor costs are such a  high percentage of total costs in daycare, increasing wages means prices paid by families of children in daycare have to rise drastically to cover the higher costs. Wrongo did a back of the envelope calculation for the Iowa center. If their base pay was $12/hour and it was raised to $15, the average monthly charge for one of the 72 children already in daycare would increase by $360/month, or about 47%!

The broken system is made worse in the US because we don’t have long maternity and paternity leaves.

Funding for childcare that was put in place during the pandemic is set to run out in September. Once we hit that “childcare cliff,” 3.2 million children will lose federal funding. More centers will either have to raise prices, cut staff or shut their doors.

Universal childcare has a tortured history in the US. During World War II, women replaced men in the domestic workforce. But who would take care of the children? The US government answered by enacting the Lanham Act, the first and only universal child care program in American history. An estimated 550,000 to 600,000 children received care through these facilities, which cost parents 50 to 75 cents per child, per day. The program ended in 1946.

Nixon vetoed a universal childcare bill in 1971 that would have created federally-funded public childcare centers across the US because Conservatives argued that the bill was communist and that it would be the end of the American family. A group called Iowans for Moral Education asked “Whose Children? Yours or the State’s?

Time to wake up America! If you don’t want society to help take care of kids, you’re an asshole no matter what reason you give for being against funding. These kids didn’t ask to be here and they have done nothing to deserve not having societal support. If you think you can make America great again by making it harder to take care of kids, you’re wrong.

To help you wake up, watch and listen to a scene from the 2003 film “Daddy Daycare”. In this scene, Charlie (Eddie Murphy) and Kim (Regina King) try to find a good preschool for their son Ben, but it turns out to be impossible. Life’s still like this 20 years later:

Facebooklinkedinrss

Monday Wake Up Call – July 17, 2023

The Daily Escape:

Comb Ridge, UT & AZ – July 2023 photo by RC Bullough Photography

Wrongo and Ms. Right were urban pioneers in NYC in the early 1980s. We rented a loft on Maiden Lane in the financial district. Back then, we had to go uptown or to Hoboken, NJ for groceries because there were so few people living amongst the downtown forest of office towers.

But by the 2020 census, lower Manhattan was the fourth fastest-growing residential neighborhood in NYC. Since the pandemic, downtowns have looked more like the ghost towns of the 1980s with so many workers adapting to remote work. And they seem to be staying away.

Things are going to get interesting. We may be at the beginning of a massive structural change, not just a temporary blip impacting office towers: It seems that companies have figured out they won’t ever need this vast amount of vacant office space. Brookings says that office utilization averages less than 50% across major US downtowns. While The Gothamist reports that national office vacancies are at a high of 19.2% (compared to 12.6% in early 2020). They also report that McKinsey predicts that remote work will erase $800 billion from urban office real estate values.

This has many cities thinking about conversion of office space into residential space. In NYC, 25 Water Street, which was once home to the Daily News and JPMorgan Chase, has a plan to gut the offices, carve out courtyards and add 10 floors to the 22-story structure. GFP Real Estate and Metro Loft bought the building, formerly known as 4 New York Plaza, in December for about $250 million.

One loophole is that the Financial District doesn’t require that the conversions include any affordable housing. So this project will not have any apartments with capped rents for low-income units. That isn’t true in other parts of the City, like Midtown, Queens or the Bronx.

Boston is testing an incentive program for developers to convert empty downtown offices into housing. Mayor Michelle Wu announced that the owners of repurposed buildings could get up to 75% off on their property taxes. Boston’s office market vacancy rate climbed to 14.2% in the second quarter, the highest level in 20 years, according to data from CBRE Group Inc. And median monthly rent for a one-bedroom apartment has jumped 8% in the past year to $2,800.

Boston’s downtown has about half of the city’s office space. An October 2022 report commissioned by the city found that economic activity downtown remained 20% to 40% below pre-pandemic levels for industries like retail.

Back in NYC, Mayor Eric Adams is also proposing incentives to designate 136 million square feet of office space for conversion to residential development. It’s worked before: A 1995 tax break for conversions helped create 13,000 new apartment units in Lower Manhattan.

Brookings raises the question of what the taxpayers’ interest should be in these conversions:

“To what extent are current high office vacancies a market problem whose burden falls on the private sector (property owners and investors) and to what extent do they represent a market failure and policy problem to which government must respond with financial support from the public?”

The advocates of tax breaks and other financial incentives say it will:

  • Help drive foot traffic to downtown businesses struggling from a lack of commuters.
  • Bolster municipal coffers, as cities often rely on property taxes from office buildings.
  • Supply much-needed housing amid a shortage that has many paying exorbitant rents.

It seems that office-to-home conversions are no more a comprehensive remedy for housing than e-bikes are for transit issues. Few office buildings are truly suited for conversion. It’s often more straightforward for developers to knock down the existing structure and build condos from scratch.

Moreover, the best thing that cities can do to encourage more housing is to loosen zoning restrictions, allowing multi-use and apartment buildings to be developed rather than just supply tax breaks.

The battle lines are drawn. The 25 Water St. developer said state and city lawmakers will have to pay up if they actually want to turn vacant offices into homes:

“The politicians, if they want to create housing in New York City out of these buildings, they will need to provide significant incentives….And if they want to provide affordable housing, those incentives would have to be even higher.”

Time to wake up America! We can’t let our mayors give away more tax revenues to developers! We’re unsure if the current rate of office utilization will improve or not, so cities need to be smart about what they do next. To help you wake up, we dust off an oldie. Here are the Rolling Stones with “Salt of the Earth” from their album “Beggars Banquet”. Performed live at the Rolling Stones Rock and Roll Circus in 1968. This was the first tune where Keith Richards had the lead vocal:

Sample Lyric:

Raise your glass to the hard-working people
Let’s drink to the uncounted heads
Let’s think of the wavering millions
who need leaders but get gamblers instead

Facebooklinkedinrss

Sunday Cartoon Blogging – July 16, 2023

The WaPo has an excellent briefing on Biden’s new border policy. If you’ve wondered why there’s no longer mass chaos at the southern border since Title 42 was lifted, it’s because the Biden administration has completely transformed how migrants, asylum-seekers, and those who enter illegally are treated.

You have to apply to enter the US legally by making an appointment using an app. It can take up to six weeks to get the appointment, but once you do, you are interviewed, photographed, and released to a social service agency that helps migrants, or a relative or sponsor who has registered with the feds. (Plus the app uses GPS to track your movements.) You then wait for your application for asylum to be processed and your claim adjudicated.

If you enter illegally, you are sent to a massive tent city to be fed and given necessities. You get your health checked out. And then you are sent back over the border with instructions on how to apply legally via the app.

The two processes illustrate the extent to which the Biden administration has transformed the way asylum seekers and migrants are processed along the southern border. As a result, illegal crossings have dropped by close to 70% since early May. Yes, 43,000 asylum-seekers get into the US every month. But until Congressional Republicans agree to a sensible immigration policy, controlling the influx in this manner seems to be the best alternative. On to cartoons.

What the GOP cares about:

We won’t fight climate change, so you’ll have to:

The GOP’s latest tangent:

The GOP decides the FBI is liberal:

It’s ironic that the GOP wants to defund the FBI which has always been a Republican bastion. And if the Elephant wants help with his minor surgery, Wrongo’s happy to assist. It’s doubtful that the FBI is about to start prosecuting illegal corporate activities with the same eagerness they showed when chasing after BLM and Occupy Wall Street.

Trump’s latest delay tactic:

Hollywood’s on strike:

Facebooklinkedinrss

Two Data Points That Say Much About Our Economy

The Daily Escape:

Another Alaska pic: Wrongo was in a kayak about 20 yards from this big guy asking himself whether he could out-paddle a charging grizzly. June 21, 2023 photo by Kristina Rau for the cruise line.

Today let’s talk about two interrelated economic issues. First, with more than 200,000 jobs created in the US economy in June, nearly 4 million more people are now employed than just before the pandemic.

Heather Long at the WaPo looked at who’s getting them. Along the way, she busts a few Right Wing myths:

“The mistaken notion that Americans don’t want to work can now be put to rest. Nearly 81% of Americans ages 25 to 54 are working, the highest share since 2001.”

Long reminds us that in March 2022, Fed Chair Powell argued the labor market was “unhealthy”:

“There was a misguided belief that it would take a recession to get supply and demand for goods — and workers — back to more normal levels. But what many experts missed was how many workers of color and immigrants wanted to work and were still looking for opportunities.”

Long provides the demographic breakdown for our recent job gains:

“Fewer White people are employed now than pre-pandemic. In contrast, over 2 million more Hispanics are employed now, over 800,000 more Asian Americans and over 750,000 more African Americans.”

Before the pandemic, companies were complaining that they couldn’t find workers, while the experts were saying the nation was at “full employment.” However, every month, Black and Hispanic people (largely women) kept entering the labor force and getting jobs.

Also, more than 2 million more foreign-born people are employed now than before the pandemic. This means that more than half of the new workers have been immigrants.

This is partly a result of low unemployment. Blacks and Hispanics often do not get hired until late in an economic recovery. In the past year, there’s also been a strong uptick in jobs in government and health care, two sectors in which women of color have historically found employment opportunities.

Employers have also loosened their hiring criteria, offering improved pay and benefits, and removing requirements for college degrees for many positions. Long says:

This past spring, for the first time, Black Americans were as likely to be employed as White Americans.”

What a change! Hard to see much “socialism” in this new jobs analysis.  This is good news that disputes the old Right wing bromides about how “these folks don’t want work; they want to sit back and get free stuff”.

Second, the WaPo’s Department of Data, a new statistical analysis feature, answered the question:

“Which states contribute the most to the federal budget in taxes, and which get the most back in terms of benefits?”

They start by reminding us where tax revenue comes from:

“The vast bulk of the $4 trillion in revenue the federal government received in 2021 came in the form of income taxes and payroll taxes for Medicare and Social Security. Most of the rest comes from corporate income taxes and excise taxes on goods such as gasoline and alcohol.”

And just 4.5% of that income (customs duties and earnings on Federal Reserve deposits) cannot be traced to individual states.

But let’s get to the good stuff. Just eight blue states, (CA, NY, NJ, MA, CT, WA, NH, and CO) pay more in taxes to the federal government than they receive in federal benefits. They therefore subsidize all other states. Every other state receives more federal money than they pay in taxes.

And unsurprisingly 9 of the 11 top recipients of federal benefits are red states (KY, WVA, MS, AL, AK, LA, OK, AK, SC).

Nine of the 10 states that sent the most to the federal government, per person, voted for Biden in 2020. Nine of the 10 states that sent the least voted for Trump. So who’s got the bigger stake in socialism?

Its important to remember that when Republicans complain about “out of control” federal spending, most of them live in a state that receives more from the federal government than they contribute.

If we ever called their bluff, Republicans would scramble to decide what federal benefits their home states would be willing to give up in order to cut federal spending.

But of course, they would simply bluster on about socialism in the cities.

Maybe we should divide America into the MAKER states and the TAKER states. It’s nice to see that the data again shows Blue states are far more productive. Maybe another question for the Department of Data is:

“Why is higher income so closely aligned with support for Democrats?”

Facebooklinkedinrss

How To Think Differently About Housing

The Daily Escape:

Sunrise, Outer Banks, NC – June 2023 photo by Stephen P. Szymanski

Wrongo and Ms. Right have 12 grandchildren, only one of which is still in high school. The other 11 are out of school and pursuing their careers or are finishing their education. Only one of the 12 owns a home. Their experience with real estate is representative of what most younger Americans face in today’s real estate market. Ben Carlson uses data from Redfin to show us that mortgage payments are way up over prior years:

The median mortgage payment was up by more than $1,000 over four years. Carlson reminds us that this is just the monthly mortgage payment, it doesn’t include insurance, property taxes or upkeep. This is part of the reason that housing affordability is more excruciating — the pace of the increases has happened so quickly. We’ve simply never seen prices and rates rise this fast in such a short period of time. And asking prices are up as well:

Note that at the end of May 2023, the median asking price was $397k, up from $300k in May 2020, a 32% increase in four years.

But high mortgage rates and rising home prices aren’t deterring all buyers. John Burns Research shows buyers still outnumber sellers by a wide margin in today’s market. They report that as of April, even with 7% mortgage rates, 78% of all real estate agents say that buyers outnumber sellers in their markets.

And for rentals, the national median rent for a one-bedroom apartment has climbed to $1,504, according to research from Zumper. That’s significant: It’s only the second time in history that it has risen past $1,500. But the median doesn’t represent what you’ll pay in big cities:

In America, buying an investment property near work is more lucrative than actually working. The growth of asset values has outstripped returns on labor for four decades. Last year, one in four home sales was to someone who had no intention of living in it. Investors are incentivized to buy the type of homes most needed by first-time buyers: Inexpensive properties generate the highest rental-income cash flows.

Harvard’s Joint Center for Housing Studies found that in 2019, the median net worth of US renters was just 2.5% of the median net worth of homeowners: $6,270 versus $254,900. There’s no better example than the economic challenges to America’s young persons than trying to find (relatively) affordable housing near where they work.

A very interesting article in the May 23 NYT Magazine suggests a possible solution to housing inflation. Vienna, Austria began planning it’s now world-famous municipal housing in 1919. Prior to that, Vienna had some of the worst housing conditions in Europe. Vienna’s housing program is known as “social housing” (Gemeindebauten), a phrase that captures how the city’s public housing and other limited-profit housing are a widely-shared social benefit:

“The Gemeindebauten welcomes the middle class, not just the poor. In Vienna, a whopping 80% of residents qualify for public housing, and once you have a contract, it never expires, even if you get richer.”

Vienna isn’t a small town. Its population is just under 2 million, and if it were in the US it would be our fifth largest city, between Houston and Phoenix.

The availability of Vienna’s social housing also helps to keep costs down even for private housing:

“In 2021, Viennese living in private housing spent 26% of their after-tax income on rent and energy costs on average, which is…slightly more than the figure for social-housing residents overall (22%).”

One of the reasons Vienna’s social housing works is that it is not means-tested; it is open to middle class people. And as a result, the residents care more about whether their grounds stay clean and beautiful. In the US we restrict public housing to the poorest of the poor, making public housing something to escape from, not to enjoy.

Meanwhile, 49% of American renters are paying landlords more than 30% of their pretax income, In New York City, the median renter household spends 36% of its pretax income on rent.

The key difference is that Vienna prioritizes subsidizing construction, while the US prioritizes subsidizing people, like with housing vouchers. One model focuses on supply, the other on demand. Vienna’s choice illustrates a fundamental economic reality, which is that a large-enough supply of social housing offers a market alternative that improves housing for all.

Calls for a federal social-housing plan in America might sound far-fetched but the US government is already deeply involved in the housing market. There’s generous support for homeowners and deliberately insufficient support for the lowest-income households. In 2017, the US gave $155 billion on tax breaks to homeowners and to investors in rental housing and mortgage-revenue bonds, more than three times the $50 billion spent on affordable housing.

For many, housing expense can be an economic burden. And it’s hard to even contemplate what it would mean to have it not be a problem. What’s mind-boggling is how social housing gives the economic lives of Viennese an entirely different shape.

Imagine where the rest of America’s young adults’ income might go if they were able to spend much less of it on housing. Vienna’s program is a look into a world in which homeownership isn’t the only way to secure a financial future.

Facebooklinkedinrss

Monday Wake Up Call – June 5, 2023

The Daily Escape:

Blue Ridge mountains, NC – June 2023 photo by Michele Schwartz

It’s getting to be long enough into our economic recovery that we’ve started to ignore the monthly jobs report by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). Luckily, Simon Rosenberg doesn’t let us forget: (brackets by Wrongo)

“The…BLS jobs report is out and it’s another good one – 339,000 net new jobs, [plus] 432,000…upward revisions from previous months. With this new data my monthly jobs tracker clocks in at:

-33.8m jobs – 16 years of Clinton, Obama

-13.1m jobs – 28 months of Biden

-1.9m jobs – 16 years of Bush, Bush and Trump

Biden’s 13.1m jobs is almost 7 times as many jobs as were created in the 16 years of the last 3 Republican Presidencies, combined.”

Since the end of the Cold War, the US has seen 49 million new jobs created. Remarkably, 47 million of those 49 million jobs were created under Democratic Presidents.

On the Democratic Party’s watch we’ve seen strong economic growth. OTOH, during the same time, Republican presidents have overseen three consecutive recessions. It’s not a stretch to say that the GOP’s economic track record over the past 30 years has been among the worst in US history.

Consider Biden’s record of economic growth:

  • GDP growth under Biden is 3+%, or 3 times what it was under Trump.
  • Almost 7 times as many Biden jobs as last 3 GOP Presidents combined.
  • Best post Covid economic recovery among the G7 countries.
  • Lowest unemployment rate in a peacetime economy since WWII.
  • Lowest poverty/uninsured rates ever.
  • Real corporate earnings up in 2022.

Despite what the GOP is saying to the press about their being deficit hawks, the federal deficit went up every year under Trump, and has come down every year under Biden. Rosenberg adds this helpful chart of GDP growth by president:

So why is it that Americans aren’t convinced that the economy has improved since the pandemic? In a new poll from the AP-NORC, asking if the nation’s economic conditions are in good shape, the percentage who agree is down from 30% last month to 24%. Only a third of Americans in the new survey approve of how Biden’s handling the economy, while two-thirds disapprove.

In the survey, Democrats were more likely than Republicans to view economic conditions favorably, but just 41% of them say the economy’s good and only 7% of Republicans agree. And both numbers are down from the previous month for both Parties.

Now this may be at least partially due to the Republicans scare tactics about the Debt Ceiling. The Hill reports that this AP-NORC poll is in line with other recent surveys that suggest most Americans think the country’s economy is in poor shape, Other polls also indicate low confidence in the economic leadership team.

Axios suggests a different way to view the economic issue. They looked at Federal Reserve survey data from 2017-2022, which shows that people think they’re personal economy is doing just fine, while they think the national economy is in terrible shape:

This is most likely because of the media’s awfulizing about our economy. Obviously, consumer prices are high, but inflation is coming down. But even if inflation went to zero, today’s prices will still be much higher than Americans were accustomed to pre-pandemic, so people will be complaining.

And we can’t discount the negative impact of Congressional dysfunction about the Debt Ceiling, or all the news bunnies crying about our unsustainable national debt.

Still, our economy continues to do better than even the economists think. The May employment report marked the 14th straight month that more jobs were created than economists expected. Our GDP continues to grow (it’s up more than 5% from its pre-pandemic peak), even after accounting for inflation.

The average US employee now makes $33.44 per hour, 17.5% more than before the pandemic. The stock market is up 10% so far this year, but still, Americans aren’t buying it. Axios’ Felix Salmon reports that while Americans say that they’re broadly happy with their personal finances (above chart), in other polls, a majority consistently think (erroneously) that we’re currently in a recession.

Time to wake up America! Things are rolling along reasonably well, even if they’re not fantastic. We have the best job market in 50 years, and there’s no recession on the horizon. As the Rolling Stones said: “You can’t always get what you want…”. Maybe it’s time to look at the glass as half full.

To help you wake up, watch and listen to Alan Jackson cover Eddie Cochran’s 1958 “Summertime Blues” in 1994. The Blue Cheer had the radio hit with it in 1968. Wrongo loves three versions of this song: Blue Cheer, the Who, and this Allen Jackson cover:

Facebooklinkedinrss

Sunday Cartoon Blogging – June 4, 2023

Diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives or DEI, are intended to address inequities against historically marginalized groups and individuals who are working within an organization. DEI are three closely linked values that work together to be supportive of different groups of individuals, including people of different races, ethnicities, religions, abilities, genders, and sexual orientations.

DEI has recently come under fire. It’s at the center of some political battles being waged by Republican governors Greg Abbott and Ron DeSantis. Several Red states are considering or have passed legislation targeting DEI in public institutions. Texas passed a bill with a rider banning the use of state funds for DEI programs in universities and colleges. A similar bill to ban spending on DEI in public universities has been advanced in Iowa.

But Chick-fil-A? The same Chick-fil-A that’s given millions of dollars to anti-LGBTQ hate groups? The Chick-fil-A that conservatives circled the wagons around a few years ago after liberals criticized the owners for being haters?

They’re taking MAGA fire for creating a DEI policy and hiring someone to oversee the program. MAGA suddenly realized that Chick-fil-A had gone woke! But their program has been around since 2020. On to cartoons.

Nobody is safe:

Signs are everywhere:

MAGA says ya can’t help trans kids:

Our PolyCrisis government:

It’s a very old game, but Trump’s surrounded:

The Sacklers win:

Victory lap for Biden:

Facebooklinkedinrss

The Two-Edged Sword Of Federalism

The Daily Escape:

Mount Evans Road, 14,100′, Idaho Springs, CO – May 26, 2023 photo by Reid Neureiter

Here at the Wrongologist, we often talk about Constitutional rights, but we rarely talk about Federalism. So today, let’s lean into federal vs. states’ rights. We’ll start with the recent Supreme Court decision in Sackett vs. EPA, which concerned the power of the EPA to regulate wetlands. Last week, the Supreme Court concluded that the Clean Water Act only applies to wetlands with “a continuous surface connection” to bodies of water.

This defined what waterbodies are considered waters of the United States (WOTUS), an issue that has been in the courts for years. The ruling narrowed the scope of the Clean Water Act, and severely limits the federal government’s ability to regulate wetlands.

Justice Samuel Alito’s opinion affirmed the principle that bureaucrats cannot broadly define statutory language. Alito’s opinion struck a blow for federalism. Federalism is a system of government in which the same territory is controlled by two levels of government. The US Constitution originally divided the exercise of political power between one national and many state governments. The national government is given control over matters affecting the whole nation. All other issues were reserved to the states.

  • Article VI of the Constitution contains the Supremacy Clause, which says that when the laws of the federal government are in conflict with the laws of a state’s government, the federal law supersedes the state law.
  • Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution describes specific powers which belong to the federal government. These powers are referred to as enumerated powers.
  • The Tenth Amendment reserves to the states those powers that are not delegated to the federal government.

The Sackett vs. EPA decision is another step in the Right-wing program to move as much federal government rule-making authority as possible to the states. This is the continuation of Nixon’s efforts to shrink the federal government’s power by devolving decisions to state and local governments. The best recent example of this is the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision on abortion that wiped out the precedent set in Roe v. Wade that guaranteed a national right to abortion and passed that responsibility back to the states.

At the same time, the Right is moving to nationalize policy on social issues, from what books to allow on library shelves to limits on transgender rights, a rollback of state environmental actions, and an attack on anything that can be labeled as “woke.”

So we’ve got Red states pushing to centralize decisions about social and cultural issues in Washington, while the Right-wing Supreme Court pushes devolution of voting rights, abortion rights, and indeed national agency rule-making (EPA) to the states.

This 2023 brand of two-way Republican federalism is upending the delicate balance of power between the federal government and state governments. It raises questions about the allocation of authority, cooperation, and the ability of the national government even to define what is a pressing national issue.

Today’s Washington gridlock makes policymaking nearly impossible. That has shifted much of today’s policymaking to the states, where the Parties often have comfortable majorities. Many states (39) have government trifectas, with one Party controlling the governorship while holding majorities in the legislature, making policymaking simpler than in a divided and polarized US Congress.

Interest group activists have followed this trend and focused their efforts on these 39 states. Much of a state’s policies – abortion, voting rights, gun control, immigration, LGBT rights, healthcare, or taxation – are on widely divergent paths. For example:

  • In Democratic states it is easy to vote; in Republican states there are many barriers to voting.
  • In Democratic states fewer people are medically uninsured; in Republican states there are more uninsured people.
  • In Democratic states access to abortion is easier; in Republican states it is harder, if not criminalized.

Although federalism (for now) seems to protect the country from presidents amassing power in dictatorial ways, anti-democratic figures (think DeSantis and Abbott) are able, because of the resurgence of state-level policymaking, to transform Republican states into laboratories against democracy.

The Covid pandemic also put federalism to the test. The response to the pandemic highlighted the tension between national coordination and state autonomy. While the federal government provided guidance and resources, the implementation of measures like lockdowns, mask mandates, and vaccination campaigns, was largely left to individual states. This decentralized approach led to significant variations in pandemic response across the country, creating challenges in coordinating efforts and potentially exacerbating the spread of the virus.

Federalism properly implemented, brings government closer to the people and holds it accountable. But when badly implemented, you get the USA in 2023: A country trending toward autocracy.

Facebooklinkedinrss