Fund the Washington Area Transit System With A Mandatory Fee on Commuter Parking Spaces

A.  Introduction

The Washington region’s primary transit authority (WMATA, for Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, which operates both the Metrorail system and the primary bus system in the region) desperately needs additional funding.  While there are critical issues with management and governance which also need to be resolved, everyone agrees that additional funding is a necessary, albeit not sufficient, element of any recovery program. This post will address only the funding issue.  While important, I have nothing to contribute here on the management and governance issues.

WMATA has until now been funded, aside from fares, by a complex set of financial contributions from a disparate set of political jurisdictions in the Washington metropolitan region (four counties, three municipalities, plus Washington, DC, the states of Maryland and Virginia, and the federal government, for a total of 11 separate political jurisdictions). Like for governments everywhere, budgets are limited.  Not surprisingly, the decisions on how to share out the costs of WMATA are politically difficult, and especially so as a higher contribution by one jurisdiction, if not matched by others, will lead to a lower share in the costs by those others.  And unlike most large transit systems in the US, WMATA depends entirely (aside from fares) on funding from political jurisdictions.  It has no dedicated source of tax revenues.

This is clearly not working.  Everyone agrees that additional funding is needed, and most agree that a dedicated funding source needs to be created to supplement the funds available to WMATA.  But there is no agreement on what that additional funding source should be.  There have been several proposals, including an increase in the sales tax rate in the region or a special additional tax on properties located near Metro stations, but each has difficulties and there is no consensus.  As I will discuss below, there are indeed issues with each.  They would not provide a good basis for funding transit.

The recommendation developed here is that a fee on commuter parking spaces would provide the best approach to providing the additional funding needed by the Washington region’s transit system.  This alternative has not figured prominently in the recent discussion, and it is not clear why.  It might be because of an unfounded perception that such a fee would be difficult to implement.  As discussed below, this is not the case at all.  It could be easily implemented as part of the property tax system that is used throughout the Washington region.  It should be considered as an approach to raising the funds needed, and would perhaps serve as an alternative that could break the current impasse resulting from a lack of consensus for any of the other alternatives that have been put forward thus far.

Four factors need to be considered in any assessment of possible options to fund the transit systems.  These are:

  • Feasibility:  Would it be possible to implement the option in practical terms?  If it cannot be implemented, there is no point in considering it further.
  • Effectiveness:  Would the option be able to raise the amount of funds needed, with the parameters (such as the tax rates) at reasonable levels that would not be so high as to create problems themselves?
  • Efficiency:  Would the economic incentives created by the option work in the direction one wants, or the opposite?
  • Fairness:  Would the tax or option be fair in terms of who would pay for it?  Would it be disproportionately paid for by the poor, for example?

This blog post will assess to what degree these four tests are met by each of several major options that have been proposed to provide additional funding to WMATA.  A mandatory fee on parking spaces will be considered first, and in most detail.  Many will call this a tax on parking, and that is OK.  It is just a label.  But I would suggest it should be seen as a fee on rush hour drivers, who make use of our roads and fill them up to the point of congestion.  It can be considered similar to the fees we pay on our water bills – one would be paying a fee for using our roads at the times when their capacity is strained.  But one should not get caught up in the polemics:  Whether tax or mandatory fee, they would be a charge on the parking spaces used by those commuters who drive.

Other options then considered are an increase in the bus and rail fares charged, an increase in the sales tax rate on all goods purchased in the region, and enactment of a special or additional property tax on land and development close to the Metrorail stations in the region.

No one disputes that enactment of any of these taxes or fees or higher fares will be politically difficult.  But the Washington region would collapse if its Metrorail system collapsed.  Metrorail was until recently the second busiest rail transit system in the US in terms of ridership (after New York).  However, Metrorail ridership declined in recent years, to the point that it was 17% lower in FY2016 than what it was in FY2010.  The decline is commonly attributed to a combination of relatively high fares, lack of reliability, and the increased safety concerns of recent years, combined most recently with periodic shutdowns on line segments in order to carry out urgent repairs and maintenance. Despite this, Metrorail in 2016 was still the third busiest rail system in the country (just after Chicago).

But the Washington region cannot afford this decline in transit use.  Its traffic congestion, even with Metro operating, is by various measures either the worst in the nation or one of the worst.  Furthermore, the traffic congestion is not just in or near the downtown area.  As offices have migrated to suburban centers over the last several decades, traffic during rush hour is now horrendous not simply close to the city center, but throughout the region. See, for example, this screen shot from a Google Maps image I took at typical weekday afternoon during rush hour (5:30 pm on Tuesday, April 18):

The roads shown in red have traffic backed up.  The congestion is bad not simply around downtown, nor simply on the notoriously congested Capital Beltway as well, but also on roads at the very outer reaches of the suburbs.  The problem is region-wide, and it is in the interest of everyone in the region that it be addressed.

A good and well-run transit system will be a necessary component of what will be needed to fix this, although this is just the minimum.  And for this, it will be fundamental that there be a change in approach from a short-term focus on resolving the immediate crisis by some patch, to a perspective that focuses on how best to utilize, and over time enhance, the overall transportation system assets of the Washington region.  This includes both the Metro system assets (where a value of $40 billion has been commonly cited, presumably based on its historical cost) but also the value of the highways and bridges and parking facilities of the region, with a cost and a value that would add up to far more. These assets are not well utilized now.  A proper funding system for WMATA should take this into account.  If it is not, one can end up with empty seats on transit while the roads are even more congested.

The first question, however, is how much additional funding is required for WMATA.  The next section will examine that.

B.  WMATA’s Additional Funding Needs

How much is needed in additional funding for WMATA?  There is not a simple answer, and any answer will depend not only on the time frame considered but also on what the objective is.

To start, the FY18 budget for WMATA as originally drawn up in the fall of 2016 found there to be a $290 million gap between expenditures it considered to be necessary based on the current plans, and the revenues it forecast it would receive from fares (and other revenue generating activities such as parking fees at the stations and from advertising) and what would be provided under existing formulae from the political jurisdictions.  This gap was broadly similar in magnitude to the gaps found in recent years at a similar stage in the process.  And as in earlier years, this $290 million gap was largely closed by one-off measures that one could not (or at least should not) be used again.  In particular, funds were shifted from planned expenditures to maintain or build up the capital assets of the system, to cover current operating costs instead.

Looking forward, all the estimates of the additional funding needs are far higher.  To start, an analysis by Jeffrey DeWitt, the CFO of Washington, DC, released in October 2016 as part of a Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (COG) report, estimated that at a minimum, WMATA faced a shortfall over the next ten years averaging $212 million per year on current operations and maintenance, and $330 million per year for capital needs, for a total of $542 million a year.  This estimate was based on an assumption of a capital investment program summing to $12 billion over the ten years.

But the “10-Year Capital Needs” report issued by WMATA a short time later estimated that the 10-year capital needs of WMATA would be $17.4 billion simply to bring Metro assets up to a “state of good repair” and maintain them there.  It estimated an additional $8 billion would be needed for modest new investments – needed in part to address certain safety issues.  But even if one limited the ten-year capital program to the $17.4 billion to get assets to a state of good repair, there would be a need for an additional $540 million a year over the October 2016 DeWitt estimates, i.e. a doubling of the earlier figure to almost $1.1 billion a year.

A more recent, and conservative, figure has been provided by Paul Wiedefeld, the General Manager of WMATA, in a report released on April 19.  He recommended that while Metro has capital needs totaling $25 billion over the next ten years, he would propose that a minimum of $15.5 billion be covered for the system “to remain safe and reliable”.  Even with this reduced capital investment program, he estimated that if funding from the jurisdictions remained at historical levels, there would be a 10-year funding gap of $7.5 billion remaining.  If jurisdictional funding were to rise at 3% a year in nominal terms, then he estimated that $500 million a year would still be necessary from some new funding source.

But this was just for the capital budget, and a highly constrained one at that.  There would, in addition, be a $100 million a year gap in the operating budget, even with the funding from the jurisdictions for operations rising also at 3% a year.  Wiedefeld suggested that it might be possible to reduce operating costs by that amount.  However, this would require cutting primarily labor expenditures, as direct labor costs account for 74% of operating expenditures.  Not surprisingly, the WMATA labor union is strongly opposed.

Even more recently, the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments issued on April 26 the final report of a panel it convened (hereafter COG Panel or COG Panel Report) that examined Metro funding options.  The panel was made up of senior local administrative and budget officials.  While the focus of the report was an examination of different funding options (and will be discussed further below), it took as a basis of its estimated needs that WMATA would need to cover a ten-year capital investment program of $15.6 billion (to reach and maintain a “state of good repair” standard).  After assuming a 3% annual increase in what the political jurisdictions would provide, it estimated the funding gap for the capital budget would sum to $6.2 billion. Assuming also a 3% annual increase in funding from the political jurisdictions for operations and maintenance (O&M), it estimated a remaining funding gap of $1.3 billion for O&M.  The total gap for both capital and O&M expenses would thus sum to $7.5 billion over the period.

But while these COG estimates were referred to as 10-year funding gaps (thus averaging $750 billion per year), the table in its PowerPoint presentation on the report on page 13 makes clear that these are actually the funding gaps for the eight year period of FY19 to FY26.  FY17 is already almost over, and the FY18 budget has already been settled.  For the eight year period from FY19 going forward, the additional funding needed averages $930 million per year.  The COG Panel recommended, however, a dedicated funding source that would generate less, at $650 million per year to start (which it assumes would be in 2019).  But the reason for this difference is that the COG Panel recommended also that WMATA borrow additional funds in the early years against that new funding stream, so as to cover together the higher figure ($930 million on average per year over FY19-26) for what is in fact needed.  While such borrowing would supplement what could be funded in the early years, the resulting debt service would then subtract from what one could fund later.  While prudent borrowing certainly has a proper role, future funding needs will certainly be higher than what they are right now, and thus this will not provide a long-term solution to the funding issue.  More funding will eventually (and soon) be required.

All these figures reviewed thus far assume capital investment programs only just suffice to bring existing assets up to a “state of good repair”, with nothing done to add to these assets.  It also appears that the estimates were influenced at least to some extent by what the analysts thought might be politically feasible.  Yet additional capacity will be needed if the Washington region is to continue to grow.  While these additional amounts are much more speculative, there is no doubt that they are large, indeed huge.

The most careful recent study of long-term expansion needs is summarized in a series of reports released by WMATA in early 2016.   A number of rail options were examined (mostly extensions of existing rail lines), with the conclusion that the highest priority for a 2040 time horizon was to enhance the capacity at the center of the system.  Portions of these lines are already strained or at full capacity, including in particular the segment for the tunnel under the Potomac from Rosslyn.  Under this plan, there would be a new circular underground loop for the Metro lines around downtown Washington and extending across the Potomac to Rosslyn and the Pentagon.  It is not clear that a good estimate has yet been done on what this would cost, but the Washington Post gave a figure of $26 billion for an earlier variant (along with certain other expenditures).  This would clearly be a multi-decade project, and if anything like it is to be done by 2040, work would need to begin within the current 10-year WMATA planning horizon.  Yet given WMATA’s current difficulties, there has been little focus on these long-term needs.  And nothing has been provided for them.

To sum up, how much in additional funding is needed?  While there is no precise number, in part because the focus has been on the immediate crisis and on what might be considered politically feasible, for the purposes of this post we will use the following.  At a minimum, we will look at what would be needed to generate $650 million per year, the same figure arrived at in the COG Panel Report.  But this figure is clearly at the low end of the range of what will be needed.  At best, it will suffice only for a few years.  Our political leaders in the region should recognize that this will need to rise to at least $1 billion per year within a few years if necessary investments are to be made to ensure the system not only reaches a “state of good repair” but also sustains it.  Furthermore, it will need to rise further to perhaps $2.0 billion a year by around 2030 if anything close to the system capacity that will be needed by 2040 is to be achieved.

For the analysis below, we will therefore look at what the rates will need to be to generate $650 million a year at the low end and roughly three times this ($2.0 billion a year in nominal terms, by the year 2030) at the high end.  These figures are of course only illustrative of what might be required.  And for the forecast figures for 2030, I will assume (consistent with what the COG Panel did) that inflation from now to then will rise at 2% a year while real growth in the region will rise, conservatively, at 1% a year.  Note that $2.0 billion in 2030 in nominal terms would be equivalent to $1.55 billion in terms of dollars of today (2017) if inflation rises at 2% a year.

It is important to recognize that providing just the low-end figure of $650 million a year will not suffice for more than a few years.  It does provide a starting point, and while that is important, when considering such a major reform as moving to a dedicated funding source to supplement government funding sources, one should really be thinking longer term.  Not much would be gained by moving to a funding source which would prove insufficient after just a few years, leading to yet another crisis.

C.  A Mandatory Fee on Commuter Parking Spaces

A fee would be assessed (generally through the property tax system) on all parking spaces used by office and other commuting employees.  It would not be assessed on residential parking, nor on customer parking linked to retail or other such commercial space, but would be limited to the all-day parking spots that commuters use.

It would be straightforward to implement.  The owners of the property with the parking spaces would be assessed a fee for each parking space provided.  For example, if the fee is set at $1 per day per space, a fee of $250 per year would be assessed (based on 250 work-days a year, of 52 weeks at 5 days per week less 10 days for holidays).  It would be paid through the regular property tax system, and collected from the owners of that land along with their regular property taxes on the semi-annual (or quarterly or whatever) basis that they pay their property taxes. The owners of the spaces would be encouraged to pass along the costs to those employees who drive and use the spaces (and owners of commercial parking lots will presumably adjust their monthly fees to reflect this), but it would be the owners of the parking spaces themselves who would be immediately liable to pay the fees.

Property records will generally have the number of parking spaces provided on those plots of land.  This will certainly be so in the cases of underground parking provided in modern office buildings and in multi-story commercial parking garages.  And I suspect there will similarly be such a record of the number of spaces in surface parking lots.  But even if not, it would be straightforward to determine their number.  Property owners could be required to declare them, subject to spot-checks and fines if they did not declare them honestly. One can now even use satellite images available on Google Maps to count such spaces. And a few years ago my water bills started to include a monthly fee for the square footage of impermeable space on my land (from roofs and driveways primarily), as drainage from such surfaces feed into stormwater drains and must ultimately be treated before being discharged into the Potomac river.  They determined through the property records system and from satellite images the square footage of such spaces on all individual properties.  If that can be done, one certainly determine the number of parking spaces on open lots.

There are, however, a few special cases where property taxes are not collected and where different arrangements will need to be made.  But this can be done.  Specifically:

  1. Properties owned by federal, state, and local governments will generally not pay property taxes.  But the mandatory fees on parking spaces could still be collected by these government entities and paid into the system just as by private property owners.  Presumably, the governments support the reform as it is supplementing the funds they already provide to WMATA.
  2. Similarly, international organizations located in the Washington region, such as the World Bank, the IMF, the Inter-American Development Bank, and others (mostly much smaller) operate under international treaties which provide that they do not owe property taxes on properties they own.  But as with governments, they could collect such fees on parking spaces made available to their employees who drive to work.  They already charge their employees monthly fees for the spaces, and the new fee could be added on.  And while I am not a lawyer, it might well be the case that such a fee on parking spots could be made mandatory.  The institutions do pay the fees charged for the water they use, and employees do pay sales taxes on the food they purchase in their cafeterias.  Finally, these institutions advise governments to apply good policy.  The same should apply here.
  3. There are also non-profit hospitals, universities, and similar institutions, which are major employers in the region but which may not be charged property taxes. However, the fee on parking spaces, while collected for most through the property tax system, can be seen as separate from regular property taxes.  It is a fee on commuters who make use of our road system and add to its congestion.  The parking fees could still be collected and paid in, even if no regular property taxes are due.
  4. Finally, the Washington region has a large number of embassies and other properties with strict internationally recognized immunities.  It might well be the case that it will not be possible to collect such a mandatory fee on parking spots for their employees (although again, presumably the embassies pay the fees on their water bills).  But the total number employed through such embassies is tiny as a share of total employment in the DC region.  And some embassies might well pay voluntarily, recognizing that they too are members of the local community, making use of the same roads.  Finally, note that embassy employees with diplomatic status also do not pay sales tax on their day-to-day purchases, while the embassy compounds themselves do not pay property taxes.  Proposals to fund WMATA through new or higher property taxes or sales taxes (discussed below) will face similar issues.  But as noted above, the amounts involved are tiny.

How, then, would such a mandatory fee on commuter parking spaces stand up under the four criteria noted above?:

a)  Feasibility:  As just discussed, such a fee on commuter parking spaces, implemented generally through the regular property tax system, would certainly be feasible.  It could be done.  It may well be that a lack of recognition of this which explains why such an option has typically not been much considered when alternatives are reviewed for how to fund a transit system such as WMATA.  It appears that most believe that it would require some system to be set up which would mandate a payment each day as commuters enter their parking lots.  But there is no need for that.  Rather, the fee could be imposed on the owner of the parking space, and collected as part of their property tax payments.  It would be up to the owner of that space to decide whether to pass along that cost to the commuters making use of those spaces (although passing along the cost should certainly be encouraged, so that the commuters face the cost of their decision to drive).

b)  Effectiveness:  The next question is whether such a fee, at reasonable rates, would generate the funds needed.  To determine this, one first needs to know how many such parking spots there are in the Washington region.  While more precise figures can be generated later, all that is needed at this point is a rough estimate.

As of January 2017, the Bureau of Labor Statistics estimated there were 3,217,400 employees in the Washington region’s Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA).  While this MSA area is slightly larger than the jurisdictions that participate in the WMATA regional compact, the additional counties at the fringes of the region are relatively small in population and employment.  This figure on regional employment can then be coupled with the estimate from the most recent (2016) Metropolitan Washington COG “State of the Commute” survey, which concluded that 61.0% of commuters drive alone to work, while an additional 5.4% drive in either car-pools or van-pools.  Assuming an average of 2.5 riders in car-pools and van-pools (van-pools are relatively minor in number), this would work out to 63.2% as the number of cars (as a share of total employment) that carry commuters to their jobs.  Applying the 63.2% to the 3,217,400 figure for the number employed, an estimated 2,033,400 cars are used to carry commuters.  The total number of parking spaces will be somewhat more, as the parking lots will normally have some degree of excess capacity, but this can be ignored for the estimate here.  Rounding down, there are roughly 2 million parking spaces for these cars in the DC region.  And this number can be expected to grow over time.

With 2 million parking spaces, a daily fee of $1 would generate $500 million per year (based on 250 work-days per year).  A fee of $1.30 per day would generate $650 million. And assuming commuter parking spots grow at 1% a year (along with the rest of the regional economy) to 2030, a $3.50 fee in 2030 would generate $2.0 billion in the prices of that year (equivalent to $2.70 per day in the prices of 2017, assuming 2% annual inflation for the period).

Compared to the cost of driving, fees of $1.30 per day or even $3.50 per day are modest. While many workers do not pay for their parking (or for the full cost of their parking), the actual cost can be estimated by what commercial parking firms charge for their monthly parking contracts.  For the 33 parking garages listed as “downtown DC” on the Parking Panda website, the average monthly fee (showing on April 29, 2017) was a bit over $270. This would come to $13 per work day (based on 250 work days per year).  While the charges will be less in the suburbs, there will still be a cost.  But the full cost to commuters to drive to work is in fact much more.  Assuming the average cost of the cars driven is $36,000, and with simple straight line depreciation over 10 years, the average monthly cost will be $300. To this one should add the cost of car insurance (on the order of $50 to $100 per month), of expected repair costs (probably of similar magnitude), and of gas. The full cost of driving would on average then total over $600 per month, or about $29 per work day.  Even if one ignores the cost of the parking spot itself (as drivers will if their employers provide the spots for free), the cost to the driver would still average about $16 per work day.  An added $1.30 per day to cover the funding needs of the public transit system is minor compared to any of these cost estimates, and would still be modest at $3.50 per day (equal to $2.70 in the prices of today).

Thus at reasonable rates on commuter parking spots, it would be possible to collect the $650 million to $2.0 billion a year needed to help fund WMATA.

c)  Efficiency:  Another consideration when choosing how best to provide additional funds to WMATA is the impact on efficiency of that option.  A fee on parking spaces would be a positive for this.  The Washington region stands out for its severe congestion, including not only in the city center but also in the suburbs (and often even more so in the suburbs).  A fee on parking spots, if passed along to the commuters who drive, would serve as an incentive to take transit, and might have some impact on those at the margin. The impact is likely to be modest, as a $1.30 to $3.50 fee per day would not be much.  As just discussed above, given the current cost of driving (even when commuters who drive are not charged for their parking spots), an additional $1.30 to $3.50 would be only a small additional cost, even when it is passed along.  But at least it would operate in the direction one wants to alleviate traffic congestion.

d)  Fairness:  Finally, the fee would be fair relative to the other options being considered in terms of who would be impacted.  Those who drive to work (over 90% of whom drive alone) are generally of higher income.  They can afford the high cost of driving, which is high (as noted above) even in those cases when they are provided free parking spaces by their employer.

Some would argue that since the drivers are not taking transit, they should not help pay for that transit.  But that is not correct.  First of all, they have a direct interest in reducing road congestion, and only a well-functioning transit system can help with that.  Drivers benefit directly (by reduced congestion) for every would-be driver who decides instead to take transit.  Second, all the other feasible funding options being considered for WMATA will be paid for in large part by drivers as well.  This is true whether a higher sales tax is imposed on the region, higher property taxes, or just higher government funding from their budgets (with this funding coming from the income taxes as well as sales taxes and property taxes these governments receive).  And as discussed below, higher fares on WMATA passengers to raise the amounts needed is simply not a feasible option.

Some drivers will likely also argue that they have no choice but to drive.  While they would still gain by any reduction in congestion (and would lose in a big way due to extreme congestion if WMATA service collapses due to inadequate funding), it is no doubt true that at least some commuters have no alternative but to drive.  However, the number is quite modest.  The 2016 survey of commuters undertaken by the Metropolitan Washington COG, referred to also above, asked their sample of commuters whether there was either bus service or train service “near” their homes (“near” as they would themselves consider it), and separately, “near” their place of work.  The response was 89% who said there were such transit services near their homes, and 86% who said there were such transit services near their places of work.  But note also that the 11% and 14%, respectively, who did not respond that there was such nearby transit, included those who responded that they did not know.  Many of those who drive to work might not know, as they never had a need to look into it.

The share of the Washington region’s population who do not have access to transit services is therefore relatively small, probably well less than 10% of commuters.  The transit options might not be convenient, and probably take longer than driving in many if not most cases given the current service provision, but transit alternatives exist for the overwhelming share of the regional population.  The issue is that those who can afford the high cost will drive, while the poorer workers who cannot will have no choice but to take transit.  Setting a fee on parking spaces for commuters in order to support the maintenance of decent transit services in the region is socially as well as economically fair.

D.  Alternative Funding Options That Have Been Proposed

1)   Higher Fares:  The first alternative that many would suggest for raising additional funds for the transit system is to charge higher fares.  While certainly feasible in a mechanical sense, such an alternative would fail the effectiveness test.  The fares are already high.  Any increase in fares will lead to yet more transit users choosing to drive instead (for those for whom this is an option).  The increase in fare revenues collected will be less than in proportion to the increase in fare rates set.  And at some point, so many transit users will switch that total fare revenue would in fact decrease.

In the recently passed FY18 budget for WMATA, the forecast revenues to be collected from fares is $709 million.  This is down from an expected $792 million in FY17 despite a fare increase averaging 4%.  Transit users are leaving as fares have increased and service has deteriorated.  To increase the fares to try to raise an additional $650 million would require an increase of over 90% if no riders then leave.  But more riders would of course leave, and it is not clear if anything additional (much less an extra $650 million) would be raised. And this would of course be even more so if one tried to raise an extra $2.0 billion.

So as all recognize, it will not be possible to resolve the WMATA funding issues by means of higher fares.  Any increase in fares will instead lead to more riders leaving the system for their cars, leading to even greater road congestion.

2)  Increase the Sales Tax Rate:  Mayor Muriel Bowser of Washington has pushed for this alternative, and the recent COG Technical Panel concluded with the recommendation that  “the best revenue solution is an addition to the general sales tax in all localities in the WMATA Compact area in the National Capital Region” (page 4).  This alternative has drawn support from some others in the region as well, but is also opposed by some. There is as yet no consensus.

Sales taxes are already imposed across the region, and it would certainly be feasible to add an extra percentage point to what is now charged.  But each jurisdiction sets the tax in somewhat different ways, in terms of what is covered and at what rates, and it is not clear to what the additional 1% rate would be applied.  For example, Washington, DC, imposes a general rate of 5.75%, but nothing on food or medicines, while liquor and restaurants are charged a sales tax of 10% and hotels a rate of 14.5%.  Would the additional 1% rate apply only to the general rate of 5.75%, or would there also be a 1% point increase in what is charged on liquor, restaurants, and the others?  And would there still be a zero rate on food and medicines?  Virginia, in contrast, has a general sales tax rate (in Northern Virginia) of 6.0%, but it charges a rate on food of 2.5%.  Would the Virginia rate on food rise to 3.5%, or stay at 2.5%?  There is also a higher sales tax rate on restaurant meals in certain of the local jurisdictions in Virginia (such as a 10% rate in Arlington County) but not in others (just the base 6% rate in Fairfax County).  How would these be affected?  And similar to DC, there are also special rates on hotels and certain other categories.  Maryland also has its own set of rules, with a base rate of 6.0%, a rate of 9% on alcohol, and no sales tax on food.

Such specifics could presumably be worked out, but the distribution of the burden across individuals as well as the jurisdictions will depend on the specific choices made.  Would food be subject to the tax in Virginia but not in Maryland or DC, for example?  The COG Technical Panel must have made certain assumptions on this, but what they were was not explained in its report.

But it concluded that an additional 1% point on some base would generate $650 million in FY2019.  This is higher than the estimate made last October as part of the COG Panel work, where it estimated that a 1% point increase in the sales tax rate would raise $500 million annually.  It is not clear what the underlying reasons were for this difference, but the recent estimates might have been more thoroughly done.  Or there might have been differing assumptions on what would be included in the base to be taxed, such as food.

A 1% point rise in the sales tax imposed in the region would, under these estimates, then suffice to raise the minimum $650 million needed now.  But to raise $1.0 billion annually, rising to $2.0 billion a few years later, substantial further increases would soon be needed. The amount would of course depend on the extent to which local sales of taxable goods and services grew over time within the region.  Assuming that sales of items subject to the sales tax were to rise at a 3% annual rate in nominal terms (2% for inflation and 1% for real growth), and that one would need to raise $2.0 billion by 2030 (in terms of the prices of 2030), then the base sales tax rate would need to rise by about 2.2% points.  A 6% rate would need to rise to 8.2%.  A rate that high would likely generate concerns.

Thus while a sales tax increase would be effective in raising the amounts needed to fund WMATA in the immediate future, with a 1% rise in the tax rate sufficing, the sales tax rate would need to rise further to quite high levels for it to raise the amounts needed a few years later.  Whether such high rates would be politically possible is not clear.

Also likely to be a concern, as the COG Panel itself recognized in its report, is that the distribution of the increased tax burden across the local jurisdictions would differ substantially from what these jurisdictions contribute now to fund WMATA, as well as from what it estimates each jurisdiction would be called on to contribute (under the existing sharing rules) to cover the funding gap anticipated for FY17 – FY26:

Funding Shares:

FY17 Actual

FY17-26 Gap

From Sales Tax

DC

37.3%

35.8%

22.8%

Maryland

38.4%

33.5%

26.5%

Virginia

24.3%

30.7%

50.8%

Source:  COG Panel Final Report, pages 9 and 15.

If an extra 1% point were added to the sales tax across the region, 50.8% of the revenues thus generated would come from the Northern Virginian jurisdictions that participate in the WMATA compact.  This is substantially higher than the 24.3% share these jurisdictions contributed in WMATA funding in FY17, or the 30.7% share they would be called on to contribute to cover the anticipated FY17-26 gap (higher than in just FY17 primarily due to the opening of the second phase of the Silver Line).  The mirror image of this is that DC and Maryland would gain, with much lower shares paid in through the sales tax increase than what they are funding now.  Whether this would be politically acceptable remains to be seen.

Use of a higher sales tax to fund WMATA needs would also not lead to efficiency gains for the transportation system.  The sales tax on goods and services sold in the region would not have an impact on incentives, positive or negative, on decisions on whether to drive for your commute or to take transit.  It would be neutral in this regard, rather than beneficial.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, sales taxes are regressive, costing the poor more as a share of their income than what they cost the well-off.  A sales tax rise would not meet the fairness test.  Even with exemptions granted for foods and medicines, poor households spend a high share of their incomes on items subject to sales taxes, while the well-off spend a lower share.  The well-off are able to devote a higher share of their incomes to items not subject to the general sale tax, such as luxury housing, or vacations elsewhere, or services not subject to sales taxes, or can devote a higher share of their incomes to savings.

Aside from the regressive nature of a sales tax, an increase in the sales tax to fund transit (and through this to reduce road congestion) will be paid by all in the region, including those who do not commute to work.  It would be paid, for example, also by retirees, by students, and by others who may not normally make use of transit or the road system to get to work during rush hour periods.  But they would pay similarly to others, and some may question the fairness of this.

An increase in the sales tax rate would thus be feasible.  And while a 1% point rise in the rate would be effective in raising the amounts needed in the immediate future, there is a question as to whether this approach would be effective in raising the amounts needed a few years later, given constraints (political and otherwise) on how high the sales tax rate could go.  The region would likely then face another crisis and dilemma as to how WMATA can then be adequately funded.  There are also political issues in the distribution of the sales tax burden across the jurisdictions of the region, with Northern Virginia paying a disproportionate share.  This would be even more of a concern when the tax rate would need to be increased further to cover rising WMATA funding needs.  There would also be no efficiency gains through the use of a sales tax.  Finally and importantly, a higher sales tax is regressive and not fair as it taxes a higher share of the income of the poor than of the well-off, as well as of groups who do not use transit or the roads during the rush hour periods of peak congestion.

3)  A Special Property Tax Rate on Properties Near Metro Stations

Some have argued for a special additional property tax to be imposed on properties that are located close to Metro stations.  The largest trade union at WMATA has advocated for this, for example, and the COG Technical Panel looked at this as one option it considered.

The logic is that the value of such properties has been enhanced by their location close to transit, and that therefore the owners of these more valuable properties should pay a higher property tax rate on them.  But while superficially this might look logical, in fact it is not, as we will discuss below.  There are several issues, both practical and in terms of what would be good policy.  I will start with the practical issues.

The special, higher, tax rate would be imposed on properties located “close” to Metro stations, but there is the immediate question of how one defines “close”.  Most commonly, it appears that the proponents would set the higher tax on all properties, residential as well as commercial, that are within a half-mile of a station.  That would mean, of course, that a property near the dividing line would see a sharply higher property tax rate than its neighbor across the street that lies on the other side of the line.

And the difference would be substantial.  The COG Technical Panel estimated that the additional tax rate would need to be 0.43% of the assessed value of all properties within a half mile of the DC area Metro stations to raise the same $650 million that an extra 1% on the sales tax rate would generate.  It was not clear from the COG Panel Report, however, whether the higher tax of 0.43% was determined based on the value of all properties within a half-mile of Metro stations, or only on the base of all such properties which currently pay property tax.  Governmental entities (including international organizations such as the World Bank and IMF) and non-profits (such as hospitals and universities) do not pay this tax (as was discussed above), and such properties account for a substantial share of properties located close to Metro stations in the Washington region.  If the 0.43% rate was estimated based on the value of all such properties, but if (just for the sake of illustration; I do not know what the share actually is) properties not subject to tax make up half of such properties, then the additional tax rate on taxable properties that would be needed to generate the $650 million would be twice as high, or 0.86%.

But even at just the 0.43% rate, the increase in taxes on such properties would be large. For Washington, DC, it would amount to an increase of 50% on the current general residential property tax rate of 0.85%, an increase of 26% on the 1.65% rate for commercial properties valued at less than $3 million, and an increase of 23% on the 1.85% rate for commercial properties valued at more than $3 million.  Property tax rates vary by jurisdiction across the region, but this provides some sense of the magnitudes involved.

The higher tax rate paid would also be the same for properties sitting right on top of the Metro stations and those a half mile away.  But the locational value is highest for those properties that are right at the Metro stations, and then tapers down with distance. One should in principle reflect this in such a tax, but in practice it would be difficult to do. What would the rate of tapering be?  And would one apply the distance based on the direct geographic distance to the Metro station (i.e. “as the crow flies”), or based on the path that one would need to take to walk to the Metro station, which could be significantly different?

Thus while it would be feasible to implement the higher property tax as a fixed amount on all properties within a half-mile (at least on those properties which are not exempt from property tax), the half-mile mark is arbitrary and does not in fact reflect the locational advantages properly.

The rate would also have to be substantially higher if the goal is to ensure WMATA is funded adequately by the new revenue source beyond just the next few years.  Assuming, as was done above for the other options, that property values rise at a 3% rate over time going forward (due both to growth and to price inflation), the 0.43% special tax rate would raise $900 million by 2030.  If one needed, however, $2 billion by that year for WMATA funding needs, the rate would need to rise to 0.96%.  This would mean that residential properties within a half mile would be paying more than double the property tax paid by neighbors just beyond the half-mile mark (assuming basic property tax rates are similar in the future to what they are now, and based on the current DC rates), while commercial rates would be over 50% more.  The effectiveness in raising the amounts required is therefore not clear, given the political constraints on how high one could set such a special tax.

But the major drawback would be the impact on efficiency.  With the severe congestion on Washington region roads, one should want to encourage, not discourage, concentrated development near Metro stations.  Indeed, that is a core rationale for investing so much in building and sustaining the Metro system.  To the extent a higher property tax discourages such development, the impact of such a special property tax on real estate near Metro stations would be to discourage precisely what the Metro system was built to encourage.  This is perverse.  One could indeed make the case that properties located close to Metro stations should pay a lower property tax rather than a higher one.  I would not, as it would be complex to implement and difficult to explain.  But technically it would have merit.

Finally, a special additional tax on the current owners of the properties near Metro stations would not meet the fairness test as the current owners, with very few if any exceptions, were not the owners of that land when the Metro system locations were first announced a half century ago.  The owners of the land at that time, in the 1960s, would have enjoyed an increase in the value of their land due to the then newly announced locations of the Metro stations.  And even if the higher values did not immediately materialize when the locations of the new Metro system stations were announced, those higher values certainly would have materialized in the subsequent many decades, as ownership turned over and the properties were sold and resold.  One can be sure the prices they sold for reflected the choice locations.

But those who purchased that land or properties then or subsequently would not have enjoyed the windfall the original owners had.  The current owners would have paid the higher prices following from the locational advantages near the Metro stations, and they are the ones who own those properties now.  While they certainly can charge higher rents for space in properties close to the Metro stations, the prices they paid for the properties themselves would have reflected the fact they could charge such higher rents.  They did not and do not enjoy a windfall from this locational advantage.  Rather, the original owners did, and they have already pocketed those profits and left.

Note that while a special tax imposed now on properties close to Metro stations cannot be justified, this does not mean that such a tax would not have been justified at an earlier stage.  That is, one could justify that or a similar tax that focused on the initial windfall gain on land or properties that would be close to a newly announced Metro line.  When new such rail lines are being built (in the Washington region or elsewhere), part of the cost could be covered by a special tax (time-limited, or perhaps structured as a share of the windfall gain at the first subsequent arms-length sale of the property) that would capture a share of the windfall from the newly announced locations of the stations.

An example of this being done is the special tax assessments on properties close to where the Silver Line stations are being built.  The Silver Line is a new line for the Washington region Metro system, where the first phase opened recently and the second phase is under construction.  A special property tax assessment district was established, with a higher tax rate and with the funds generated used to help construct the line.  One should also consider such a special tax for properties close to the stations on the proposed Purple Line (not part of the WMATA system, but connected to it), should that light rail line be built. The real estate developers with properties along that line have been strong proponents of building that line.  This is understandable; they would enjoy major windfall gains on their properties if the line is built.  But while the windfall gains could easily be in the hundreds of millions of dollars, there has been no discussion of their covering a portion of the cost, which will sum to $5.6 billion in payments to the private contractor to build and then operate the line for 30 years.  Under current plans, the general taxpayer would be obliged to pay this full amount, with only a small share of this (less than one-fourth) recovered in forecast fares.

While setting a special (but temporary) tax for properties close to stations can be justified for new lines, such as the Silver Line or the Purple Line, the issues are quite different for the existing Metro lines.  Such a special, additional, tax on properties close to the Metro stations is not warranted, would be unfair to the current owners, and could indeed have the perverse outcome of discouraging concentrated development near the Metro stations when one should want to do precisely the reverse.

4)  Other Funding Options

There can, of course, be other approaches to raising the funds that WMATA needs.  But there are issues with each, they in general have few advocates, and most agree that one of the options discussed above would be preferable.

The COG Technical Panel reviewed several, but rejected them in favor of its preference for a higher sales tax rate.  For example, the COG Panel estimated that it would be possible to raise their target for WMATA funding of $650 million if all local jurisdictions raised their property tax rates by 0.08% of the assessed values on all properties located in the region. But general property taxes are used as the primary means local jurisdictions raise the funds they need for their local government operations, and it would be best to keep this separate from WMATA funding.  The COG Panel also considered the possibility of creating a new Value-Added Tax (or VAT), a tax that is common elsewhere in the world but has never been instituted in the US.  It is commonly described as similar to a sales tax, but is imposed only on the extra value created at each stage in the production and sale process. But it would be complicated to develop and implement any new tax such as this, and it also has never been imposed (as far as I am aware) on a regional rather than national basis.  A regional VAT might be especially complicated.  The COG Panel also noted the possibility of a “commuter tax”.  Such a tax would have income taxes being imposed on a worker based on where they work rather than where they live.  But since there would be an offset for any such taxes against what the worker would otherwise pay where they are resident, the overall revenues generated at the level of the region as a whole would be essentially nothing.  It would be a wash.  There is also the issue that Congress has by law prohibited Washington, DC, from imposing any such commuter tax.

The COG Panel also looked at the imposition of an additional tax on motor vehicle fuels (gasoline and diesel) sold in the region.  This would in principle be more attractive as a means for funding transit, as it would affect the cost of commuting by car (by raising the cost of fuel) and thus might encourage, at the margin, more to take transit and thus reduce congestion.  Fuel taxes in the US are also extremely low compared to the levels charged in most other developed countries around the world.  And federal fuel taxes have not been changed since 1993, with a consequent fall in real, inflation-adjusted, terms. There is a strong case that the rates should be raised, as has been discussed in an earlier post on this blog.  But such fuel taxes have been earmarked primarily for road construction and maintenance (the Highway Trust Fund at the federal level), and any such funds are desperately needed there.  It would be best to keep such fuel taxes earmarked for that purpose, and separated from the funding needed to support WMATA.

E.  Summary and Conclusion

All agree that there is a need to create a dedicated source of funds to provide additional funds to WMATA.  While there are a number of issues with WMATA, including management and governance issues, no one disagrees that a necessary element in any solution is increased funding.  WMATA has underinvested for decades, with the result that the current system cannot operate reliably or safely.

Estimates for the additional funding required by WMATA vary, but most agree that a minimum of an additional $650 million per annum is required now simply to bring the assets up to a minimum level of reliability and safety.  But estimates of what will in fact be needed once the current most urgent rehabilitation investments are made are substantially higher.  It is likely that the system will need on the order of $2 billion a year more than what would follow under current funding formulae by the end of the next decade, if the system’s capacity is to grow by what will be necessary to support the region’s growth.

A mandatory fee on parking spaces for all commuters in the region would work best to provide such funds.  It would be feasible as it can be implemented largely through the existing property tax system.  It would be effective in raising the amounts needed, as a fee equivalent to $1.30 per day would raise $650 million per year under current conditions, and a fee of $3.50 per day would raise $2 billion per year in the year 2030.  These rates are modest or even low compared to what it costs now to drive.

A mandatory fee on parking spaces would also contribute to a more efficient use of the transportation assets in the region not only by helping to ensure the Metro system can function safely and reliably, but by also encouraging at least some who now drive instead to take transit and hence reduce road congestion.  Finally, such a fee would be fair as it is those of higher income who most commonly drive (in part because driving is expensive), while it is the poor who are most likely to take transit.

An increase in the sales tax rate in the region would not have these advantages.  While an increase in the rate by 1% point was estimated by the COG Panel to generate $650 million a year under current conditions, the rate would need to increase by substantially more to generate the funds that will be needed to support WMATA in the future.  This could be politically difficult.  The revenues generated would also come disproportionately from Northern Virginia, which itself will create political difficulties.  It would also not lead to greater efficiencies in transport use, other than by keeping WMATA operational (as all the options would do).  Most importantly, a sales tax is regressive (even when foods and medicine are not taxed), with the poor bearing a disproportionate share of the costs.

A special property tax on all properties located a half mile (or whatever specified distance) of existing Metro stations could also be imposed, although readily so only on such properties that are currently subject to property tax.  But there would be arbitrariness with such a rigidly specified distance being imposed, with a sharp fall in the tax rate for properties just across that artificial border line.  There is also a question as to whether it would be politically feasible to set the rates to such high rates as would be necessary as to address the WMATA funding needs of beyond just the next few years.

But most important, such a special tax on the current owners would not be a tax on those who gained a windfall when the locations of the Metro stations were announced many decades ago.  Those original owners have already pocketed their windfall gains and have left.  The current owners paid a high price for that land or the developments on them, and are not themselves enjoying a special windfall.  And indeed, a new special property tax on developments near the Metro stations would have the effect of discouraging any such new investment.  But that is the precise opposite of what we should want.  The policy aim has long been to encourage, not discourage, concentrated development around the Metro stations.

This does not mean that some such special tax, if time-constrained, would not be a good choice when a new Metro line (or rail line such as the proposed Purple Line) is to be built. The owners of land near the planned future Metro stops would enjoy a windfall gain, and a special tax on that is warranted.  Such a special tax district has been set for the new Silver Line, and would be warranted also if the Purple Line is to be built.  Those who own that land will of course object, as they wish to keep their windfall in full.

To conclude, no one denies that any new tax or fee will be controversial and politically difficult.  But the Metro system is critical to the Washington region, and cannot be allowed to continue to deteriorate.  Increased funding (as well as other measures) will be necessary to fix this.  Among the possible options, the best approach is to set a mandatory fee that would be collected on all commuter parking spaces in the region.

Long-Term Structural Change in the US Economy: Manufacturing is Simply Following the Path of Agriculture

A.  Introduction

A major theme of Trump, both during his campaign and now as president, has been that jobs in manufacturing have been decimated as a direct consequence of the free trade agreements that started with NAFTA.  He repeated the assertion in his speech to Congress of February 28, where he complained that “we’ve lost more than one-fourth of our manufacturing jobs since NAFTA was approved”, but that because of him “Dying industries will come roaring back to life”.  He is confused.  But to be fair, there are those on the political left as well who are similarly confused.

All this reflects a sad lack of understanding of history.  Manufacturing jobs have indeed been declining in recent decades, and as the chart above shows, they have been declining as a share of total jobs in the economy since the 1940s.  Of all those employed, the share employed in manufacturing (including mining) fell by 7.6% points between 1994 (when NAFTA entered into effect) and 2015 (the most recent year in the sector data of the Bureau of Economic Analysis, used for consistency throughout this post), a period of 21 years. But the share employed in manufacturing fell by an even steeper 9.2% points in the 21 years before 1994.  The decline in manufacturing jobs (both as a share and in absolute number) is nothing new, and it is wrong to blame it on NAFTA.

It is also the case that manufacturing production has been growing steadily over this period.  Total manufacturing production (measured in real value-added terms) rose by 64% over the 21 years since NAFTA went into effect in 1994.  And this is also substantially higher than the 42% real growth in the 21 years prior to 1994.  Blaming NAFTA (and the other free trade agreements of recent decades) for a decline in manufacturing is absurd.  Manufacturing production has grown.

For those only interested in the assertion by Trump that NAFTA and the other free trade agreements have killed manufacturing in the US and with it the manufacturing jobs, one could stop here.  Manufacturing has actually grown strongly since NAFTA went into effect, and there are fewer manufacturing jobs now than before not because manufacturing has declined, but because workers in manufacturing are now more productive than ever before (with this a continuation of the pattern underway over at least the entire post-World War II period, and not something new).  But the full story is a bit more complex, as one also needs to examine why manufacturing production is at the level that it is.  For this, one needs to bring in the rest of the economy, in particular services. The rest of this blog post will address this broader issue,

Manufacturing jobs have nonetheless indeed declined.  To understand why, one needs to look at what has happened to productivity, not only in manufacturing but also in the other sectors of the economy (in particular in services).  And I would suggest that one could learn much by an examination of the similar factors behind the even steeper decline over the years in the share of jobs in agriculture.  It is not because of adverse effects of free trade.  The US is in fact the largest exporter of food products in the world.  Yet the share of workers employed in the agricultural sectors (including forestry and fishing) is now just 0.9% of the total.  It used to be higher:  4.3% in 1947 and 8.4% in 1929 (using the BEA data).  If one wants to go really far back, academics have estimated that agricultural employment accounted for 74% of all US employment in 1800, with this still at 56% in 1860.

Employment in agriculture has declined so much, from 74% of total employment in 1800 to 8.4% in 1929 to less than 1% today, because those employed in agriculture are far more productive today than they were before.  And while it leads to less employment in the sector, whether as a share of total employment or in absolute numbers, higher productivity is a good thing.  The US could hardly enjoy a modern standard of living if 74% of those employed still had to be working in agriculture in order to provide us food to eat. And while stretching the analysis back to 1800 is extreme, one can learn much by examining and understanding the factors behind the long-term trends in agricultural employment.  Manufacturing is following the same basic path.  And there is nothing wrong with that.  Indeed, that is exactly what one would hope for in order for the economy to grow and develop.

Furthermore, the effects of foreign trade on employment in the sectors, positive or negative, are minor compared to the long-term impacts of higher productivity.  In the post below we will look at what would have happened to employment if net trade would somehow be forced to zero by Trumpian policies.  The impact relative to the long term trends would be trivial.

This post will focus on the period since 1947, the earliest date for which the BEA has issued data on both sector outputs and employment.  The shares of agriculture as well as of manufacturing in both total employment and in output (with output measured in current prices) have both declined sharply over this period, but not because those sectors are producing less than before.  Indeed, their production in real terms are both far higher. Employment in those sectors has nevertheless declined in absolute numbers.  The reason is their high rates of productivity growth.  Importantly, productivity in those two sectors has grown at a faster pace than in the services sector (the rest of the economy).  As we will discuss, it is this differential rate of productivity growth (faster in agriculture and in manufacturing than in services) which explains the decline in the share employed in agriculture and manufacturing.

These structural changes, resulting ultimately from the differing rates of productivity growth in the sectors, can nonetheless be disruptive.  With fewer workers needed in a sector because of a high rate of productivity growth, while more workers are needed in those sectors where productivity is growing more slowly (although still positively and possibly strongly, just relatively less strongly), there is a need for workers to transfer from one sector to another.  This can be difficult, in particular for individuals who are older or who have fewer general skills.  But this was achieved before in the US as well as in other now-rich countries, as workers shifted out of agriculture and into manufacturing a century to two centuries ago.  Critically important was the development of the modern public school educational system, leading to almost universal education up through high school. The question the country faces now is whether the educational system can be similarly extended today to educate the workers needed for jobs in the modern services economy.

First, however, is the need to understand how the economy has reached the position it is now in, and the role of productivity growth in this.

B.  Sector Shares and Prices

As Chart 1 at the top of this post shows, employment in agriculture and in manufacturing have been falling steadily as a share of total employment since the 1940s, while jobs in services have risen.

[A note on the data:  The data here comes from the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), which, as part of its National Income and Product Accounts (NIPA), estimates sector outputs as well as employment.  Employment is measured in full-time equivalent terms (so that two half-time workers, say, count as the equivalent of one full-time worker), which is important for measuring productivity growth.

And while the BEA provides figures on its web site for employment going all the way back to 1929, the figures for sector output on its web site only go back to 1947.  Thus while the chart at the top of this post goes back to 1929, all the analysis shown below will cover the period from 1947 only.  Note also that there is a break in the employment series in 1998, when the BEA redefined slightly how some of the detailed sectors would be categorized. They unfortunately did not then go back to re-do the categorizations in a consistent way in the years prior to that, but the changes are small enough not to matter greatly to this analysis.  And there were indeed similar breaks in the employment series in 1948 and again in 1987, but the changes there were so small (at the level of aggregation of the sectors used here) as not to be noticeable at all.

Also, for the purposes here the sector components of GDP have been aggregated to just three, with forestry and fishing included with agriculture, mining included with manufacturing, and construction included with services.  As a short hand, these sectors will at times be referred to simply as agriculture, manufacturing, and services.

Finally, the figures on sector outputs in real terms provided by the BEA data are calculated based on what are called “chain-weighted” indices of prices.  Chain-weighted indices are calculated based on moving shares of sector outputs (whatever the share is in any given period) rather than on fixed shares (i.e. the shares at the beginning or the end of the time period examined).  Chain-weighted indices are the best to use over extended periods, but are unfortunately not additive, where a sum (such as real GDP) will not necessarily equal exactly the sum of the estimates of the underlying sector figures (in real terms).  The issue is however not an important one for the questions being examined in this post.  While we will show the estimates in the charts for real GDP (based on a sum of the figures for the three sectors), there is no need to focus on it in the analysis.  Now back to the main text.]

The pattern in a chart of sector outputs as shares of GDP (measured in current prices by the value-added of each sector), is similar to that seen in Chart 1 above for the employment shares:

Agriculture is falling, and falling to an extremely small share of GDP (to less than 1% of GDP in 2015).  Manufacturing and mining is similarly falling from the mid-1950s, while services and construction is rising more or less steadily.  On the surface, all this appears to be similar to what was seen in Chart 1 for employment shares.  It also might look like the employment shares are simply following the shifts in output shares.

But there is a critical difference.  The shares of workers employed is a measure of numbers of workers (in full-time equivalent terms) as a share of the total.  That is, it is a measure in real terms.  But the shares of sector outputs in Chart 2 above is a measure of the shares in terms of current prices.  They do not tell us what is happening to sector outputs in real terms.

For sector outputs in real terms (based on the prices in the initial year, or 1947 here), one finds a very different chart:

Here, the output shares are not changing all that much.  There is only a small decline in agriculture (from 8% of the total in 1947 to 7% in 2015), some in manufacturing (from 28% to 22%), and then the mirror image of this in services (from 64% to 72%).  The changes in the shares were much greater in Chart 2 above for sector output shares in current prices.

Many might find the relatively modest shifts in the shares of sector outputs when measured in constant price terms to be surprising.  We were all taught in our introductory Economics 101 class of Engel Curve effects.  Ernst Engel was a German statistician who, in 1857, found that at the level of households, the share of expenditures on basic nourishment (food) fell the richer the household.  Poorer households spent a relatively higher share of their income on food, while better off households spent less.  One might then postulate that as a nation becomes richer, it will see a lower share of expenditures on food items, and hence that the share of agriculture will decline.

But there are several problems with this theory.  First, for various reasons it may not apply to changes over time as general income levels rise (including that consumption patterns might be driven mostly by what one observes other households to be consuming at the time; i.e. “keeping up with the Joneses” dominates).  Second, agricultural production spans a wide range of goods, from basic foodstuffs to luxury items such as steak.  The Engel Curve effects might mostly be appearing in the mix of food items purchased.

Third, and perhaps most importantly, the Engel Curve effects, if they exist, would affect production only in a closed economy where it was not possible to export or import agricultural items.  But one can in fact trade such agricultural goods internationally. Hence, even if domestic demand fell over time (due perhaps to Engel Curve effects, or for whatever reason), domestic producers could shift to exporting a higher share of their production.  There is therefore no basis for a presumption that the share of agricultural production in total output, in real terms, should be expected to fall over time due to demand effects.

The same holds true for manufacturing and mining.  Their production can be traded internationally as well.

If the shares of agriculture and manufacturing fell sharply over time in terms of current prices, but not in terms of constant prices (with services then the mirror image), the implication is that the relative prices of agriculture as well as manufacturing fell relative to the price of services.  This is indeed precisely what one sees:

These are the changes in the price indices published by the BEA, with all set to 1947 = 1.0.  Compared to the others, the change in agricultural prices over this 68 year period is relatively small.  The price of manufacturing and mining production rose by far more.  And while a significant part of this was due to the rise in the 1970s of the prices of mined products (in particular oil, with the two oil crises of the period, but also in the prices of coal and other mined commodities), it still holds true for manufacturing alone.  Even if one excludes the mining component, the price index rose by far more than that of agriculture.

But far greater was the change in the price of services.  It rose to an index value of 12.5 in 2015, versus an index value of just 1.6 for agriculture in that year.  And the price of services rose by double what the price of manufacturing and mining rose by (and even more for manufacturing alone).

With the price of services rising relative to the others, the share of services in GDP (in current prices) will then rise, and substantially so given the extent of the increase in its relative price, despite the modest change in its share in constant price terms.  Similarly, the fall in the shares of agriculture and of manufacturing (in current price terms) will follow directly from the fall in their prices (relative to the price of services), despite just a modest reduction in their shares in real terms.

The question then is why have we seen such a change in relative prices.  And this is where productivity enters.

C.  Growth in Output, Employment, and Productivity

First, it is useful to look at what happened to the growth in real sector outputs relative to 1947:

All sector outputs rose, and by substantial amounts.  While Trump has asserted that manufacturing is dying (due to free trade treaties), this is not the case at all.  Manufacturing (including mining) is now producing 5.3 times (in real terms) what it was producing in 1947.  Furthermore, manufacturing production was 64% higher in real terms in 2015 than it was in 1994, the year NAFTA went into effect.  This is far from a collapse.  The 64% increase over the 21 years between 1994 and 2015 was also higher than the 42% increase in manufacturing production of the preceding 21 year period of 1973 to 1994. There was of course much more going on than any free trade treaties, but to blame free trade treaties on a collapse in manufacturing is absurd.  There was no collapse.

Production in agriculture also rose, and while there was greater volatility (as one would expect due to the importance of weather), the increase in real output over the full period was in fact very similar to the increase seen for manufacturing.

But the biggest increase was for services.  Production of services was 7.6 times higher in 2015 than in 1947.

The second step is to look at employment, with workers measured here in full-time equivalent terms:

Despite the large increases in sector production over this period, employment in agriculture fell as did employment in manufacturing.  One unfortunately cannot say with precision by how much, given the break in the employment series in 1998.  However, there were drops in the absolute numbers employed in manufacturing both before and after the 1998 break in the series, while in agriculture there was a fall before 1998 (relative to 1947) and a fairly flat series after.  The change in the agriculture employment numbers in 1998 was relatively large for the sector, but since agricultural employment was such a small share of the total (only 1%), this does not make a big difference overall.

In contrast to the falls seen for agriculture and manufacturing, employment in the services sector grew substantially.  This is where the new jobs are arising, and this has been true for decades.  Indeed, services accounted for more than 100% of the new jobs over the period.

But one cannot attribute the decline in employment in agriculture and in manufacturing to the effects of international trade.  The points marked with a “+” in Chart 6 show what employment in the sectors would have been in 2015 (relative to 1947) if one had somehow forced net imports in the sectors to zero in 2015, with productivity remaining the same. There would have been an essentially zero change for agriculture (while the US is the world’s largest food exporter, it also imports a lot, including items like bananas which would be pretty stupid to try to produce here).  There would have been somewhat more of an impact on manufacturing, although employment in the sector would still have been well below what it had been decades ago.  And employment in services would have been a bit less. While most production in the services sector cannot be traded internationally, the sector includes businesses such as banking and other finance, movie making, professional services, and other areas where the US is in fact a strong exporter.  Overall, the US is a net exporter of services, and an abandonment of trade that forced all net imports (and hence net exports) to zero would lead to less employment in the sector.  But the impact would be relatively minor.

Labor productivity is then simply production per unit of labor.  Dividing one by the other leads to the following chart:

Productivity in agriculture grew at a strong pace, and by more than in either of the other two sectors over the period.  With higher productivity per worker, fewer workers will be needed to produce a given level of output.  Hence one can find that employment in agriculture declined over the decades, even though agricultural production rose strongly. Productivity in manufacturing similarly grew strongly, although not as strongly as in agriculture.

In contrast, productivity in the services sector grew at only a modest pace.  Most of the activities in services (including construction) are relatively labor intensive, and it is difficult to substitute machinery and new technology for the core work that they do.  Hence it is not surprising to find a slower pace of productivity growth in services.  But productivity in services still grew, at a positive 0.9% annual pace over the 1947 to 2015 period, as compared to a 2.8% annual pace for manufacturing and a 3.3% annual pace in agriculture.

Finally, and for those readers more technically inclined, one can convert this chart of productivity growth onto a logarithmic scale.  As some may recall from their high school math, a straight line path on a logarithmic scale implies a constant rate of growth.  One finds:

While one should not claim too much due to the break in the series in 1998, the path for productivity in agriculture on a logarithmic scale is remarkably flat over the full period (once one abstracts from the substantial year to year variation – short term fluctuations that one would expect from dependence on weather conditions).  That is, the chart indicates that productivity in agriculture grew at a similar pace in the early decades of the period, in the middle decades, and in the later decades.

In contrast, it appears that productivity in manufacturing grew at a certain pace in the early decades up to the early 1970s, that it then leveled off for about a decade until the early 1980s, and that it then moved to a rate of growth that was faster than it had been in the first few decades.  Furthermore, the pace of productivity growth in manufacturing following this turn in the early 1980s was then broadly similar to the pace seen in agriculture in this period (the paths are then parallel so the slope is the same).  The causes of the acceleration in the 1980s would require an analysis beyond the scope of this blog post. But it is likely that the corporate restructuring that became widespread in the 1980s would be a factor.  Some would also attribute the acceleration in productivity growth to the policies of the Reagan administration in those years.  However, one would also then need to note that the pace of productivity growth was similar in the 1990s, during the years of the Clinton administration, when conservatives complained that Clinton introduced regulations that undid many of the changes launched under Reagan.

Finally, and as noted before, the pace of productivity growth in services was substantially less than in the other sectors.  From the chart in logarithms, it appears the pace of productivity growth was relatively robust in the initial years, up to the mid-1960s.  While slower than the pace in manufacturing or in agriculture, it was not that much slower.  But from the mid-1960s, the pace of growth of productivity in services fell to a slower, albeit still positive, pace.  Furthermore, that pace appears to have been relatively steady since then.

One can summarize the results of this section with the following table:

Growth Rates:

1947 to 2015

Employment

Productivity

Output

Total (GDP)

1.5%

1.4%

2.9%

Agriculture

-0.7%

3.3%

2.6%

Manufacturing

-0.3%

2.8%

2.5%

Services

2.1%

0.9%

3.0%

The growth rate of output will be the simple sum of the growth rate of employment in a sector and the growth rate of its productivity (output per worker).  The figures here do indeed add up as they should.  They do not tell us what causes what, however, and that will be addressed next.

D.  Pulling It Together:  The Impact on Employment, Prices, and Sector Shares

Productivity is driven primarily by technological change.  While management skills and a willingness to invest to take advantage of what new technologies permit will matter over shorter periods, over the long term the primary driver will be technology.

And as seen in the chart above, technological progress, and the resulting growth in productivity, has proceeded at a different pace in the different sectors.  Productivity (real output per worker) has grown fastest over the last 68 years in agriculture (a pace of 3.3% a year), and fast as well in manufacturing (2.8% a year).  In contrast, the rate of growth of productivity in services, while positive, has been relatively modest (0.9% a year).

But as average incomes have grown, there has been an increased domestic demand in what the services sector produces, not only in absolute level but also as a share of rising incomes.  Since services largely cannot be traded internationally (with a few exceptions), the increased demand for services will need to be met by domestic production.  With overall production (GDP) matching overall incomes, and with demand for services growing faster than overall incomes, the growth of services (in real terms) will be greater than the growth of real GDP, and therefore also greater than growth in the rest of the economy (agriculture and manufacturing; see Chart 5).  The share of services in real GDP will then rise (Chart 3).

To produce this, the services sector needed more labor.  With productivity in the services sector growing at a slower pace (in relative terms) than that seen in agriculture and in manufacturing, the only way to obtain the labor input needed was to increase the share of workers in the economy employed in services (Chart 1).  And depending on the overall rate of labor growth as well as the size of the differences in the rates of productivity growth between the sectors, one could indeed find that the shift in workers out of agriculture and out of manufacturing would not only lead to a lower relative share of workers in those sectors, but also even to a lower absolute number of workers in those sectors.  And this is indeed precisely what happened, with the absolute number of workers in agriculture falling throughout the period, and falling in manufacturing since the late 1970s (Chart 6).

Finally, the differential rates of productivity growth account for the relative price changes seen between the sectors.  To be able to hire additional workers into services and out of agriculture and out of manufacturing, despite a lower rate of productivity growth in services, the price of services had to rise relative to agriculture as well as manufacturing. Services became more expensive to produce relative to the costs of agriculture or manufacturing production.  And this is precisely what is seen in Chart 4 above on prices.

To summarize, productivity growth allowed all sectors to grow.  With the higher incomes, there was a shift in demand towards services, which led it to grow at a faster pace than overall incomes (GDP).  But for this to be possible, particularly as its pace of productivity growth was slower than the pace in agriculture and in manufacturing, workers had to shift to services from the other sectors.  The effect was so great (due to the differing rates of growth of productivity) that employment in services rose to the point where services now employs close to 90% of all workers.

To be able to hire those workers, the price of services had to grow relative to the prices of the other sectors.  As a consequence, while there was only a modest shift in sector shares over time when measured in real terms (constant prices of 1947), there was a much larger shift in sector shares when measured in current prices.

The decline in the number of workers in manufacturing should not then be seen as surprising nor as a reflection of some defective policy.  Nor was it a consequence of free trade agreements.  Rather, it was the outcome one should expect from the relatively rapid pace of productivity growth in manufacturing, coupled with an economy that has grown over the decades with this leading to a shift in domestic demand towards services.  The resulting path for manufacturing was then the same basic path as had been followed by agriculture, although it has been underway longer in agriculture.  As a result, fewer than 1% of American workers are now employed in agriculture, with this possible because American agriculture is so highly productive.  One should expect, and indeed hope, that the same eventually becomes true for manufacturing as well.

Delusional: Is This What We Are to Expect from the New Trump Administration?

Definition of delusional in English:

delusional

ADJECTIVE

Characterized by or holding idiosyncratic beliefs or impressions that are contradicted by reality or rational argument, typically as a symptom of mental disorder:

‘hospitalization for schizophrenia and delusional paranoia’

‘he was diagnosed with a delusional disorder’

 Based on or having faulty judgement; mistaken:

‘their delusional belief in the project’s merits never wavers’

‘I think the guy is being a bit delusional here’

 

Donald J. Trump was inaugurated as President of the United States at 12:00 noon on January 20.  A day later, his new White House Press Secretary and Communications Director Sean Spicer in his very first press briefing of the new administration, launched a tirade against the press, for reporting (falsely he claimed) that attendance at the inauguration was less than the number who had attended Obama’s inauguration in 2009 (or indeed any prior inauguration). And he was visibly angry about this, as can be seen both in the transcript of the press briefing, and in a video of it.  He charged that “some members of the media were engaged in deliberately false reporting” and claimed that “This was the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration — period — both in person and around the globe.”

Furthermore, after many reports challenged Spicer’s assertions, the new administration doubled down on the charges.  Reince Priebus, the new White House Chief of Staff, vowed on Sunday that the new administration will fight the media “tooth and nail every day and twice on Sunday” over what they see as unfair attacks on Trump (by claiming, falsely they say, that the crowds had been larger at Obama’s inauguration).  And Kellyanne Conway, a spokesman for the White House and Counselor to the President, said on Sunday that what Press Secretary Spicer had asserted was not wrong but rather “alternative facts”.

Finally, one has Donald Trump himself, who claimed that he saw what “looked like a million, a million and a half people” present at his inauguration as he took the oath of office. One does not know how he was able to make such a count, and perhaps he should not be taken too seriously, but his administration’s senior staff appear to be obliged to back him up.

What do we know on the size of the crowds?  One first has to acknowledge that any crowd count is difficult, and that we will never know the precise numbers.  Unless each person has been forced to pass through a turnstile, all we can have are estimates.  But we can have estimates, and they can give some sense as to the size.  Most importantly, while we might not know the absolute size, we can have a pretty good indication from photos and other sources of data what the relative sizes of two crowds likely were.

So what do we know from photos?  Here we have a side-by-side photo (taken at Obama’s first inauguration and then at Trump’s) from the top of the Washington Monument, of the crowd on the Mall witnessing the event.  They were both taken at about the same time prior to the noon swearing-in of the new president, where the ceremony starts at 11:30:


inaugeration-attendance-2017-vs-2009

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The crowd in 2017 is clearly far smaller.  This has nothing to do with the white mats laid down to protect the grass (which was also done in 2013 for Obama’s second inauguration).  There are simply far fewer attendees.

There is also indirect evidence from the number of Metrorail riders that day.  Spicer said in his press briefing “We know that 420,000 people used the D.C. Metro public transit yesterday, which actually compares to 317,000 that used it for President Obama’s last inaugural.”  Actually these numbers are wrong, as well as misleading (since the comparison at issue is to Obama’s first inauguration in 2009, not to his second in 2013). As the Washington Post noted (with this confirmed by CNN) the correct numbers from the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (which operates the Metro system) are that there were 570,500 riders on Metro on Trump’s inauguration day, 1.1 million riders in 2009 on Obama’s first inauguration day, and 782,000 riders in 2013 on Obama’s second inauguration day.  What Trump’s press secretary said “we know” was simply wrong.

It is also simply not true that Trump drew a larger estimated TV audience than any president before.  Nielsen, the TV ratings agency, estimated that Trump drew 30.6 million viewers, while Obama drew 38 million viewers at his first inauguration.  And Reagan drew more, at 42 million viewers, for his first inauguration.  Furthermore, both Nixon (in 1973) and Carter (in 1977) drew more viewers than Trump, at 33 million and 34 million respectively. The Trump figure was far from a record.

So how many people attended Trump’s inauguration, and how does that figure compare to the number that Obama drew for his first inauguration?  A widely cited figure is that Obama drew an estimated 1.8 million for his first inauguration, but, as noted above, any such estimate must be taken as approximate.  But based on a comparison of the photos, experts estimate that Trump drew at most one-third of the Obama draw in terms of the number in attendance just on the Mall.  There were in addition many others at the Obama inaugural who were not on the Mall because they could not fit due to the crowding.

Why does this matter?  It matters only because the new Trump administration has made it into an issue, and in doing so, has made assertions that are clearly factually wrong.  Trump did not draw a record number to his inauguration, nor a record number of viewers, nor were there a record number of riders on the Washington Metro system.  These are all numbers, and they can be checked.  While we may not be able to know the precise number of those who attended, we can come to a clear conclusion on the relative size of those who attended this year versus previous recent inaugurations.  And Trump’s attendance was not at all close to the number who attended Obama’s first inaugural.

What is disconcerting is that Trump, his new Press Secretary, his Chief of Staff and others in his administration, should feel compelled to make assertions that are clearly and verifiably wrong, and then to attack the press aggressively for pointing out what we know. And this on his second day in office.  While this is not inconsistent with what the Trump team did during his campaign for the presidency, one would have hoped for more mature behavior once he took office.  And especially so for an issue which is fundamentally minor. It really does not matter much whether the number attending Trump’s inauguration was more or less than the number who had attended prior inaugurations.

Presumably (and assuming thought was given to this) they are setting a marker for what they intend to do during the course of the presidential term, with aggressive attacks on the press for reporting errors in their assertions or on contradictions with earlier statements.  If so, such a strategy, including denial of facts that can readily be verified, is truly worrisome. Facts should matter.  Not all that we will hear from the new administration will be so easy to check, and the question then is what can be believed.

Perhaps, and more worrying, they really believe their assertions on the numbers attending. If so, they are truly delusional.

Tax Cuts Do Not Spur Growth – There Are Income as well as Substitution Effects, and Much More Besides: Econ 101

gdp-growth-and-top-marg-tax-rate-1930-to-2015

A.   Introduction, and a Brief Aside on the Macro Issues

While there is much we do not yet know on what economic policies Donald Trump will pursue (he said many things in his campaign, but they were often contradictory), one thing we can be sure of is that there will be a major tax cut.  Republicans in Congress (led by Paul Ryan) and in the Senator want the same.  And they along with Trump insist that the cuts in tax rates will spur a sharp jump in GDP growth, with the result that net tax revenues in the end will not fall by all that much.

But do tax cuts spur growth?  The chart above suggests not.  Marginal tax rates of those in the top income brackets have come down sharply since the 1950s and early 1960s, when they exceeded 90%.  They reached as low as 28% during the later Reagan years and 35% during the administration of George W. Bush.  But GDP growth did not jump to some higher rate as a result.

This Econ 101 post will discuss the economics on why this is actually what one should expect.  It will focus on the microeconomics behind this, as the case for income tax cuts is normally presented by the so-called “supply siders” as a micro story of incentives.  The macro case for tax cuts is different.  Briefly, in times of high unemployment when the economy is suffering from insufficient demand in the aggregate to purchase all that could be produced if more labor were employed, a cut in income taxes might spur demand by households, as they would then have higher post-tax incomes to spend on consumption items.  This increase in demand could then spur production and hence GDP.

Critically, this macro story depends on allowing the fiscal deficit to rise by there not being simultaneously a cut in government expenditures along with the tax cuts.  If there is such a cut in government expenditures, demand may be reduced by as much as or even more than demand would be increased by households.  But the economic plans of both Trump and Congressman (and Speaker) Paul Ryan do also call for large cuts in government expenditures.  While both Trump and Ryan have called for government expenditures to increase on certain items, such as for defense, they still want a net overall reduction.

The net impact on demand will then depend on how large the government expenditure cuts would be relative to the tax cuts, and on the design of the income tax cuts.  As was discussed in an earlier post on this blog on the size of the fiscal multiplier, If most of the income tax cuts go to those who are relatively well off, who will then save most or perhaps all of their tax windfall, there will be little or no macro stimulus from the tax cuts.  Any government expenditure cuts on top of this would then lead not to a spur in growth, but rather to output growing more slowly or contracting.  And the tax plan offered by Donald Trump in his campaign would indeed direct the bulk of the tax cuts to the extremely well off.  A careful analysis by the non-partisan Tax Policy Center found that 71% of the tax cuts (in dollar value) from the overall plan (which includes cuts in corporate and other taxes as well) would go to the richest 5% of households (those earning $299,500 or more), 51% would go to the top 1% (those earning $774,300 or more), and fully 25% would go to the richest 0.1% (those earning $4.8 million or more).

[A side note:  To give some perspective on how large these tax cuts for the rich would be, the 25% going to the richest 0.1% under Trump’s plan would total $1.5 trillion over the next ten years, under the Tax Policy Center estimates.  By comparison, the total that the Congressional Budget Office projects would be spent on the food stamp program (now officially called SNAP) for the poor over this period would come to a bit below $700 billion (see the August 2016 CBO 10-year budget projections).  That is, the tax breaks to be given under Trump’s tax plan to the top 0.1% (who have earnings of $4.8 million or more in a year) would be more than twice as large as would be spent on the entire food stamp program over the period.  Yet the Republican position is that we have to cut the food stamp program because we do not have sufficient government revenues to support it.]

The macro consequences of tax cuts that mostly go to the already well off, accompanied by government expenditure cuts to try to offset the deficit impact, are likely therefore to lead not to a spur in growth but to the opposite.

The microeconomic story is separate, and the rest of this blog post will focus on the arguments there.  Those who argue that cuts in income taxes will act as a spur to growth base their argument on what they see as the incentive effects.  Income taxes are a tax on working, they argue, and if you tax income less, people will work longer hours.  More will be produced, the economy will grow faster, and people will have higher incomes.

This micro argument is mistaken in numerous ways, however.  This Econ 101 post will discuss why.  There is the textbook economics, where it appears these “supply siders” forgot some of the basic economics they were taught in their introductory micro courses. But we should also recognize that the decision on how many hours to work each week goes beyond simply the economics.  There are important common social practices (which can vary by the nature of the job, i.e. what is a normal work day, and what do you do to get promoted) and institutional structures (the 40 hour work week) which play an important and I suspect dominant role. This blog post will review some of them.

But first, what do we know from the data, and what does standard textbook economics say?

B.  Start with the Data

It is always good first to look at what the data is telling us.  There have been many sharp cuts in income tax rates over the last several decades, and also some increases.  Did the economy grow faster after the tax cuts, and slower following the tax increases?

The chart at the top of this post indicates not.  The chart shows what GDP growth was year by year since 1930 along with the top marginal income tax rate of each year.  The top marginal income tax rate is the rate of tax that would be paid on an additional dollar of income by those in the highest income tax bracket.  The top marginal income tax rate is taken by those favoring tax cuts as the most important tax rate to focus on.  It is paid by the richest, and these individuals are seen as the “job creators” and hence play an especially important role under this point of view.  But changes in the top rates also mark the times when there were normally more general tax cuts for the rest of the population as well, as cuts (or increases) in the top marginal rates were generally accompanied by cuts (or increases) in the other rates also.  It can thus be taken as a good indicator of when tax rates changed and in what direction.  Note also that the chart combines on one scale the annual GDP percentage growth rates and the marginal tax rate as a percentage of an extra dollar of income, which are two different percentage concepts.  But the point is to compare the two.

As the chart shows, the top marginal income tax rate exceeded 90% in the 1950s and early 1960s.  The top rate then came down sharply, to generally 70% until the Reagan tax cuts of the early 1980s, when they fell to 50% and ultimately to just 28%.  They then rose under Clinton to almost 40%, fell under the Bush II tax cuts to 35%, and then returned under Obama to the rate of almost 40%.

Were GDP growth rates faster in the periods when the marginal tax rates were lower, and slower when the tax rates were higher?  One cannot see any indication of it in the chart. Indeed, even though the highest marginal tax rates are now far below what they were in the 1950s and early 1960s, GDP growth over the last decade and a half has been less than it what was when tax rates were not just a little bit, but much much higher.  If cuts in the marginal tax rates are supposed to spur growth, one would have expected to see a significant increase in growth between when the top rate exceeded 90% and where it is now at about 40%.

Indeed, while I would not argue that higher tax rates necessarily lead to faster growth, the data do in fact show higher tax rates being positively correlated with faster growth.  That is, the economy grew faster in years when the tax rates were higher, not lower.  A simple statistical regression of the GDP growth rate on the top marginal income tax rate of the year found that if the top marginal tax rate were 10% points higher, GDP growth was 0.57% points higher.  Furthermore, the t-statistic (of 2.48) indicates that the correlation was statistically significant.

Again, I would not argue that higher tax rates lead to faster GDP growth.  Rather, much more was going on with the economy over this period which likely explains the correlation. But the data do indicate that very high top marginal income tax rates, even over 90%, were not a hindrance to growth.  And there is clearly no support in the evidence that lower tax rates lead to faster growth.

The chart above focuses on the long-term impacts, and does not find any indication that tax cuts have led to faster growth.  An earlier post on this blog looked at the more immediate impacts of such tax rates cuts or increases, focussing on the impacts over the next several years following major tax rate changes.  It compared what happened to output and employment (as well as what happened to tax revenues and to the fiscal deficit) in the immediate years following the Reagan and Bush II tax cuts, and following the Clinton and Obama tax increases.  What it found was that growth in output and employment, and in fiscal revenues, were faster following the Clinton and Obama tax increases than following the Reagan and Bush II tax cuts.  And not surprisingly given this, the fiscal deficit got worse under Reagan and Bush II following their tax cuts, and improved following the Clinton and Obama tax increases.

C.  The Economics of the Impact of Tax Rates on Work Effort

The “supply siders” who argue that cuts in income taxes will lead to faster growth base their case on what might seem (at least to them) simple common sense.  They say that if you tax something, you will produce less of it.  Tax it less, and you will produce more of it. And they say this applies to work effort.  Income taxes are a tax on work.  Lower income tax rates will then lead to greater work effort, they argue, and hence to more production and hence to more growth.  GDP growth rates will rise.

But this is wrong, at several levels.  One can start with some simple math.  The argument confuses what would be (by their argument) a one-time step-up in production, with an increase in growth rates.  Suppose that tax rates are cut and that as a result, everyone decides that at the new tax rates they will choose to work 42 hours a week rather than 40 hours a week before.  Assuming productivity is unchanged (actually it would likely fall a bit), this would lead to a 5% increase in production.  But this would be a one time increase. GDP would jump 5% in the first year, but would then grow at the same rate as it had before.  There would be no permanent increase in the rate of growth, as the supply siders assert.  This is just simple high school math.  A one time increase is not the same as a permanent increase in the rate of growth.

But even leaving this aside, the supply sider argument ignores some basic economics taught in introductory microeconomics classes.  Focussing just on the economics, what would be expected to happen if marginal income tax rates are cut?  It is true that there will be what economists call “substitution effects”, where workers may well wish to work longer hours if their after-tax income from work rises due to a cut in marginal tax rates. But the changes will also be accompanied by what economists call “income effects”.  Worker after-tax incomes will change both because of the tax rate changes and because of any differences in the hours they work.  And these income effects will lead workers to want to work fewer hours.  The income and substitution effects will work in opposite directions, and the net impact of the two is not clear.  They could cancel each other out.

What are the income effects, and why would they lead to less of an incentive to work greater hours if the tax rate falls?:

a)  First, one must keep in mind that the aim of working is to earn an income, and that hours spent working has a cost:  One will have fewer hours at home each day to enjoy with your wife and kids, or for whatever other purposes you spend your non-working time. Economists lump this all under what they call “leisure”.  Leisure is something desirable, and with all else equal, one would prefer more of it.  Economists call this a “normal good”.  With a higher income, you would want to buy more of it. And the way you buy more of it is by working fewer hours each day (at the cost of giving up the wages you would earn in those hours).

Hence, if taxes on income go down, so that your after-tax income at the original number of hours you work each day goes up, you will want to use at least some portion of this extra income to buy more time to spend at home.  This is an income effect, and will go in the opposite direction of the substitution effect of higher after-tax wages leading to an incentive to work longer hours.  We cannot say, a priori, whether the income effect or the substitution effect will dominate.  It will vary by individual, based on their individual preferences, what their incomes are, and how many hours they were already working.  It could go either way, and can only be addressed by looking at the data.

b)  One should also recognize that one works to earn income for a reason, and one reason among many is to earn and save enough so that one can enjoy a comfortable retirement. But in standard economic theory, there is no reason to work obsessively before retirement so that one will then have such a large retirement “nest egg” as to enjoy a luxurious life style when one retires.  Rather, the aim is to smooth out your consumption profile over both periods in your life.

Hence if income tax rates are cut, so that your after-tax incomes are higher, one will be able to save whatever one is aiming for for retirement, sooner.  Hence it would be rational to reduce by some amount the hours one seeks to work each day, and enjoy them with your wife and kids at home, as your savings goals for retirement can still be met with those fewer hours of work.  This is an income effect, and acts in the direction of reducing, rather than increasing, the number of hours one will choose to work if there is a general tax cut.

c)  More generally, one should recognize that incomes are earned to achieve various aims. Some of these might be to cover fixed obligations, such as to pay on a mortgage or for student debt, and some might be quasi-fixed, such as to provide for a “comfortable” living standard for one’s family.  If those aims are being met, then time spent at leisure (time spent at home with the family) may be especially attractive.  In such circumstances, the income effect from tax cuts might be especially large, and sufficient to more than offset the substitution effects resulting from the change in the after-tax wage.

Income effects are real, and it is mistake to ignore them.  They act in the opposite direction of the substitution effect, and will act to offset them.  The offset might be partial, full, or even more than full.  We cannot say simply by looking at the theory.  Rather, one needs to look at the data.  And as noted above, the data provdes no support to the suppostion that lower tax rates will lead to higher growth.  Once one recognizes that there will be income effects as well as substitution effects, one can see that this should not be a surprise.  It is fully consistent with the theory.

One can also show how the income and substitution effects work via some standard diagrams, involving indifference curves and budget constraints.  These are used in most standard economics textbooks.  However, I suspect that most readers will find such diagrams to be more confusing than enlightening.  A verbal description, such as that above, will likely be more easy to follow.  But for those who prefer such diagrams, the standard ones can be found at this web posting.  Note, however, that there is a mistake (a typo I assume) in the key Figures 2A and 2B.  The horizontal arrows (along the “leisure” axis) are pointed in the opposite direction of what they should (left instead of right in 2A and right instead of left in 2B).  These errors indeed serve to emphasize how even the experts with such diagrams can get confused and miss simple typos.

D.  But There is More to the Hours of Work Decision than Textbook Economics

The analysis above shows that the supply-siders, who stress microeconomic incentives as key, have forgotten half of the basic analysis taught in their introductory microeconomics classes.  There are substitution effects resulting from a change in income tax rates, as the supply-siders argue, but there are also income effects which act in the opposite direction. The net effect is then not clear.

However, there is more to the working hours decision than the simple economics of income and substitution effects.  There are social as well as institutional factors.  It the real world, these other factors matter.  And I suspect they matter a good deal more than the standard economics in explaining the observation that we do not see growth rates jumping upwards after the several rounds of major tax cuts of the last half century.

Such factors include the following:

a)  For most jobs, a 40 hour work week is, at least formally, standard.  For those earning hourly wages, any overtime above 40 hours is, by law, supposed to be compensated at 50% above their normal hourly wage.  For workers in such jobs, one cannot generally go to your boss and tell him, in the event of an income tax increase say, that you now want to work only 39 1/2 hours each week.  The hours are pretty much set for such workers.

b)  There are of course other workers compensated by the hour who might work a variable number of hours each week at a job.  These normally total well less than 40 hours a week.  These would include many low wage occupations such as at fast food places, coffee shops, retail outlets, and similarly.  But for many such workers, the number of hours they work each week is constrained not by the number of hours they want to work, but by the number of hours their employer will call them in for.  A lower income tax rate might lead them to want to work even more hours, but when they are constrained already by the number of hours their employer will call them in for, there will be no change.

c)  For salaried workers and professionals such as doctors, the number of hours they work each week is defined primarily by custom for their particular profession.  They work the hours that others in that profession work, with this evolving over time for the profession as a whole.  The hours worked are in general not determined by some individual negotiation between the professional and his or her supervisor, with this changing when income tax rates are changed.  And many professionals indeed already work long hours (including medical doctors, where I worry whether they suffer from sleep deprivation given their often incredibly long hours).

d)  The reason why one sees many professionals, including managers and others in office jobs, working such long hours probably has little to do with marginal income tax rates.  Rather, they try to work longer than their co-workers, or at least not less, in order to get promoted.  Promotion is a competition, where the individual seen as the best is the one who gets promoted.  And the one seen as the best is often the one who works the longest each day.  With the workers competing against each other, possibly only implicitly and not overtly recognized as such, there will be an upward spiral in the hours worked as each tries to out-do the other.  This is ultimately constrained by social norms.  Higher or lower income tax rates are not central here.

e)  Finally, and not least, most of us do take pride in our work.  We want to do it well, and this requires a certain amount of work effort.  Taxes are not the central determinant in this.

E.  Summary and Conclusion

I fully expect there to be a push to cut income tax rates early in the Trump presidency.  The tax plan Trump set out during his campaign was similar to that proposed by House Speaker Paul Ryan, and both would cut rates sharply, especially for those who are already well off. They will argue that the cuts in tax rates will spur growth in GDP, and that as a consequence, the fiscal deficit will not increase much if at all.

There is, however, no evidence in the historical data that this will be the case.  Income tax rates have been cut sharply since the Eisenhower years, when the top marginal income tax rate topped 90%, but growth rates did not jump higher following the successive rounds of cuts.

Tax cuts, if they are focused on those of lower to middle income, might serve as a macro stimulus if unemployment is significant.  Such households would be likely to spend their extra income on consumption items rather than save it, and this extra household consumption demand can serve to spur production.  But tax cuts that go primarily to the rich (as the tax cuts that have been proposed by Trump and Ryan would do), that are also accompanied by significant government expenditure cuts, will likely have a depressive rather than stimulative effect.

The supply-siders base their argument, however, for why tax cuts should lead to an increase in the growth rate of GDP, not on the macro effects but rather on what they believe will be the impact on microeconomic incentives.  They argue that income taxes are a tax on work, and a reduction in the tax on work will lead to greater work effort.

They are, however, confused.  What they describe is what economists call the substitution effect.  That may well exist.  But there are also income effects resulting from the changes in the tax rates, and these income effects will work in the opposite direction.  The net impact is not clear, even if one keeps just to standard microeconomics.  The net impact could be a wash.  Indeed, the net impact could even be negative, leading to fewer hours worked when there is a cut in income taxes.  One does not know a priori, and you need to look at the data.  And there is no indication in the data that the sharp cuts in marginal tax rates over the last half century have led to higher rates of growth.

There is also more to the working hours decision than just textbook microeconomics. There are important social and institutional factors, which I suspect will dominate.  And they do not depend on the marginal rates of income taxes.

But if you are making an economic argument, you should at least get the economics right.

Why It Is Important to Vote This November 8

trump-and-clinton-picture2-001

There is little need to repeat here the many reasons why the election of Donald Trump to the presidency (or indeed any position of authority) would be a disaster.  He has eminently disqualified himself by both his words and his actions, and I have little to add.  And there are many reasons why Hillary Clinton should be elected, not simply in order not to elect Trump.  Even her critics admit that she has the background and experience in both the executive and legislative branches of government – as First Lady (with an active role in policy discussions), as Senator from New York, and as Secretary of State for four years under President Obama –  that few candidates for the presidency could match.

Furthermore, even Donald Trump has said she is a fighter, and that is precisely what is needed if the policies that Obama has championed are to continue to move forward.  A Clinton administration will fight for action to address global warming, to moderate health care costs, to improve education, to reform immigration, to re-build our infrastructure, and more, just in the domain of domestic policy.  A Trump administration would move us backwards on each.  And I far prefer an administration that takes pride in making decisions based on what is in their head, as Obama has done, rather than based on what is in their gut, as Obama’s predecessor was proud to brag of.

As I write this, the polls indicate Hillary Clinton holds a substantial lead.  That may unfortunately have the effect of leading some share of Clinton supporters (and Trump opposers) not to bother to vote on November 8.  They may feel it would not matter, so why bother.  But there are important reasons why all those supporting Clinton, who want the country to move forward rather than backward, need to make the effort to vote.  This blog post will outline a few.

a)  Trump’s share in the vote might well be higher than what the polls indicate:  As of October 23, an average of recent polls indicates that Clinton leads Trump by about 7 percentage points nationally.  While in the US system the candidate receiving the most votes nationally is not necessarily the one elected (due to the electoral college system, so only the votes in a limited number of swing states decide the outcome, as discussed in this earlier blog post), a national margin of 7 percentage points is substantial and reflective of what is happening in the key states.

But the final vote may well be different.  First, it is common that there is a tightening in the race in the last few weeks of most American elections.  There is a good chance this might happen again here.  But second, and more fundamentally, it is important to recognize that the polls may not be assessing accurately the extent of Trump’s support.  This is not due to any kind of conspiracy, or incompetence, but rather because polling this year is particularly difficult to do well.  Trump is an especially controversial candidate, known for his racist as well as misogynist remarks in this campaign.  Some Trump supporters might not admit to a pollster that they support him.  His true support might be several percentage points higher than what the polls indicate, and there are indications that this may have been an issue during the polling for the primaries in at least some of the states. I am not saying that it necessarily is now, but rather that we just do not know.

b)  A focus by Trump on high turnout of his base, instead of a broadening of his base, is not an unreasonable strategy:  Most major party candidates for the presidency seek to broaden their base of support as the election approaches by appealing to the middle.  Trump has not done this.  His focus has been and continues to be on energizing his base, with a continued use of extremist remarks to stoke concerns (the election is rigged, Hillary is a crook whom I will throw into jail, I won’t necessarily accept the results of the election unless they show I won, and so on).

With a base of support that is well less than 50% (even if one discounts the polls to a significant extent; see above), such a strategy might be seen as making it impossible to win.  The moderate middle is not attracted, but indeed repelled.  But it is not necessarily an unreasonable strategy.

The key is to recognize that a very high share of eligible Americans do not vote.  In the 2012 presidential election, only 58% of the population that were eligible to vote in fact cast a ballot for the presidency.  If Trump is able to energize his base and get a high share of them to vote, they can end up winning.

This can be illustrated with some numbers.  Using the polling averages as worked out by the Huffington Post, and rescaling to remove the undecideds, then as of October 23, polling indicated that Clinton would receive 48% of the vote and Trump 41% (with others receiving 11%, primarily Gary Johnson of the Libertarians and Jill Stein of the Greens).  To arrive at these numbers, pollsters used various methods to try to take into account the likelihood that those being polled would actually vote.  But none of these methods are very good.  Some pollsters ask the individual whether they voted in the previous election. However, the share saying they voted is always substantially higher than the share we know actually did vote.  Or some pollsters adjust the figures based on patterns for the share of those who voted in the past who have a similar income or education level, or are of the same ethnic group, or some other such grouping (using exit polling).  But this also does not work very well since the share of different groups who vote changes from election to election depending on the candidates and other issues.

For the purposes here, which are simply illustrative, let’s assume that these polling numbers reflect accurately the share of the population who prefer each of the candidates, but not necessarily the shares of those who actually will vote.  Furthermore, let’s assume that 53% of Clinton’s supporters will actually vote while 63% of Trump’s supporters will (recall the actual average in 2012 was 58%).  Multiplying out the numbers to get those who actually will vote, one finds that Trump in such a scenario would receive a higher share of the vote than Clinton:

Supporters

Turnout

Voters

Share of Vote

Clinton

48%

53%

25.44

44.1%

Trump

41%

63%

25.83

44.8%

Other

11%

58%

6.38

11.1%

All

100%

 

57.65

100.0%

Turnout matters.  A strategy focussed on turning out a high share of your base supporters, by energizing them through extremist rhetoric with no suggestion of compromise, is not necessarily an irrational one, even if it means losing the more moderate voters.  You could end up with more votes than your opponent.

c)  The winning margin matters for Trump to accept the result of the election:  If Hillary Clinton wins the election, but by a relatively narrow margin, Trump has said that he will not necessarily accept the result.  Trump made this clear in the third presidential debate, and has repeated his remarks since then despite of, and in the face of, strong criticism.  An important strength of American democracy, which distinguishes it from what is seen in a number of other countries around the world, is that the loser of the election concedes and accepts the result.  It might take some time (and court challenges) to determine the winner, but in the end the loser has always graciously accepted the decision (as Al Gore did in 2000).

Trump has been intentionally ambiguous on whether he will.  But the larger the margin by which he loses, the more difficult it will be for him to contest the results.

d)  The winning margin matters for the Republicans to move on:  Trump has upended the national Republican Party by capturing a base, primarily of angry white males with less than a college education, who have said they are willing to take extreme measures to get what they want.  If Trump loses, but by a relatively narrow margin, one can be sure that there will be Trump-like candidates seeking the Republican nomination in 2020, and perhaps even Trump himself.

Strong supporters of the Democrats might feel that this may not be so bad.  Such a candidate would likely lose again.  But that would be short-sighted.  Democracies need a multi-party system, with at least two responsible parties that can each govern responsibly. One-party states, whether in Japan or elsewhere, end up in difficulty.  And one-party states are indeed rare.  Eventually, an opposition party wins, as the electorate tires of those in power and as those long in power become increasingly ineffective.

American democracy needs a responsible opposition party.  Republicans at the national level are not providing that now, and that is a problem for all of us.

e)  The winning margin matters for Clinton to govern effectively:  Everyone agrees that there is much that needs to be done.  But opponents of the measures a Clinton administration would promote to move the  country forward would be emboldened in their opposition should Clinton win by a relatively narrow margin.  The larger the margin, the more difficult it will be for her opponents to block her proposals.

f)  There is an innate inconsistency to be opposed to Washington gridlock, but also to be in favor of divided government:  Everyone agrees that gridlock in Washington is bad.  The country needs to move forward in numerous areas, but gridlock is blocking it.  At the same time, political scientists have long observed (and backed up in their research) that voters often prefer “balanced” government, where the executive branch is controlled by one party with the legislature by the other.

This arrangement may have worked well in periods in the past.  With the system of checks and balances built in to the US Constitution, one branch of government cannot change much alone, but must also receive the support of the other branches (with the judiciary playing an essential, but separate, role as well).

This changed, however, over the last two decades.  Rather than seek common ground on measures, with compromises in order to move things forward, Republicans in Congress decided to adopt a position of opposition.  As documented in the excellent book of Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein, It’s Even Worse Than It Looks, Republicans decided that if the administration supported something, they would be opposed.  This applied even on measures that they themselves had originally proposed.  The authors, one based at the left-of-center Brookings Institution and one at the right-of-center American Enterprise Institute, provide numerous examples.

Such opposition continues.  Last week, Senator John McCain (who at one time was considered a relative moderate among Republicans) said on a radio talk show that he and his colleagues will oppose any Supreme Court nominee of Hillary Clinton.  He said “I promise you that we will be united against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton, if she were president, would put up. … I promise you.”  While a spokeswoman later sought to moderate his position, it does not appear that his views had in fact changed.

Such an approach to government, of united opposition to any proposals put forward by the chief executive, can work in a different form of government.  In parliamentary systems (such as in the UK), the opposition party will typically oppose any measures put forward by the prime minister.  But the prime minister represents a majority in parliament, and hence with party line votes the measure will pass.

But the US Constitution did not establish a parliamentary form of government.  Rather, the system set up by the US Constitution has an independently elected president, along with certain powers assigned to the legislature (such as to make laws, pass a budget, provide “advice and consent” on judicial and senior executive branch appointments, and more).  It is a system of checks and balances, and does not work well when one party decides to act like the opposition in a parliamentary system and routinely oppose measures proposed by the chief executive.

A large winning margin by Hillary Clinton will make it more difficult for a Republican majority to continue to act in this way, at least at the start of the new administration.  And while it is conceivable that the Democrats might win control of the Senate (they need to pick up a net of four seats, assuming Clinton wins so that Vice President Tim Kaine will have the tie-breaking vote), it is doubtful they will pick up the net of 30 seats required to win control of the House.  Too many seats have been gerrymandered.

Voters can resolve this by not voting for divided government, but rather for one party.  And if that party is not to be the one with Trump as president, that means the Democrats. What will not resolve the issues would be to vote for Clinton, but then vote for Republican candidates for the House and the Senate, including those who have sought to keep their distance from Trump, with a number saying they will not themselves vote for Trump.  But it is not really that vote that matters.  What matters is the vote they will take for the leadership of the House or the Senate, and whether that leadership says that they will oppose anything being proposed by Clinton, as they have for Obama.  If so, then gridlock will continue.

Conclusion

It would be surprising if Hillary Clinton were not to win this election.  I do not expect her to lose.  But it should be recognized that it is possible.  While the polls put her comfortably ahead as I write this, polls can be wrong, for reasons discussed above.  And we have seen two major such cases already this year.  Most expected British voters would reject the proposal in the June referendum to leave the European Union (Brexit).  Most polls indicated the vote would be in favor of staying.  Instead, it lost, and by the substantial margin of 52% to leave and 48% to stay.

To be fair, the polls in the Brexit referendum were relatively close, especially just before the day of the vote.  A better example of how the polls can be wrong in a major way was the vote in Colombia on October 2 on whether to accept the peace accord the government had negotiated with the FARC rebel army.  The war had been going on for decades, and about 220,000 Colombians had died over the years.  Polls before the vote indicated that over 60% of Colombians would vote in favor of the accord.  But it narrowly lost, by 50.2% to 49.8%.  It is not clear why, although there are many theories.  But one important factor was turnout.  Only 37% of eligible Colombian voters actually voted, perhaps because they believed the peace accord would win easily.  Voter turnout was especially hurt along the country’s Caribbean coast, where a hurricane, while it remained off shore, nonetheless delivered heavy rains on the day of the vote.  Support for the peace accord was especially high in that region, but turnout was low.

I would not predict that the polls in the US presidential elections are wrong, but that there can be uncertainties.  This is especially so this year.  And, for reasons discussed above, the issue is not only who will win or lose, but also what the winning margin will be.  So vote this November 8, and vote for Hillary Clinton.