In the previous blog post in this series, I posited that (generally speaking) able-bodied individuals should be expected to pay for their housing, and that for housing to be “affordable” to an individual, it should take up no more than about 30% of their salary, both as a rule of thumb and by the federal government’s own definition. But that’s not the end of the story when it comes to establishing what affordable housing is.

Another major question is this: How far away from one’s employment can housing be to still be functionally affordable for that worker? If I work a minimum wage job on the moon, renting a house on Earth and paying to commute daily to outer space won’t cut it.

For a more grounded example, if a worker’s job is in Overland Park, Kansas, but their housing is 25 minutes away east of downtown Kansas City, would that housing—meeting all criteria before considering location—qualify as “affordable housing”, given the added cost of transportation? If the same job were in Independence—nearly 40 minutes away from Overland Park—would we expect that worker to change jobs to something closer to home, or move to housing closer to their job? How do our expectations change if instead of gas being $2 per gallon, it jumps to $5 per gallon?

This question of affordable housing in the context of geography is a nuanced question that doesn’t necessarily have an intuitive or universal answer. But that doesn’t mean answers aren’t being proposed.

For example, the Housing and Transportation Affordability Index, or H+T Index, attempts to simulate what residents of a given census tract might expect to pay in housing and transportation combined as a percentage of their income. Keep in mind that “transportation” here includes all transportation, including trips to the grocery store, for entertainment, etc., so the H+T Index isn’t an apples-to-apples comparison to the HUD definition or other housing-only definitions of affordability. But the H+T index is helpful for understanding that affordable housing that isn’t close to gainful employment is, for all intents and purposes, not affordable.

Other factors can also play into the definition of affordable housing, including whether affordable housing includes homes for purchase as well as homes for rent; whether affordability considers the mitigating costs of roommates where appropriate; and the extent to which affordable housing could still be inadequate housing in some other qualitative way.

That said, a reasonable baseline definition of affordable housing includes the following: it should generally be paid for by the individual, should not exceed 30% of their salary, and should be available in rough proximity to their place of employment. Now, we can turn to the question we’re exploring in this series: Does Kansas City have an affordable housing problem? Stay tuned.

The post Part Four: Does Kansas City Have an Affordable Housing Problem? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Missourians have little recourse to deal with these rising costs. Missouri’s retail electric markets are monopolized, meaning that each Missourian only has one possible electric service provider.

But it doesn’t have to be this way. As I have written previously, thirteen states and the District of Columbia allow customers to choose between competing electric service providers. Looking at the time since competitive markets matured in 2008, the results have been quite encouraging, as shown in the graph below.

Source: Energy Information Administration

Missourians are losing ground when it comes to overall electric prices, too. In 2008, Missouri’s prices were quite low—43rd-highest overall electricity prices nationwide. Missouri’s prices now sit in the middle of the pack at 29th, due to the rapid price increases shown in the graph above.

Across every sector, competitive states are outperforming monopolized states—and especially Missouri—when it comes to lowering prices. Competition has helped make the electric service industry in those states more efficient and has passed on savings to customers. If lawmakers want to reduce the cost of living for Missourians while enhancing their economic freedom, they ought to consider embracing retail electric competition.

The post Why Missouri Should Embrace Retail Electric Competition in One Graph appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

To measure affordability, researchers divided the median house price within a region by the median household income. Regions scoring under 3.0 are considered affordable. The regions examined don’t just include cities; researchers examined metropolitan statistical areas, often including the several counties surrounding an urban area. So the Kansas City and St. Louis regions include a number of more suburban municipalities as well.

Rochester, New York earned the best score out of the major housing markets, with a score of 2.5. St. Louis was tied for fourth most affordable with a score of 2.8. (This is up from St. Louis’s 2010 score of 2.6.) Kansas City fell within the top 20 with a score of 3.3 among major housing markets, but this too is an increase from previous years. In 1990 and 2015, Kansas City’s scores were 2.3 and 2.9., respectively.

Missouri’s cities have often benefitted from relatively low costs of living, driven largely by housing costs. This is due in part to a lack of a certain kind of land-use regulations that became prevalent in cities in places like California, Oregon and Washington. Missouri and its cities ought to be congratulated for avoiding these pitfalls.

As Kansas City and St. Louis seek to increase housing affordability, they ought to remember that their successes so far stem largely from avoiding overregulation. Many policies, despite being well intentioned, only increase costs by restricting availability.

For more information on housing affordability, read our 2016 study on Kansas City or our 2012 study on St. Louis.

The post Good News on Housing Affordability in Missouri appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Business Facilities’ 2019 Metro Rankings Report scored Kansas City in the top ten on its list of major American cities with the highest potential for economic growth.

Kansas City landed on the list based on a few different factors, including the city’s quality of life and cost of living. Researchers at the Show-Me Institute have often urged Kansas City to play to exactly these strengths. Back in 2016, urban policy expert Wendell Cox published a paper walking through the advantages the region offers:

The fundamental question is, “What competitive advantages does Kansas City have over other metropolitan areas, and how can it maintain or expand those advantages?” The answers are clear. Kansas City’s strongest advantages are its low cost of living (the result of superior housing affordability), superior mobility, and a complete array of lifestyle choices. However, each of these advantages could be threatened by policies that currently enjoy favor within urban planning circles.

These factors might not be the most impressive on paper, but they are very important to those choosing to move into or stay in the region. Instead of playing to these simple strengths, Kansas City officials seem to be determined to become the next Denver, Dallas, or Seattle, using economic incentives to build trendier entertainment districts and businesses.

But Kansas City is unique, and has a lot to offer without trying to chase the trends of other areas. People live here for simple reasons like affordability and ease of transportation. A city government that chooses to spend taxpayer dollars on subsidizing things like sports stadiums or streetcars instead of bolstering basic city services is doing the region a disservice.

Kansas City risks squandering its potential for growth if policymakers fail to understand what the city does best. As my colleague Patrick Tuohey has previously stated, “If we want Kansas City to succeed, we need to understand exactly what we have to offer.”

The post Kansas City Should Rely On Its Strengths appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The USDA’s cost-benefit analysis found that shifting these two agencies to Kansas City would reduce costs by 11.3 percent, saving taxpayers roughly $300 million (in nominal terms) over the next 15 years. These savings stem primarily from the fact that Kansas City has dramatically cheaper real estate than D.C., as well as marginally lower cost of living. The USDA’s report noted that the median sale price of a home (a major factor in determining cost of living for employees) in Kansas City is $205,400, compared to $420,000 in D.C.

This isn’t a surprise to me; I moved to Kansas City from Washington, D.C. in 2005. Nor should it surprise anyone who read our paper on the competitive advantages of the Kansas City region, as the paper mentions low cost of living as a major advantage for Kansas City.

While we don’t know exactly were in the region the USDA will locate, it was disheartening to read in The Kansas City Star that $26 million in “unspecified” incentives were part of the deal. The authors reported:

Greg LeRoy, executive director of the watchdog group Good Jobs First, accused the USDA of engaging in an Amazon-style selection process that made states compete for the jobs with incentives.

“It’s outrageous that the USDA would run an auction. This is the extreme version of privatized behavior by the federal government. Uncle Sam has no business running auctions, dangling jobs on state and local taxpayers,” he said.

LeRoy said the final competition the USDA is setting up between Kansas and Missouri is reminiscent of how corporations set municipalities against each other after a region has been selected.

“This is classic site location consultant chicanery…This is an ugly, extreme version of Uncle Sam imitating Jeff Bezos. Yuck. If I were a Missouri or Kansas taxpayer, I would never stand for this. And as a federal taxpayer I’m cross-eyed.”

It’s a shame that the USDA encourages such behavior. It’s a shame that the Kansas City region plays ball, and it’s a shame that we’ll now fight among ourselves for the specific USDA location.

I discussed this topic with Pete Mundo this morning on KCMO Talk Radio. Click here to listen to the segment.

The post USDA Moves to Kansas City, Gets Incentives appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post Policy Study: Missouri’s Funding Formula for K-12 Public Education appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post Video: Kansas City: Genuinely World Class appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

More specifically, Kansas City leaders have not adopted land-use policies that have made cities like Portland and Denver so expensive. To demonstrate the impact of these regulations, Cox uses a “median multiple,” which he calculated by dividing the median house price by the median household income:

In 1990, the three metropolitan areas [Denver, Portland, and Kansas City] had similar housing affordability. The median multiple in both Denver and Portland was 2.4. Kansas City’s median multiple was 2.3. By 2015, the median multiples in Denver and Portland had more than doubled to 5.1. By comparison, the increase in the median multiple was much less in Kansas City, at 2.9.

Other cities also saw housing prices rise without a commensurate increase in median household income:

Sydney, Australia, which was among the earliest to adopt urban containment policy, now is among the least affordable housing markets internationally, with a median multiple of 12.2 in 2015, while San Jose and San Francisco have median multiples of 9.7 and 9.4, respectively. In these metropolitan areas, which had median multiples of under 3.0 before adopting strong land-use regulation, residents now face median multiples that are more than three times as large as those in Kansas City.

Kansas Citians are constantly told that we need to be like Portland and Denver by streetcar aficionados,  Dallas for folks who want a new airport, or Indianapolis by people pushing a new convention hotel. But Kansas City is not those places, thankfully. And our greatest strength—housing affordability and the cost of living it allows—exists exactly because we didn’t follow their lead on land use regulation.

Kansas City needs to be Kansas City, and Cox’s paper is required reading for anyone who wants to understand how we can promote ourselves to the world.

The post When Kansas City Leaders Got It Right appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

In a recent interview on Missouri Viewpoints, Cox said

I’m a bit of a skeptic on how much difference it makes to have a great economic development department. People move where housing is affordable; where life is good—livable communities. And by livable I mean low cost of living, good traffic, a place where you can raise your family from before you have children to the point where you have children and move later.

This may be disheartening to policy wonks and anyone working in the economic development field, but Cox is not alone. In 2014, economist Enrico Moretti gave an interview to National Public Radio where he said the same thing about cities that had become innovation centers:

"[Interviewer] This is the unsettling part of your book: How do cities replicate these innovative job clusters?

"[Moretti] It's very tough, because if you look historically where the innovation clusters are located, almost none of them [were] created by some deliberate, explicit policy. It's really hard to engineer an innovation cluster. We talk about Seattle, but if you look at a lot of the clusters, they were all born in very random, often serendipitous, ways. So it's really hard for policymakers to engineer from scratch."

This is important because Kansas City leaders are already on the record talking about how they want to build a city for the future. But how likely is it that city officials will be able to legislate into reality an as-yet-imaginary Kansas City technology district. The takeaway from Cox’s research is that policymakers ought to understand Kansas City’s strengths and build on them rather than just imitate what other cities are doing.

The post What Can City Leaders Do To Grow A City? Not Much appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

• Blog: Kansas City: Genuinely World Class
• TV: Wendell Cox on KC Competitiveness
• TV: Wendell Cox and Crosby Kemper III on KCPT’s Ruckus
• Radio (beginning at 23 minute mark): ‘How To Listen To Jazz,’ A World-Class Kansas City, And The Weekend To-Do List
• Radio: Wendell Cox appeared on KCMO radio with host Mike Ferguson
• Video: Kansas City: Genuinely World Class

The post Kansas City-Genuinely World Class appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

But what we also should take into account (but almost never do) are the conditions of the labor market in which teachers work.  If you pay the same amount to a teacher in St. Louis that you do a teacher in Nodaway County, it’s very likely that you’ve underpaid the St. Louis teacher and overpaid the Nodaway County teacher, even though they got the same amount.  Let me explain why.

There are vast differences in the cost of living and average salaries of workers across the state. Take Shannon County for example. Located just south of the Mark Twain national forest, Shannon County is one of the poorest counties in the state (It also happens to be where my wife’s grandparents call home). The median household income in 2011 was roughly $20,000 less than the state average, at $25,684.  The average teacher in the county makes over $35,000, more than 135% of the median household income. On top of that, teachers receive a 14.5% match on retirement contributions and employer-paid health care. All of this for 180 days of work—that is, unless they use their 10 to 12 built-in sick/personal days. 

What would happen if we gave these teachers a raise? Would paying teachers an extra $2,000 or $3,000 and moving them to 140 or 150 percent of median household income attract new teachers or retain current teachers? That’s unlikely. They’re already far above their neighbors. What’s worse, it would strain the already limited stream of money that the district has to fund its schools. Small benefit, high cost, bad policy.

As I pointed out yesterday on the blog, teacher pay should reflect local economic markets.  The map at the top of this post shows the average salary of teachers in each Missouri county. The color indicates how the salary compares to the median household income of the county. An index can be thought of as a percentage, so in the counties shown in orange, teacher salaries range between 75% and 99% of median household income.  In many areas of the state with “low” teacher salaries, the wages are actually high compared to the median household income. 

Because of all of this, a statewide increase in teacher salaries (like the ones the MSTA calls for) would mean paying teachers in some areas of the state above what their local market demands.  It would push districts that are already financially strapped to take unpopular measures such as holding wages down for more senior teachers or increasing class sizes by hiring fewer teachers.

Today Missouri requires all school districts to start teachers at a salary of at least $25,000, and teachers with a master’s degree and 10 years of experience must earn at least $33,000. Increasing the minimum teacher salary to, say, $30,000 would have little effect on overall teacher pay.  According to a study by the Missouri State Teachers Association, the average starting teacher salary in Missouri is $33,012.

Still, many school districts—poor, rural districts—would be affected by an increase in the state-required minimum wage for teachers. Thus, this type of mandate would disproportionately affect those districts most strapped for cash. It would mean they could hire fewer teachers because they have less money to spend.

Increasing teacher salaries may be a noble goal, but the decision of whether to do so should be made by local school boards taking into account local conditions, not by politicians in Jefferson City.

The post Increasing Teacher Pay from On High Is Simply Bad Policy appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

That’s also why I do a facepalm when someone compares Missouri’s teacher salaries to the average salaries in other states.

In a recent press release promoting a new study on teacher salaries, Bruce Moe, executive director of the Missouri State Teacher’s Association, said, “Missouri ranks 42nd nationwide for average classroom teacher pay. That translates to $8,896 less than the national average.”

Let’s do a little test. Here is a cost-of-living map from the Missouri Economic Research and Information Center (MERIC). It provides an index for each state. Missouri’s cost of living in the 3rd quarter of 2015 was just 91.2% of the national average. Using just this information, what states would you bet have the highest teacher salaries?

Did you guess New York, Washington D.C., or California? Give yourself a gold star!

According to the Digest of Education Statistics from the National Center for Education Statistics (Table 211.60), the average teacher salary in each of these places was over $70,000. Massachusetts and New Jersey also have average salaries higher than $70,000, but each of these places has a cost-of-living that is much higher than the national average (including 149.3% of the national average in D.C.!).

According to MERIC, “Missouri had the 11th-lowest cost of living in the United States for the third quarter of 2015.” We should expect the average teacher salary in Missouri to be below the national average, because the cost-of-living in Missouri is below the national average.

Just as teachers in Saint Louis and Kansas City make more than teachers in Mt. Vernon and Niangua, teachers in New York and California make more, on average, than teachers in Missouri. This is not a bad thing—it simply reflects that it costs a lot less to live here. Not taking that into account yields wildly skewed results, and the MSTA should know better.

The post Comparing Teacher Pay by State Offers Heat, but Little Light appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Not being from Saint Louis, the advisor did not know that almost unrealistically cheap rent (from the rest of the country’s perspective) is readily available in the region. In fact, Saint Louis was just named the most affordable major city in the country for recent grads by Trulia Trends (“investigators of unconventional house hunting trends”).

Their analysis showed that a recent grad in Saint Louis would on average make just under $26,000, allowing them to afford almost 20 percent of units in Saint Louis. How expensive can it get in other cities? In Portland, Oregon, the median wage of recent grads is under $19,000, which would allow them to afford about 0.1 percent of rental units available. Following close behind Portland, in terms of unaffordability, are Riverside, Orange County, and Miami.

One might assume that the relationship here is one of growth and desirability. Saint Louis, with relatively low growth, is not as attractive as the fast-growing Portland or Miami. But economic growth is not the whole story, because following Saint Louis on the list of affordable metros are some of the fastest-growing metropolitan areas in the nation, including Houston, Dallas, Atlanta, and Phoenix. Most likely, multiple factors, including desirable weather and urban containment policies (of which Portland has been a very prominent example), are important in making a city unaffordable for young people. Put simply, it takes capped supply along with high demand for rent to become unattainable for the average grad.

As things stand, Saint Louis is in the opposite situation from cities like Portland or Boston, in that there is plenty of supply but not a whole lot of demand. That puts Saint Louis in a good position to attract startup businesses and startup graduates from more expensive metropolitan areas. However, if Saint Louis is to gather momentum in attracting businesses, it should keep a positive regulatory attitude toward new building and avoid restricting supply through urban containment.

The post Cheap Rent: A Saint Louis Advantage appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Missouri has nearly the lowest cost of living in the country. Each dollar I spend in Missouri goes quite a bit further than it would in a high cost-of-living state, such as California or Maryland. As a result, residents of low cost-of-living states, even if paid less, might be able to afford more than people working the same job in a high cost-of-living state. A comparison of pay among the states that does not adjust for regional differences in the cost of necessities like rent, food, and gas is not very meaningful.

A better way to determine whether state employees are underpaid would be to compare state employee compensation with the pay of people performing similar jobs in the private sector. How much do maintenance workers, office clerks, and lawyers make working for the government versus working for a private business located in Missouri?

Andrew Biggs and Jason Richwine of American Enterprise Institute looked at state employee compensation this way. They found that in Missouri state employees often make more—by an average of 7 percent—than comparable private-sector workers when the value of benefits is factored in. In other words, Missouri state workers are not in urgent need of an across-the-board pay increase; in fact, they’re often compensated more generously than their private-sector counterparts.

Perhaps we shouldn’t fault AFSCME for using misleading information to suggest that Missouri state employees are underpaid. It’s not AFSCME’s job to conduct a serious study of the adequacy of public employee pay; AFSCME’s job is to get more for its members. Members of the public should keep this in mind any time a government union issues a statement on public policy.

The post Surprising No One, Big Government Union Wants State to Spend More appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The BEA now adjusts nominal incomes at the state level for price-level differences across states. This is made possible by the development of regional price parities (RPP). Basically, the state RPPs measure geographic differences in prices; that is, comparable costs of living. The 2014 release marks the first time these series are being recognized as “official” statistics. What do the new data tell us about Missouri?

The chart below shows that growth in Missouri’s real personal income for 2011-12, the most recent years for which the data are available, falls in the next to lowest quintile of states. We have eight other low-growth cohorts, including neighboring states Nebraska and Kentucky. But the vast majority of states (and most of our neighbors) experienced faster growth in real personal income compared with Missouri.

The income data is disheartening. But the evidence about Missouri’s cost of living compared to other states strikes a definite positive note. The chart below shows that Missouri’s RPP in 2012 places it near the bottom of the ranking. And being at the bottom of this ranking is good news for a change. This means that the general level of prices in Missouri is below the national average and lower than all but three states.

Translation: While Missourians’ real incomes still are not rising as fast as we’d like, the cost of living in Missouri is less than nearly every other state. Maybe the BEA’s next release of this data, scheduled for July 1, 2015, will provide positive news on both fronts.

The post Some Good Economic News (Well, at Least About Cost of Living) appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Fallacy 4: State-by-state comparisons need not adjust for the cost of living

Teachers in Missouri are among the worst paid in the nation, right? That is what the editorial board of the Post-Dispatch would have you believe. As evidence, they link to a piece in The Atlantic, which lists the 10 best and 10 worst states in terms of teacher salaries. Missouri ranks 3rd on the 10 worst list.

As with almost everything else written in the editorial piece, there is a huge problem with this comparison — the cost of living.

The average teacher salary listed for Missouri is $46,411. This seems much lower than the $72,708 salary listed for New York or the $69,434 salary listed for California. Of course, it costs much more to live in those places.

A quick visit to a cost-of-living calculator can help us understand the difference between Missouri’s teacher salaries and those of the highest-paying states.

A salary of $45,000 in Saint Louis, Mo., would be approximately equal to:

$90,246 in Brooklyn, N.Y.

$108,079 in Manhattan, N.Y.

$67,821 in Boston, Mass.

$65,598 in Long Beach, Calif.

$74,242 in San Jose, Calif.

$64,807 in Newark-Elizabeth, N.J.

$61,152 in Hartford, Conn.

$72,810 in Stamford, Conn.

It is disappointing that the Post-Dispatch piece misses the mark on so many levels, because there is room for good debate on these issues.

Because I have spent the past four blog posts explaining where the Post-Dispatch went wrong, I think I should close with an area of agreement. The editors note that the legislature is not meeting its obligation because they are under-funding the foundation formula. To that, I agree.

The post Dismantling The Post-Dispatch’s Piece About Education (Part 4 of 4) appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

People in the Saint Louis area often talk about the problems associated with so many different governments and so many types. Those problems are real, but there are positive aspects of having a large number of small governments, too. One of the best aspects of having a high number of smaller governments (such as the 90 different municipalities in Saint Louis County) is the inability to enact comprehensive planning in the area. Government-directed urban planning is too often just an excuse for others to tell you how to live. We do not need growth boundaries in Saint Louis. We do not need higher density zoning (which should be allowed, of course, if that is what people want; it just should not be mandated by government). We do not need excessive impact fees for construction. We do not need — and more importantly, do not have — any number of other examples of land use rules governing our lives. What does that lack of mandated planning give us? More freedom and lower housing costs; two wonderful things.

Wendell Cox is uniquely qualified to comment on the affairs of Saint Louis. While his writings and lectures are international in scope, he resides in the Saint Louis area. The Show-Me Institute is excited to have him writing for us, and you can view his full policy study here. You can also enjoy a conversation between Wendell and Rick Edlund, Show-Me Institute’s director of communications, here.

The post Lower Housing Costs, Less Urban Planning, and the Positives of 90 Municipalities in Saint Louis County appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Saint Louis, Mo., has one of the United States’ most affordable housing markets. One of the reasons for the affordable housing in Saint Louis is the lack of centralized planning by governments in the area. The greater Saint Louis metropolitan area should position itself to continue to benefit from these domestic migration trends by limiting the planning requirements it imposes on homebuilders and developers.

That lack of government regulation and planning and the resulting lower housing costs leads to a lower overall cost of living for residents of the Saint Louis area. There is evidence that the more affordable cost of living is making Saint Louis more attractive to outsiders and resulting in growth for the entire region.

The post Housing Affordability: The Saint Louis Competitive Advantage appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Some will argue the money could be better spent on education, health care, you name it. Indeed, there are many needs but these federal funds were designated for broadband. The state’s in-kind contribution does not impact the dire budgetary situation or projected $600 million shortfall.

Only the Show-Me Institute, the ultraconservative think tank, finds a reason to object. Research analyst Christine Harbin commented: “If an individual desires faster Internet service, he or she can either pay the market rate for the service or relocate to a larger town in order to access a broadband connection that’s less expensive.”

Of course, we received Ms. Harbin’s remarks via a high-speed Internet connection, and we certainly would not have wanted to miss sharing them with you.

The Business Journal could not have illustrated Christine’s point more succinctly. She, and the Business Journal, have both chosen to locate in the city of St. Louis. This decision entails extra costs, like the earnings tax and a higher cost of living, but it also has some cost-saving benefits, like less-expensive broadband access.

It is more expensive to provide Internet access to rural areas. This does not mean that rural areas should not have Internet access, only that they should shoulder the steeper costs of this service if they want to use it. When Internet access is subsidized, it distorts the market because the lower price leads people to consume more without seeing the true cost. If someone opts for the lower general cost of living in a rural town, she should accept that urban amenities may not be available at as low of a price as they are in more populated urban areas. In the same way that rural areas may be loathe to subsidize an urban area’s mass transit, it is reasonable for urban areas to be loathe to subsidize a rural area’s broadband Internet.

People should be allowed to live where they choose, but that doesn’t mean that everyone else should subsidize them.

The post Sent to You From My High-Speed Internet Connection appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

On the other hand, not having a cap can encourage too many lawsuits and add to medical cost inflation. However, it is important to keep the costs of excessive lawsuits in perspective. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the savings for instituting a typical set of tort reforms (including but not limited to a cap on damages) saves 0.5 percent on total medical spending. This is not completely insignificant, but those savings would be totally swamped by a single year’s medical inflation.

There is a way to reform the tort system without giving anyone special privileges. Outside of the United States, most of the developed world uses what is usually referred to as the “loser pays” system, whereby whoever loses the lawsuit must pay both sides’ legal expenses. This system would have the salutary effect of eliminating frivolous lawsuits and lowering total lawsuit expenses. A 2008 Manhattan Institute study found that when compared to countries with the loser pays system (e.g. Britain, Australia, Germany), the United States spends at least twice as much on tort litigation as a percentage of GDP. If Missouri instituted loser pays, we could reap the benefits of lower litigation costs without creating a privileged legal class.

The post Real Tort Reform appeared first on Show-Me Institute.