Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on Sticher 

Listen on SoundCloud

The post Podcast: The COVID Economy, Masks in Schools and a CRT Hearing in Jeff City appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

With all these job openings, it really does seem like it’s time for things to finally get back to normal and for people to get back to work. The reasons we may have needed additional unemployment benefits during the height of the pandemic are fading fast—businesses are opening, vaccines are widely available, and people are returning to life outside their homes.

The economy is recovering from the pandemic, but it’s possible that increased federal unemployment benefits have slowed down our recovery by causing people to push back their job search. Governor Parson decided that Missouri would end all federal pandemic-related unemployment benefits on June 12th to incentivize people to get back to work. I think this was a smart move because jobs are clearly available. It’s time to stop relying on government handouts and fill those job openings.

The post Jobs, Jobs, and More Jobs appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The CARES Act made several large changes to the unemployment insurance system. These changes were intended to be temporary and preserve family and small business finances during the period of greatest uncertainty. Specifically, the CARES Act extended the duration of unemployment benefits, added a $600 weekly supplement to the usual state benefit amount, expanded eligibility to gig workers and many others traditionally excluded from the unemployment insurance system, and introduced other modifications such as the waiving of job search requirements to account for the unique circumstances of the pandemic. At the end of 2020, the federal government extended into March the supplemental benefit amount at a lower level of $300, and President Biden’s American Rescue Plan extended these enhanced benefits further until September 2021.

These changes to the unemployment system have undoubtedly had major effects on individuals and the economy. The additional $600 was certainly beneficial for the financial situation of the unemployed; researchers have found that additional benefits from the CARES Act resulted in 76 percent of unemployed people earning more than their previous wages on unemployment between April and July. In Missouri, the median replacement rate of UI benefits (including the $600) to lost wage earnings was 154 percent, meaning those on unemployment made 54 percent more than their lost wages. Even with these extra earnings, research has found that unemployment benefits did not harm job growth in spring and summer 2020 when lockdown restrictions made job search very difficult.

However, conditions have changed. Most businesses are open, vaccines are available to those who want them, and the unemployment rate has fallen from 14.8 percent to 6.1 percent. Are these extra unemployment benefits still necessary? Job openings hit a preliminary record high in March and anecdotally, many businesses are struggling to find workers. It’s certainly possible that the additional $300 and the long extension to September are causing people to push back their job search and extend their time receiving UI. Jobs will likely be even more abundant by the time benefits expire, thereby reducing the risk of a delayed job search.

It seems that the job market (and therefore our economic recovery) is being helped by vaccine access and business re-openings and hurt by extended unemployment benefits. However, we may be able to see the light at the end of this UI tunnel. Governor Parson announced that Missouri would end participation in the federal pandemic unemployment programs on June 12th, saying that these benefits were always meant to be temporary and it’s time to get people back to work. The federal government is also taking steps to return to pre-pandemic UI rules. Lawmakers seem to recognize that getting people back to work is a priority and enhanced UI benefits may not have been moving us toward that goal. Hopefully, these changes will help us continue to recover quickly.

The post How Are We Recovering? (Part 3) appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

As things currently stand, the American Rescue Plan promises jobless workers $300 per week on top of the usual wage replacement rate of just under 50% all the way into September. For most of the workers who are receiving nearly the same or more to remain jobless, it is understandable that they might be reluctant to accept a pay cut just to go back to work. For small businesses struggling to reopen, these unemployment benefits represent anywhere from a short-term headache to an existential threat. Many of them operate on small profit margins and cannot afford to compete with the artificial compensation offered by a federal government with a nearly endless capacity to borrow. Tacitly acknowledging the role of unemployment benefits in the lackluster jobs numbers, President Biden is now exhorting workers that “if you’re receiving unemployment benefits and you’re offered a suitable job, you can’t refuse that job and just keep getting unemployment benefits.” He has also directed the Department of Labor to work with states to reinstate job search requirements, which in their current form are mostly window dressing that cannot effectively monitor or induce search effort. Instead of trying to fill the leaky bucket caused by bad policy, the federal government ought to plug the hole and stop erecting hurdles to small business hiring and reopening.

In Missouri, the economy sports what sounds like a healthy 4.2% unemployment rate, but here, too, many Missourians have exited the labor force, and there are over 114,000 fewer people working relative to back in February 2020. Missouri’s recently announced termination of enhanced unemployment benefits is one positive step toward addressing this jobs shortfall and returning its economy to pre-pandemic strength.

The post How to Put Missouri on a Faster Path to Recovery appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Generally, UI affects the labor market by changing job search behavior. UI decreases the gap in pay between working and not working. It creates an incentive for unemployed workers to take more time in their job searches, resulting in fewer job applications and longer jobless spells. On the other side of the labor market, the UI benefits that make it easier for workers to put off job searches and be more selective also make it more difficult and costly for businesses to hire, which reduces the incentive to post job openings. Ultimately, UI can damage both sides of the labor market.

Providing money to help someone between jobs isn’t inherently a bad thing, especially during difficult economic times. In fact, one justification for having an unemployment insurance system at all is that the added time spent searching for a job leads to the possibility of a higher-quality job fit, which has stabilizing effects on consumer spending. However, excessive generosity or duration of UI benefits can hamper the economic recovery following a recession.

Researchers have cited the extensions of unemployment benefits as playing a role in the slowest job recovery on record—the aftermath of the Great Recession—and other jobless recoveries. Similarly, eventual cuts to UI benefits after periods of extensions have led to large influxes of workers and decreases in unemployment levels.

All this research on the relationship between UI and the labor market makes me question whether our UI policy during this economic downturn has been optimal. The recent extension of unemployment benefits with the $300 weekly supplement may threaten to impede the pace of our current recovery as UI has in the past. Governor Parson has even decided to end Missouri’s participation in the federal pandemic unemployment benefits beginning on June 12th, saying that it’s time to get people back to work. The complicated topic of UI and our current recovery with be discussed in the next blog in this series.

The post How Are We Recovering (Part 2) appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

In the spring of 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic and associated shutdowns quickly sent our country into unimaginable economic lows. The national unemployment rate reached its peak of 14.8 percent in April 2020 while Missouri’s unemployment rate jumped to 12.5 percent the same month. However, the economy has bounced back faster than expected. Recent numbers show the national unemployment rate at 6.2 percent in February 2021, and Missouri’s preliminary unemployment rate for January 2021 was 4.2 percent.

Though still higher than the national unemployment rate of 3.5 percent from January 2020, we’ve recovered much more quickly than we did from the Great Recession.  It took nearly five years for the unemployment rate to fall from its peak of 10 percent in October 2009 to below 6 percent. As the image below shows, unemployment reached an even higher peak during the pandemic but has still managed to fall to 6 percent in less than a year’s time.

Source: https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2020/article/employment-recovery.htm

Perhaps the historical fiscal relief packages passed in 2020 help explain the more robust recovery. The CARES Act was passed in March 2020 to support the economy in a variety of ways through a period of widespread lockdowns. Included in the CARES Act was enhanced unemployment insurance to help those who had lost their jobs at a time when it was difficult to find jobs.

However, with the economy re-opening, job postings on the rise, and accelerating vaccinations signaling a potential end to the pandemic, it is worth re-examining the evidence on the effects of unemployment benefits during downturns and recoveries. Are the benefit extensions helping the recovery by sustaining consumer spending, or are they slowing the recovery by discouraging people from searching for jobs by paying them generously not to work? This will be discussed in future blog posts.

The post How Are We Recovering? (Part 1) appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

We saw similar weak employment recovery following the 2009 financial crisis when endless extensions of unemployment insurance benefits discouraged some from seeking jobs and reduced job creation. Could the forces that created the “Redistribution Recession” last time also be a threat now?

One reason to be extra concerned is that people may be getting more money on unemployment than they would if they were working. The most recent federal relief package, the American Rescue Plan Act, extends unemployment benefits through at least September and maintains the $300 supplement that gets paid out on top of the usual state benefit.

Unemployment benefits are meant to provide temporary assistance for people as they look for jobs. These benefits are not intended to replace work and therefore should not put people in a position of taking a pay cut to get a job. Why would people go back to work if that’s the case? We also need to be mindful of other factors here—disincentivizing work hurts small businesses that are trying to find workers to get back up and running.

Of course, not all unemployment benefit recipients are receiving more than their previous paychecks. Some workers are getting paid too much—disincentivizing them from taking a job—while others are still left to make do with less money than when they had a job. To fix these problems, it may make sense to replace the $300 supplement with unemployment benefits that are more closely tied to previous wages.

The best way to get the economy on track is to help jobless workers avoid financial distress while still ensuring that it is financially advantageous for them to find a new job rather than remain unemployed. Putting money in people’s pockets is a temporary Band-Aid that staves off hardship. But if an unemployment insurance program delays the real cure of getting people back to work, is it really a stimulant for the economy? Or a depressant?

The post Are Unemployment Benefits Making It Harder to Find Workers? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

For more information, read our recent case study, Tax-Increment Financing in Post-Tornado Joplin.

The post Show-Me Now! Joplin Rebuilt Without Government Subsidies appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

GDP Growth during the Expansions of the Post-WWII Period

Source: CRS calculations based on data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA).

Note: Economic expansions as identified by the National Bureau of Economic Research.

This result is not just bad—it is catastrophic. The average American should not be wondering if his income is a bit above or below 2007 levels. Just by historical averages, the average American should be 20% better off than in 2007. And this slow growth is settling in as a permanent new-abnormal.

I believe the root cause of abysmal growth is the huge tax increases imposed by President Obama and Congress since 2008. The most harmful were the increase in the capital gains tax from 15 to 20 percent, the increase in top bracket income from 35 to 39.6 percent, and the new tax of 3.8 percent on investment income in the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The massive increase in regulatory burden through the ACA and Dodd-Frank bills are also crushing, but unfortunately are harder to measure.

The three tax increases mentioned above (plus higher state and local taxes) directly lower expected returns on all investments. Our government grabs the fruits of investment and then is puzzled when businesses do not invest. This causes billions of dollars of investment projects to come off the table.

Weak investment is the signature feature and cause of the abysmal "recovery" under President Obama. The aggregate of all investments in the United States is Net Private Domestic Investment (NPDI), computed by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Relative to GDP, NPDI averaged 7% per year from1960 to 2008. The average was 7 to 8 percent from 1960 to 1990, and 6.5 percent in the Clinton and George W. Bush years. However, for the Obama years NPDI was an astoundingly low 2% of GDP!

In every year of Obama’s presidency but 2015, NPDI was worse than in any year from 1960 to his inauguration. This isn't bad luck. If nothing changed in the economy, the likelihood of having a period as bad as Obama’s just by chance would be 1 in 1000.

The numbers for GDP and NPDI are interesting, but they’re still just lifeless statistics. The human toll is terrible, taking the form of millions of Americans who can’t find jobs or can’t make ends meet in the jobs they do have.

Dismal investment levels are the predictable result of taxing investment and income at high rates. This terrible economic performance will continue until income and investment taxes are slashed. The government can still raise needed revenue with a broad-base approach, eliminating all the special deductions and credits and allowing very low rates.

On the other hand, maintaining the current high rates will entrench lackluster investment and stagnant incomes and trap far too many Americans in a bleak economic future.

The post The Dismal Recovery appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

But census data paints a different picture of the metropolitan area and the city itself; a picture of falling income, rising poverty, and slow population growth. Kansas City was hit hard by the recent recession, and simply put, the city has not seen a recovery in terms of income.

Census data shows that employment is increasing in Kansas City since the recession, but total employment is still significantly below prerecession levels. That may be partially explained by lower labor force participation and fewer households. The income data is more troubling. The median household income from 2010 to 2013 is still almost $3,000 lower than it was from 2007 to 2009, not accounting for inflation. When that adjustment is made, real income has been on a continuous decline in the city since 2009.

A similar trend exists in Johnson County and the metropolitan area as a whole.

The recession caused poverty levels in Kansas City and surrounding areas to spike, and they have yet to significantly recede. Poverty levels were actually higher from 2011 to 2013 than they were from 2009 to 2011 (which includes the recession). As with income, Kansas City has yet to see anything that could be described as a healthy recovery. The following chart demonstrates recent trends:

There’s plenty of excitement and optimism in Kansas City, and that’s no bad thing. But much of the excitement seems to be for prestige projects, entertainment venues, and young people in the downtown area. If that attitude allows people to forget that for most people in Kansas City there really has not been a recovery, much less a renaissance, then the optimism may be counterproductive.

The post Where Is Kansas City’s Recovery? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post How Economic Freedom Helped Rebuild Joplin appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

So here’s a scenario that’s a result of force-feeding the U.S. economy through the tube of federal agencies: While $12.5 million in stimulus money will fund projects on French Island and Brice Prairie, projects that local contractors say they could handle, only a handful of out-of-state firms are allowed to bid them.

In one case, a Kansas City, Mo., company got the nod to build a $6.1 million district office on French Island for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. And only three firms, all out of state – one them a Missouri-based subsidiary of an Australian steel company – are in the running to handle two projects at the Upper Mississippi Environmental Sciences Center.

It’s rare that I read an article that interests me on a both a biographical and a public policy level. Initially, I feel compelled to pick sides — but which should I support: the state in which I lived for 20 years or the state in which I live presently? Ultimately, I must decide that my conflict of interest is false, because I disagree that the subject of the editorial is even an issue.

The purpose of the fiscal stimulus was to incite economic recovery on a national level, not for certain states on an individual level. Therefore, the La Crosse Tribune shouldn’t lament the fact that a project wasn’t awarded to a Wisconsin-based firm — instead, it should celebrate the fact it went to an American firm. Furthermore, federal money comes from taxpayers in all states, not just those who live in Wisconsin or in Missouri. State officials and residents shouldn’t feel that their companies are entitled to federal stimulus money simply because a project lies within its borders.

States win and lose business from each other all the time in response to supply and demand — this is the beauty of the interstate trade. Wisconsin lost at least one free-market research analyst to Missouri in the last year, along with other business, but the editorial board at the La Crosse Tribune didn’t write about that. Why, then, does it bring this particular project to light? There are probably many public works projects in Missouri that are bid on by out-of-state vendors, perhaps even from Wisconsin.

As some readers point out in the comment section, awarding the project to a Missouri-based firm may not result in as many lost jobs for Wisconsin individuals and families as suggested in the article. This is because the Missouri firm could use local laborers, including perhaps the employees of the Wisconsin-based firms that were outbid.

The practice of soliciting bids from many contractors, regardless of their origin, is very good because it encourages competition and its positive consequences. If many contractors bid for a single public works project, it drives down cost and taxpayers get more for their money.

The post Is the Federal Stimulus Benefiting Missouri at the Expense of Wisconsin? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

This article first appeared in the St. Louis Beacon.

Determining when business cycles start and end is a tricky call. Recently released GDP data indicated that the economy expanded during the second quarter of this year at a healthy 3.5-percent rate. This is quite a turnaround from the 6.4-percent decline in GDP during the first quarter. And, as expected, optimism in our economy is being restored, even if gingerly. Before all the champagne bottles get uncorked, let’s raise a few cautionary flags.

First, how much of last quarter’s expansion was fueled by one-time gimmicks? GDP is driven by sales. The cash-for-clunkers program, for example, rearranged the timing of car purchases. Purchases that may have occurred over six months were accelerated into the program’s window of opportunity. Without that government-backed program, GDP growth would have been slower than reported.

Second, the government’s subsidization of new home purchases also provided a boost to the recent GDP figure. The housing market appears to have righted itself. But, going forward, the question is whether it has legs. Will there be sustained recovery in housing?

Third, the success of the federal government’s stimulus package is getting partisan scrutiny. Those in the administration and their supporters aver that the government’s open checkbook approach has saved or even created hundreds of thousands of jobs. An analysis conducted by the New York Times, however, suggests that such claims are wide of the mark.

That analysis also indicates that the jobs “saved” are predominantly in the public, not private, sector. As I have written before, this is predictable: Government jobs tend to be more secure than those in the private sector. Why not use stimulus money to protect your own and expand the pro-government electoral base?

These items are not meant to say that government intervention did nothing. Quite the contrary. But it does raise an important question: When the government’s dole ends, will the economy be able to stand on its own two feet?

There are some who argue that it won’t. The Federal Reserve’s policymaking arm, the FOMC, announced earlier this month that it intends to keep short-term interest rates close to zero. This clearly reveals their outlook.

Paul Krugman, the liberal economist and columnist, continually complains that the original $787 billion stimulus package (not counting the bailouts) was insufficient. His solution is the same as many in Congress: Spend more taxpayer money, enlarge government programs and create more dependency on the government’s largess.

What evidence will be brought to bear on the question of whether this expansion is viable? Any slip in the growth of GDP will be taken as a sign to increase government intervention. This is a false premise. Economic recoveries are uneven and unpredictable. Following the bottom of the 1981–82 recession, the economy roared back, growing at nearly an 8-percent rate over the next year. In contrast, in the year following the 1990–91 recession, economic growth limped along with growth rates of less than 2 percent.

Recessions are unique in character, and this one is no different. Real economic growth may be choppy, consumer spending will rise in fits and starts, and the unemployment rate will bump up before it recedes. We must resist the temptation to use such uncertain economic signals to justify increased refutation of the economic system upon which our economic growth has been built.

Further centralizing economic decision-making with the government will have adverse, long-run effects on our productivity and well being. The economic expansion that lasted for most of the 1982–2000 era was not based on increased governmental intervention. Just the opposite. And, if one needs reminding of how well bureaucracies operate, think Fannie and Freddie, FEMA, Sarbanes-Oxley, the SEC and Bernie Madoff, and the state of our educational system, just to name a few.

Rik W. Hafer is distinguished research professor and chair of the Department of Economics and Finance at Southern Illinois University Edwardsville and a scholar at the Show-Me Institute.

The post Don’t Overreact to Bumps in the Economic Recovery appeared first on Show-Me Institute.