Uncategorized

The last two columns examined the impacts of having monopolies within the economy.  They established that, despite popular opinions and accepted common knowledge that a monopoly can control everything within its sphere of activity, the reality is that a monopoly (or an oligopoly) is under immense pressures that narrowly limit its behavior.  The structure and extent of these limits are best understood by analyzing marginal cost and revenue curves within the context of the supply-and-demand curves (see the previous two posts).  These very forces limit the production of a monopoly to levels below the societally optimal value, which is the real complaint that society at large should have against the monopoly.  A textbook case that demonstrates that market forces rule regardless of a company’s size is the tragic and disastrous MCAS system that downed two Boeing 737 MAX 8 and that has left the company’s reputation in tatters and its future uncertain.

The resulting economic conclusion, based on sound logic and observed outcomes within real business sector, is that monopolies do damage to consumers by keeping the supply lower than desired, not because of malice on its part, but because it has no choice (or rather it has no profit-optimal choice, which amounts to the same thing).

The natural follow-on inference is that it is in society’s best interest to eliminate monopolies; and, for many cases, this is true.  However, there are times when a monopoly is societally beneficial if not outright necessary.

The prototype example of this ‘exception’ are those industries that deliver services that require wide-spread standardization.  The most obvious examples are utilities that deliver gas, electricity, water, and telecommunications to a community.

Imagine the chaos that would ensue if there were more than one electric company in your town.  Each company, say Exciting Electric and Pinnacle Power, would have to construct its own delivery system (its own wires) to send electric power to the consumer.  What a waste of resources: duplicate sets of power lines, consuming more land, and so on.

An additional concern is that each company would try to have a unique standard (say Exciting Electricity would use 60 Hz and Pinnacle Power would use 50 Hz) as a way of locking the consumer into their service.  Based on these conclusions, local communities established utilities as essentially publicly owned trusts with a suite of regulations covering every aspect of the enterprise.

At least that’s how the conventional wisdom goes.  And there is some truth in it, certainly in the past where the electric company owned both the power plant and the delivery system.  But I think there are definite places for improvement.

To understand the possibility for improvement, turn to a utility that was deregulated after decades as a monopoly – telecommunications.  The telephone infrastructure was essentially a regulated utility for decades.  During this time, there was little innovation particularly where the consumer phone was involved.  Since the phone company owned the phones in the consumer home, choices were limited to the standard model or the princess phone, available in a dazzling array of something like three colors: white, black, and beige.  There might have been a red version but who cares, the point is that there wasn’t much choice nor was there any incentive to listen to customers.  As a utility, the phone company could charge the consumer with a certain amount of impunity and provide services below what a competitive market would.

Many changes happened after ‘Ma Bell’ was broken up in the 1980’s.  Suddenly, there was a freer market and an incentive to innovate.  However, the real change came with the invention of the cell phone.  Here was about as free of a market as could be imagined.  Different cell service providers sprang up, each providing access on the common, shared delivery system that is the electromagnetic spectrum; each offering competitive pricing, better service, and an increasing pace of innovation.  The market started with ‘brick’ phones, evolved to more compact and slim designs, which then evolved to flip phones, and finally to the smart phones most of us enjoy today.

None of this innovation would have happened under the old system and the competition has lead to a much better experience for the consumer.  Of course, none of the providers are perfect and there are times when the consumer has had enough with his particular provider and moves elsewhere, but that is just what a free market promises, a mechanism for improvement not a perfect finished system.

With these observations in hand, let’s return to the question of electric power generation and delivery.  In The Complete Idiots Guide to Economics, Tom Gorman mentions in passing that deregulation has had mixed results.  To quote:

While Gorman’s analysis of telecommunications is spot on and his warnings about air travel seem to be reflected in the recent Boeing disaster one can’t help but wonder why he is so pessimistic about electric power generation.  The probable answer is the manipulation of the energy market by Enron (the ‘burn baby burn’ scandal) but this situation was hardly the free market gone bad.  There is ample evidence that government and industry were in cahoots resulting in “secret deals with power producers, traders deliberately drove up prices by ordering power plants shut down” and that it was deregulation-in-name-only replete with many flaws.

In the case of power generation, many markets have moved or can move to having a common delivery infrastructure structure with power generation being separately owned by different companies that compete for their market share.

And at least some reports show that power generation deregulation works and can save the consumer up to 30%.  So, the lesson is that seems that deregulation will work if some imagination and ingenuity is used to harness market forces, while preventing government and/or business placing thumbs on the scale, and that society should be actively working to eliminate or minimize the presence of even ‘blessed’ monopolies in the economy.

Last month’s post dealt with the disastrous rollout of the Boeing 737 MAX 8 aircraft.  At the heart of the problem were a redesign of the basic jet propulsion system, flaws in the MCAS automation system, and a cutting of corners where safety was concerned, all of which resulted in numerous close calls and two crashes on takeoff that ended the lives of hundreds of people.  It was argued in that post that the reason Boeing rushed the MAX 8 to market was the pressure they were experiencing from Airbus, the other member of the current commercial aircraft duopoly.

The conclusion of the preceding narrative, that Boeing’s presence in a duopoly made it vulnerable to market forces, may seem foreign and counterintuitive to anyone raised on the usual stream of fantasy stories about powerful businesses.  Contrary to the laws of economics, monopolies/oligopolies are usually portrayed in movies as being nigh-omnipotent villains that require extraordinary heroism to overcome. Films, such as Rollerball, The Running Man, The Hunger Games, and Repo! The Genetic Opera reinforce the idea that a monopoly or oligopoly sit above the usual laws of scarcity that govern the rest of our lives.

In reality, monopolistic and oligopolistic firms are subject by the same economic forces as the rest of us.  The outcomes and particulars are, of course, different because of the firm’s position within the economy, but the idea that a monopolistic firm runs unchecked and roughshod over society, insinuating its tendrils into every nook and cranny of life are fantasies that serve as fodder on for the storyteller or the polemicist.

Surprisingly, the real societal ill that monopolies (for simplicity this post will only look, hereafter, at monopolies) represent is not their unmatched influence on society as much as their disengagement from society.  The simple way to understand this seemingly up-ended position is to recognize that without competition to spur a firm forward, complacency takes hold and the resulting output is below what society demands.

A simple example of this is the typical department of motor vehicles (DMV).  The DMV has an effective monopoly on the goods and services it provides but, as all of us who have had to endure a trip to renew a driver’s license can attest, the service is painfully slow, the processes Byzantine, and the outcomes uncertain.  Its monopoly arises because it produces a unique good (official driver’s licenses) and there are high barriers to entry into the marketplace (here the barrier is law).

To see how a monopoly can underproduce compared to the socially optimal value, one must make a trip through a few graphs about supply, demand, revenue, and cost to construct a monopoly graph.  The arguments here are inspired by a suite of educational YouTube videos, especially the Monopoly Graph Review and Practice-Micro 4.7 lecture by Jacob Clifford, who has a manic style that seems to have been honed by years of teaching high school students, with additional insights and examples taken from Principles of Economics: Economics and the Economy, Version 2.0 by Timothy Taylor.

The first ingredient is the typical graph of supply and demand curves showing the producer’s and consumer’s points-of-view in determining how much of a particular quantity to produce or consume as a function of price within a given market (say, for example, for televisions).  Where they cross determines the equilibrium number of items produced, Qeq, and the equilibrium price the market is willing to pay, P_eq.

The shaded regions are perhaps less well known.  The blue one represents the total consumer surplus defined as the total amount those consumers, who would have paid more, saved by having the market drive the price down to its equilibrium value.  The green one represents the total producer surplus defined as the total profit those producers, who would have sold the item for less, earned by having the market drive the price up to its equilibrium value.  In combination, these additional savings or earnings represent additional resources that can be put to use in other areas of the economy.

The next step involves understanding how an individual firm producing items within a given market fits into the market as a whole.  Here the economist defines a spectrum of possibilities with perfect competition being on one extreme and monopoly on the other.

Within perfect competition, there are so many firms producing identical products (say oranges) that any individual firm is unable to cause the market as a whole to deviate far from Peq.  Such a firm is said to be a ‘price taker’ and it perceives its demand curve as being perfectly flat.  This means that no matter how many products it places on the market each one will sell at the equilibrium price.  In contrast, a monopolist perceives its demand curve to be identical to the demand within the market as a whole since it is the only provider.  A monopoly is often called a ‘price maker’ since it can set its price but this should not imply that the monopoly is all powerful. It is bound by two constraints.  First, it is unable to negotiate different prices for different customers (this is called price discrimination) since if it did, the customer receiving the lower price would then resale to the customer subjected to the higher price at an intermediate cost, thereby taking some of the profit away from the monopoly.  Second, the monopoly can’t force people to buy their goods and so they must face the downward sloping demand curve of the market as a whole.

This fundamental difference in the shape of the perceived demand curve is the key to understanding why monopolies produce below the societal demand of the good.  The only other ingredients are marginal cost and marginal revenue.

Both marginal cost and marginal return quantify the idiom ‘too much of a good thing’.  Marginal cost/revenue measures the change in the cost/revenue for an increase in production by one unit.  Functions as derivatives, the values of marginal cost and marginal revenue signal actions that a firm should take to optimize a variety of outcomes.

Based on the concepts of economies and diseconomies of scale, marginal cost will generally fall as production is scaled up from an initial size.  At some point, though, the improvements that come with size taper off and additional structure becomes self-defeating.  As a result, the expected shape for a marginal cost curve (MC) will be downward sloped for smaller quantities until it hit a minimum at which point it rises.  Related to the marginal cost is the average total cost curve (ATC), which, as the name suggests, is the total cost divided by the quantity produced.

The marginal revenue curve (MR) is generally downward sloping with no minimum, reflecting the fact that it does no good to cut costs to attract new customers if the price changed is at or below the cost to produce the good.  The zero of the MR reflects the breakeven point where the cost to produce a good equals the price it fetches.

The monopoly graph sports the perceived demand curve already discussed along with the MR, MC, and ATC curves.

There is a lot to mine from this graph but we will content ourselves with seeing how a monopoly introduces inefficiency.  The point where the MC and MR curves intersect determines the quantity (Q₁) that the monopoly should produce to maximize profit, since this means that the rate at which the revenue is decreasing exactly balance the rate at which the cost is increasing.  The corresponding price (P₁) is determined where a vertical line from Q₁ intersects the demand curve (point B).  Taken together, the shaded green and tan areas represent the total revenue (Q₁xP₁).  The tan area has a height determined by where the vertical line from Q₁ intersects the ATC curve and it represents the total cost incurred to produce this quantity.  The green area is then the profit.

Analogous to what was discussed above, the blue triangle is the consumer surplus that represents the money those willing to pay more than P₁ saved.  The gray triangle is a new feature of the monopoly’s presence in the market. It is called deadweight loss and it represents the lost efficiency that obtains because the monopoly produces away from the equilibrium value (Q₃).  Paraphrasing Taylor, this loss of social surplus occurs because the monopolistic profit-maximizing pricing is blocking some demanders from making transactions they would be willing to make.

So there, in a nutshell, is the real reason why monopolies are to examined carefully and possibly regulated.  Not because they are evil or world dominating or corrupt but because they are inefficient producers.

Next column will close out this discussion of monopolies by looking at the how monopolies form and some of the reasons why their production inefficiency might be tolerated.

By now the world is painfully aware of the shortcomings of the Boeing 737 MAX 8 aircraft.  The Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS) system, designed to prevent stalls on takeoff have caused numerous close calls and two catastrophic crashes with the loss of all passengers and crew onboard.  The entire fleet sits idle on the ground while Boeing attempts to correct the flaws in the automation and provide a patch that will restore confidence in the plane. Several airlines have cancelled their orders and it will be years or even decades before Boeing has rebuilt and restored public trust in their products.

Gregory Travis covers the technical points in his highly understandable (albeit somewhat long) article entitled How the Boeing 737 Max Disaster Looks to a Software Developer (IEEE Spectrum).  It is natural to want to understand how the design and manufacturing details contributed to these disasters and, indeed, stories digging into how the MCAS went wrong have riveted many people around the globe.

But as important as the technical details are to ferreting out the tangible safety aspects of the problem, they do not explain but merely point towards the managerial and business failings that caused Boeing to go so far astray.  And there are more black clouds on the horizon for the corporate infrastructure of one of the US’s largest companies.

The Air Force has halted deliveries of Boeing’s KC-46 Pegasus tanker due to the presence of “foreign object debris” (FOD to those in the know) being found in close compartments throughout the aircraft.  For those of us who don’t speak military jargon, FOD includes anything you should never see in a new plane ranging from an abandoned wrench left behind by a careless worker, to aluminum shavings that weren’t swept up after manufacturing, to wrappers from spent food items.  As Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson characterized to the House Armed Services Committee the cause is due to “a manufacturing discipline issue, on the line ... and we saw a breakdown there.”

Boeing has misstepped in other areas (the 787 Dreamliner has had its share of problems) as well and the overall for outlook for the company was being openly questioned as it was getting ready to report its first quarter revenue.  And indeed the questioning was quickly replaced by pessimism when Boeing announced its revenue had been adversely affected by the Max 8 issues, although it just as quickly rebounded.  It also interesting to note that Boeing’s stock took a sharp climb during the year or two before the 737 Max 8 received FAA approval on March 8, 2017.

In any event, either through poor management or bad luck or some combination of both, the Boeing corporation is on shaky ground and numerous technical and safety questions abound for which the US government has a clear role to play (including some hard soul-searching as to whether the FAA was too chummy with Boeing).  But this is not a technical blog and so the operative question here is what, if anything, should the US government do to economically support the company?

For most people, the knee-jerk reaction is that Boeing made its bed and it should lie in it.  This type of question also conjures up resentment over the ‘too big to fail era’ that marked the Great Recession and the government’s intervention in the financial, housing, and automotive sectors.  Ordinarily, I would agree. Living in a capitalist society, we should hope that any company (especially a company as large as Boeing) should be able to stand on its own two feet and live with the consequences of its actions.  The market can vote to put its money behind another supplier and stock owners can make the appropriate response by voting directly at shareholder meetings or indirectly by selling stock.

Furthermore, for all intents and purposes, the commercial market for passenger airliners is a oligopoly consisting of only two players; a duopoly spanned by Boeing and Airbus.  The two companies are protected behind one of the most formidable barriers to entry ever enjoyed by current or past industries. Modern aircraft are extremely complex mechanical, electrical, computational machines sporting a mix of modern materials.  Building an airliner requires a huge knowledge base, large collections of capital, and intricate supply chains. In addition, there is an enormous compliance burden imposed by countries all around the world and only companies with deep pockets can afford to pay the host of lawyers, lobbyists, and compliance officers needed to keep various governments happy and out of the way.

To many, the fact that Boeing is essentially engaging in monopolistic practices is all the more reason to argue against government intervention on its behalf.  Heartened by the observation that no monopolistic company is invulnerable to competition in the long run and that Boeing’s once seemingly unbreakable membership in the commercial aviation market is now showing substantial cracks, the same group may even think that now is the time to do some old fashioned trust busting wherein the government hastens Boeing’s fade.

But, those engaging in such an argument might do well to look past Boeing’s sins and consider what happens as it loses market share or even exits from commercial aircraft manufacturing completely.  Articles such as Clive Irving’s piece in the the Daily Beast (Boeing’s Disaster Could Turn China Into Aviation Superpower) and ‘Your Loss my Gain!’ Airbus now reaping on Boeing crisis at Daily Active Kenya, gives us some clues by showing us how fast Airbus has moved to fill the order vacuum created when China cancelled its order for MAX 8s.  And as Airbus’s dominance grows, the duopoly moves closer to a monopoly that, paradoxically, may mean even fewer planes in the sky than when both companies were swilling at the trough together.

Next month’s column will take a look at how monopolies work and how economists think about them and then will try to sort out whether or not it's in everybody's interest to help Boeing out.

Football (the American, not metric, variety -- for my international readers) is deeply ingrained in the United States.  Each weekend during the fall, millions of viewers tune in to watch the televised matches between college rivals on Saturdays.  And the National Football League (NFL), which organizes the most popular men’s professional sport in the US, rules most Sundays from late August to early February, and inspires conversation and controversy (and commands a lighter viewership) during the intervening week.

The NFL has been so dominant for so long, that it may be hard to believe (or recall if you are old enough) that once professional baseball was the preeminent spectator sport in this country, with football coming in a distant second.

Steeped in its own brand of mythology, Major League Baseball’s (MLB) storied past formed the stuff of legend.  Within its history, one could find heroic and inspiring tales of triumph by figures like Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, Jackie Robinson, and Roberto Clemente.  One could also find tragic tales of failure as in the 1919 Black Sox scandal and Pete Rose’s fall from grace.

Baseball was so pervasively woven into the fabric of American life that its players and their personal lives often spilled out of the field and into every other facet of American life.  Joe DiMaggio, one of the famous New York Yankees from the WWII era, became even more famous for his much-discussed but brief marriage to Marilyn Monroe and was immortalized in the song lyrics of Mrs. Robinson.  Numerous war movies showed soldiers who were behind enemy lines proving their bona fides by answering some obscure baseball question that only a genuine ‘yank’ would know.  An excellent example of just how deeply ingrained baseball is, is the following clip from the TV show M.A.S.H., which aired in 1980.

Despite its unrivaled dominance for over 100 years, by 1985 (the first year viewer preferences were polled) ESPN reports that the NFL had beaten MLB 24 to 23 percent.  The same article cites that 30 years later, the gap had widened to 21 points with 35 percent of all fans citing the NFL as their favorite compared to only 14 percent who had the MLB at the top of their list.

The economics behind how “America’s Pastime” became past its prime and what MLB is trying to do to improve its standings is fascinating.  It provides glimpses into how labor disputes can disrupt product delivery to the detriment of both management and labor, how complacent businesses can squander the good will of their customer base, and the role of marketing and advertising.

The place to start our analysis is with the emergence of the modern era of collective bargaining between the players (labor) and the owners (management).  According to Sean Lahman’s A Brief History of Baseball, this era of baseball labor relations began in 1965 when the Major League Baseball Players Association (MLBPA) hired Marvin Miller.  Miller, who had been a member of the United Steelworkers union for years prior, began his tenure by collecting statistics on player salaries.  By the time he stepped down the modern era of free agency in sports labor had emerged.

Along the way Miller secured the first collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between the players and management in 1968, helped in 1974 to undermine the reserve clause that limited the ability of players to negotiate contracts with other teams, and broke up the the network of “gentleman’s agreements” that owners employed to keep a lid on player’s costs.  Miller also organized a variety of labor walkouts including a 13-day one in 1972 and a 50-day strike in 1981.

While undoubtedly beneficial for players salaries and freedom, the general public was sometimes hostile to what was seen as attempts by players to ruin the game for the fans.  As the animosity grew between labor and management, so too did the level of action each took against the other.  The escalation culminated in the 1994-95 baseball strike that cancelled the 1994 World Series and did major damage to baseball’s popularity.

Baseball managed to recover some in the latter half of the 1990s and the early 2000s with the home run drama surrounding the players such as Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa, and Barry Bonds.  But revelations that much of the hitting success during this time was allegedly fueled by steroid use further damaged baseball’s reputation.  The owners, hungry for a quick fix to the hangover caused by the labor-management squabbles of a generation prior, looked the other way, only to have it blow up in their faces.

And so, we arrive at the current day.  The modern game is filled with contract negotiations, mandatory drug tests, and long games, typically lasting over 4.5 hours.  Matthew Corwin, in his article for Odyssey, believes this last problem to be the most serious.  Baseball’s leisurely pace of 1930 does not mesh well with the hectic pace of the 21^st century.

Baseball execs seem to agree.  The new rule changes seem to center on speeding up the game by: 1) keeping pitchers in the game to face a minimum of three batters, 2) limiting who is allowed to pitch, and 3) shortening commercial breaks during innings.

This latter change is particularly interesting in that it may be showing tell-tale signs of lasting wisdom on the part of the owner and players alike.  In the short run, limiting advertising time will limit ad revenue and profits on both sides.  But, if shorter games led to an increase in the fan base, then both sides may actually come out ahead, and that would be a real triumph of economic cooperation.

It is an encouraging sign of trust between two sides that have been all but mortal foes for decades.  As to whether this new detente will last, we are still in the early innings.

Representative Kamala Harris recently tossed her hat into the ring as a contender for the Democratic Party’s nomination for president in the 2020 election.  The one plank in her platform that has stirred the most discussion is Harris’s bid to institute a single-payer health care system for every American, called Medicare For All.

Her reasons for this, in her own words are:

In her conception of health care access, Medicare for All would eliminate all existing private insurance companies.  As the end of the clip shows, when asked about their fate, Representative Harris simply said “Let’s eliminate all of that.”

Now there are obvious political ramifications for such a single-payer proposal.  Doctors and the health systems they work with and for have powerful lobbyists.  Insurance companies also have a great deal of influence in politics given their financial holdings and their presence in every state.  And whether such a plan would be popular with a majority of voters has yet to be tested.  But let’s leave that all behind and simply ask what economic factors exist that support Harris’s assertions and what factors refute it.

One of the cornerstone ideas in economics is the law of supply and demand that dictates that the price goes down when the supply is higher than demand.  The primary way to encourage an ample supply is to allow the suppliers to reap a profit when they persuade a consumer to buy their offering.  Ideally, we would want more health care professionals to enter into the market than is strictly necessary by statistics alone.  These individuals would compete fiercely with each other, driving the price down and forcing less-competent professionals out of the marketplace, in the process making way for more-competent ones to enter.  Less expensive health care would go a long way to addressing her complaint that “[H]aving a system that makes a difference in terms of who receives what based on your income is unconscionable.”

Currently, competition in the health care arena is blunted primarily by two factors.

First, by government regulation, insurance companies only compete amongst themselves within specific states.  No buying of insurance across state lines is permitted.  For example, the ugly battle between UPMC and Highmark only takes place within western Pennsylvania with neighboring states being completely ignorant.  UPMC mostly furnishes health care through its networks of hospitals.  Highmark is the largest insurer in Pennsylvania.  While their battle is fierce, it is between payor and payee with neither having strong competition in their own sphere.  As a result, the western PA consumer gets to watch two behemoths smack each other around, wasting resources that could be better put to use.  How much better behaved would these institutions be if there were credible health care providers and insurers who could swoop in while UPMC and Highmark were distracted with their little war?

Second, since the primary mechanism by which most of us get our health care coverage is through our employment, competition is further limited to the number of choices provided by people (i.e. employers) who aren’t directly consuming the product.

Under Harris’s plan for a single-payer system, competition would be erased rather than enhanced.  With the elimination of private insurance would also go any incentive for the provider, in this case the Federal Government, to lower costs.  Without competition, the average bureaucrat would have little reason to push for a higher efficiency and almost no motivation to put patient/customer first.  For the health care practitioner, the situation could go one of two ways.  Either the government would attempt to fix prices in order to address costs, or it would subsidize the activity, thus the pervasive government regulations would likely discourage the really good people from becoming doctors and nurses while encouraging substandard ones to become part of what, for them, would be a lucrative payday.

Having the majority of Americans secure their health coverage through their workplace, a vestigial practice left over from the wage-controlled years during World War II, also blunts our ability to engage in the marketplace, and this lack of market knowledge leads to higher prices and lower quality.  By having our employer provide health care coverage as a ‘benefit, we lose sight of the cost we incur (lowered wages) and, therefore, we have less motivation to push back on the market.  As a previous blog discussed, each of us is a far savvier consumer of car repair than human repair.  Our knowledge of the mechanic market not only allows us to usually figure out when we are being scammed but also places a strong pressure on repair shops to be reputable.  Most of us develop and groom this knowledge because we directly bear the cost.  But, because we often don’t perceive the cost of employer-supplied coverage, we know far less about the business side of medicine.  As a result, we have no sense of quality or proper cost and so doctors and insurers have no pressure to provide higher quality.

Under Harris’s plan, we would become even further removed from the marketplace.  At least when we receive health care coverage through our employers we can always quit and go somewhere else with better benefits.  Once the government is the only game in town, how do we go somewhere else for benefits?

There are plenty of stories of how single payer systems drop the ball on quality.  Well-documented problems in the Veterans Administration, Britain’s National Health System, and a particularly gut-wrenching piece on Canadian care (video excerpt follows – click here for Steven Crowder’s full video) abound.

Closely associated with the quality facet is the timeliness of receiving health services.  With a profit motive driving delivery, markets are incentivized to deliver high quality in as speedy a fashion as possible.  After all, the higher the throughput, the greater the profit (and for those worried about the lowering of quality in order to increase speed refer to the discussion of market knowledge you just read).  Under a single-payer government system, no one is incentivized to do anything rapidly.  No additional profit flows for timely action.

Having just criticized a single-payer Medicare-for-all solution, the reader may be asking if I am defending our current system.  The answer, in a word, is no.  Our current system delivers excellent care but for too high a price.  To get costs in line with benefits, I would recommend four things:

1. Eliminate tax incentives for businesses to offer health care coverage as a ‘benefit’. Each person should purchase their own insurance as they do for home, car, or property.  By having ‘skin in the game, each of us would become more market-aware.
2. Eliminate barriers that prevent insurers from competing with each other nationwide as is done for home, car, and property.
3. Significantly curtail the AMA’s ability to shield a health care professional’s reputation. I don’t care if a doctor spent years in school, he needs to deliver in the here and now.  Education of the public on the shortcomings of licensing would also help here.
4. Significantly curtail tortious suits against health care professionals. Society doesn’t need to punish a doctor with punitive damages yet allow him to continue to practice.  Damage to his reputation will rid him from the market with far less human cost than the system we engage in now.

To close, I appreciate the human cost that Harris spoke passionately about and her desire to see that everybody, regardless of station, receives timely, quality health care.  I share those ideals with her – and that is why I am against Medicare For All.

I had the occasion recently to visit family and friends in Western Pennsylvania.  A brief pre-Christmas chance for reacquaintance and holiday cheer.  Since there are so many houses to visit, each spread relative far from the others, there is always some wrestling with logistics, especially where to stay.  After some deliberation, we decided to stay near the point – the narrow portion of Pittsburgh that lies at the place where the Allegheny River, coming from the north-east, joins the Monongahela River coming from the south-east, to form the Ohio River.

The location is beautiful and, because of a very late booking, also economical as the hotel needed to sell rooms, even at the rather absurdly low rate that I received.  But this post isn’t about the law of supply and demand as it applies to the hotel business.  No, it is about the moribund state of what was once one of the most vibrant locations in Pittsburgh and why.

Nearly three decades ago, while attending one of the fine institutions of higher education in Pittsburgh, I used to amuse myself by heading into the shopping districts.  A particular favorite was Kaufmann’s department store located on 5^th avenue consuming the entire block between William Penn Place and Smithfield Street.

Known for its iconic clock, its window displays, and its gourmet deli on the 9^th floor (note the plaque below the ornate support of the clock - it and others like it play an important role in what follows),

Kaufmann’s anchored one end of what was an exciting set of stores that dotted 5^th avenue and surrounding streets.  Towards the other end, closer to the point, were the two other large department stores of Gimbal’s and Horne’s.   The Warner Theater sat in roughly in the middle, next to an old Woolworth’s ‘five and dime’ that had one of the most eclectic selection of goods and a fish market to boot.  No matter the weather or, seemingly, the time of day there was always something exciting going on and a bustle of activity that one expects from a thriving metropolis.  Activity on the sides of the rivers, particularly the South Side of the Monongahela, was far more sedate.  The center of the city was the place to be.

As the decades wore on, the center lost it shine.  One by one, the great department stores went insolvent and disappeared.  The smaller shops became more run down with empty store fronts capturing greater and greater amounts of real estate.  The vibrancy was gone.

No doubt, the casual observer chalks all this up to the gradual dwindling away of the industries that once made Pittsburgh one of the great cities of the world.  And there is some truth to that.  But only some.  The bulk of the industrial upheaval actually occurred nearly forty years ago when US Steel closed down most of their activities.  Pittsburgh not only survived but managed to bounce back.  This resiliency was initially powered by its world class medical service and research and the numerous universities its sports.  These later institutions have contributed to a growth of late in data analytics and computer technology and the Steel Town has seen a resurgence in the last ten years.

Numerous new trendy locations have sprouted up designed with idea of separating the consumer from his money in various different ways.  From the thriving North Hills, to the Waterfront center that stands where the great mills once did, to the new and burgeoning hipster locales of the South Side and Lawrenceville, to the old faithful neighborhoods of Squirrel Hill and Shadyside, certain regions are active and growing.

So how to reconcile all this growth with a dead and empty downtown?  In one phrase – designated historic landmarks.  Almost everywhere one goes within the core of the downtown region, one finds a building bearing the historical landmark plaque (the total list of Designated City Landmarks and Historic Districts spans 14 pages).  And this plaque is the economic kiss of death.

To understand just why a designation as a historical landmark stifles the microeconomy associated with the object in question consider the restrictions that burden the property owner.  A brief consultation with Section 1101.05 of the Pittsburgh Municipal Code shows that a property bearing the historic landmark designation cannot have exterior alterations without approval of the Historic Review Commission, an extra layer of bureaucracy over and above the mandatory Bureau of Building Inspection.

The hidden cost of ownership of such a building is far larger than is simply totaled from property taxes and upkeep and utility costs.  There are opportunity costs that have to be figured as well.  For example, as a younger more fitness conscious workforce begins to call Pittsburgh home, the candy shops of yore should now be replaced by yoga studios and organic markets.  Simply exterior redesign, including modern signage and architectural sensibilities, should be one of the first orders of business.  But these changes may be extremely costly, if not impossible, if the building in question is a historic landmark.

Each piece of land is a scarce resource unto itself.  As market forces clamor for changes, historic landmark designations and the bureaucracy that goes along with them slap the invisible hand from reshaping the building to fit the demanded change.  As a result, business move to locations less encumbered and the landmark falls into disuse.

Pittsburgh is by no means alone in this predicament.  As the following video shows, the historic landmark designation may be spelling the end to one of New York’s most iconic bookstores.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/kZoIlz2y4Cw" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

It is hard to fathom that the entrepreneurs of decades-gone-by would actually approve of these policies.  After all, they were the innovators who turned their backs on older style construction and whose dynamism produced what were new structures at the time.  They were willing to bury the past in favor of economic growth.  Surely, they would expect no less from us today.

In his set of lectures What is Seen and What is Unseen and Economic Sophisms, Frederick Bastiat argued for classic, liberal  economic thinking and against the ignorance that he judged so dominated French thought in the mid-1800s.

In particular, he railed against the lazy-minded thinking that evaluated any economic situation in the most simplistic way thereby dooming the individual or group that embraced such thought into a tragic failure to see what opportunity costs existed.  As a result of ignoring opportunity costs, the individual or group makes unsound decisions all the while thinking of himself or themselves wise.

Unfortunately, economic illiteracy is not confined to 19^th century France but rather is alive and well today.  Many of the columns that have appeared in this blog have dealt with the prevalence of poor economic thinking and argumentation within the US border.  Soviet Russia’s and China’s communist approaches to human economic freedom demonstrate that poor economic thinking doesn’t confine itself to the West.  Although, to be fair, certain individuals within those regimes knew full well that they were scamming the public; in fact, they counted on widespread economic idiocy to further their own selfishness.  And one need only look at the incredible misery inflicted on Venezuela by a poor understanding of economic principles (and a failure of the body politic to institute checks against government corruption) in order to grasp why Bastiat went to so much trouble constructing parables designed to educate the masses.

One such modern-day example, which comes from Peru, provides an excellent case study in the kind of surface-deep thinking and argumenation that Bastiat warned against so often in his writings.

In a recent rant, Peruvian congressman Manuel Danmert labeled Francisco Atilio Ísmodes Mezzano, Peru’s current Minister of Energy and Mines, a traitor for putting an end to a proposed natural gas pipeline in southern Peru.  It seems that the congressman primarily objects Mezzano’s proposed alternative plan to ship natural gas to Chile via tanker ship from Ica rather than have it consumed in Peru, predominantly in Lima where the bulk of the national population exists, for the benefit of Peruvians.  A summary of Danmert’s complaints and accusations can be found here (but don’t blame Google translate for the poor quality of the article; it is just as grammatically bad in Spanish as in English).

Of course, Danmert may be correct.  After all, corruption is not a new concept in governments, whether in Peru or the United States.  But for all his rhetoric Danmert doesn’t have details or specifics to back up the idea that Mezzano is selling Peru out to Chilean interests.

Charity demands that we examine the possibility that Mezzano is making a rational, honest decision in the Peruvian interest.  To this end, let’s examine some of the particulars of energy consumption in Peru.  All of the source data for the charts presented come from the BP Statistical Review of World Energy, June 2018.  The following chart shows Peru’s energy consumption by sector in millions tonnes oil equivalent (Mtoe).

In the decade spanning 2007 to 2017, natural gas consumption in Peru increased steadily from 2.2 Mtoe to a peak of 6.5 Mtoe before falling back by about 11% to 5.8 Mtoe in 2017.  During that time span, natural gas production rose even more markedly with supply being twice as abundant than demand.  In contrast, the demand for oil outstripped national production by a factor of more than 2 in 2017.  These latter two trends can be seen easily in the following energy deficit chart

that shows the percentage of oil or natural gas consumed relative to the domestic production of the same.

The data demonstrate that Peru’s overall demand for energy has increased, that the demand for oil far exceeds domestic production, and that the demand for natural gas falls far short of the domestic supply.

Danmert argues that Peru should be using its own natural gas for domestic generation of electricity but that claim isn’t supported by additional details from the BP report.  Peru’s electricity generation went from 29.9 Terawatt-hours in 2007 up to 52.5 Terawatt-hours in 2017, an increase of 1.8 times.  Over this same time period, natural gas production went from 2.6 billion cubic meters to 13 billion cubic meters, an increase of a factor of 5.  Assuming that all the electricity generation comes from natural gas consumption, there is still over a factor of 2.5 greater growth in natural gas production than there is electricity generation.  And the story becomes even less in favor of Danmert when one considers that the South American regional percentage of electricity generation from natural gas is around 17% and that the world-wide maximum is 65% in the middle east.

Put simply, Peru produces more natural gas than exists a demand for it.  Lima, the most populous city in Peru, where one out of every 3 Peruvians lives, is geographically close to the areas producing the natural gas and yet propane is the preferred method for running stoves, water heaters, and the like.  The cost to refit Lima to be able to use the surplus natural gas is probably far higher than the benefit that would result.  So, it is only natural for Peru to do what all members of an economy does, sells the surplus on the open market for money to buy goods in higher demand.

What to make of Damert’s accusations that Mezzano is a traitor?  At best, his complaints amount to the ignorant ravings of an economically illiterate politician who argues on emotional ground.  The fact that the excess natural gas is heading to Chile, a country Peru deeply hates, makes his objections take hold more easily, but even in the absence of that hot button item, his average listener may well fall into “why aren’t we using our resources to help our own” mentality that Bastiat warned against.  At worst, one may suspect that Danmert is a demagogue who appeals to the prejudices of his listeners and depends on their economic ignorance to give him the cover he needs to use his influence to benefit his cronies.  In either case, his arguments are as vapid and harmful as those that circulated in France nearly 180 years ago.

The inspiration for this month’s column came from a casual conversation about college football I had with my mom.  She remembers the heady days of the 1950s and 60s before the NCAA became a multi-billion-dollar business.  During the course of that exchange, she expressed particular hatred for the Ohio State University because they always beat her favorite teams.  When I asked her why the Buckeyes always won, she answered with one of the most interesting and telling responses:  “I guess they paid their guys more than we did.”

I reflected on that remark for some time and realized the truth in the matter.  Despite the fig leaf of respectability that the NCAA tries to hide behind by keeping money away from college football while maintaining that the players are ‘student-athletes’, each university really does pay their players.

Here I’m not talking about the various recruiting scandals that have plagued the NCAA in the past.  They are a natural outgrowth of the economics legitimately in play, and I’ll discuss them later in their proper context.  What really passes for pay is the reciprocal compensation that players receive from the university in exchange for their on-field talent and the sporting entertainment they deliver to the audience.

To illustrate this point let’s consider your average, high school all American linebacker being recruited for a spot on a college football team.  To keep the argument compact and convenient, let’s suppose that there are only two teams in the running for Jack’s talent (the name of our linebacker is Jack for subtle reasons best left unsaid).  The first team is that top tier football school Alabama University home of the Crimson Tide.  The second team is Iowa University with its Hawkeye football program, which is a tier lower than Alabama’s (even if its academics are clearly a tier above).

Consulting ESPN’s online college football revenue/expenses database and current college rankings, one sees a direct correlation between the amount of revenue each school enjoys and the quality of their football program.

It is in the economic interest of each school to secure Jack’s attendance since the better the team the greater the revenue.  The greater the revenue they each have the greater economic power they yield and college presidents and administrators love yielding power.

Given that it is a buyer’s market, how does Jack decide where to go?  It depends on Jacks’ goal, aspirations, and dreams, but it is a safe bet to assume that the typical all-American like Jack is interested in the college limelight as a showcase for his talent.  He wants to play for a team with a large national exposure; one which appears on television often; is nationally ranked in the poles; has a good chance at the national championship; and attracts the attention of NFL scouts.  In this way, Jack maximizes his chances of receiving a lucrative professional football deal at the end of his rainbow.  With this logic in hand, Jack examines the two programs and sees that Alabama is the place for him.

To the casual observer, this probably seems like a perfectly fine way of doing business.  Jack and Alabama are a good fit for each other – Alabama has a top-flight football program always looking for great talent and Jack gets all the prestige associated with being able to yell ‘Roll Tide’.

But what about Iowa?  The standard response is that they’ll be able to attract better talent once they start winning more decisively, becoming a recognized national powerhouse.  But there is an obvious catch 22, how does Iowa become a national powerhouse without being able to attract talent?

In a free market scenario, when business B has weaker human capital compared to business A, Business B can improve its market position by hiring equal or better talent by recruiting them with better pay and/or benefits.  In this scenario, Iowa could sweeten the deal for Jack, making a payout available today stand against or overshadow the possibility of a greater earnings in the distant future and serving as an insurance policy against injury.  And since Iowa has a higher margin between revenues and outlay, it has a decisive advantage compared to Alabama.

Unfortunately, the NCAA doesn’t implement a free market.  Instead, it favors some and disfavors others.  It erects facades of rectitude for public consumption and then feigns surprise and outrage when recruiting violations occur, but recruiting violations should be expected when so much is economically on the line and the desire for revenue runs so strong.

There is a direct parallel to the situation here and what happened under FDR’s wage controls during World War II.  During the war, the businesses were forbidden to raise wages but they, nonetheless, found a way to compete with each other for labor by offering a host of fringe benefits that represented real economic benefit to their employees even if it wasn’t in the form of money.  The opportunities and open doors to the NFL that Alabama provides is equivalent to the valuable but not-monetized fringe benefits.  Iowa, who can’t offer these fringe benefits precisely because of their exclusive nature, can only compete by providing hard, cold cash but they can’t because of the NCAA rules.  The only choice open to them is to provide some other type of benefit on the side.  It doesn’t appear that Iowa had but other Universities have been known to provide all sorts of ‘side benefits’, which one can learn about with the simple search string ‘college football recruiting scandals’.

These rules violations happened precisely because different organization were tried to level the playing field at all costs and because the NCAA was economically illiterate in failing to recognize that prestige is a form of capital.  Now I am not saying that one should boycott the NCAA or protest for fundamental change.  All I’m suggesting is that next time you sit down to enjoy college football, especially during the holidays, consider the pros/cons of the free market and the problems that inevitably arise when governing bodies seek to suppress it.

I’ve often wondered if recycling really makes sense.  Before exploring some of the possible answers to this question, I'd better define my terms so that there is no chance of misunderstanding.  By recycling I mean the usual gathering and separating of the various materials of modern life (e.g., paper, plastic, glass, etc.) for subsequent pickup, future processing, and reappearance in some other guise in consumer packaging or content.  Contrast this with conservation, where the original material is saved and reused locally or simply isn’t used to begin with.  Conservation always makes sense – it is always better to not waste a thing – but recycling may be another thing entirely.

Despite the conventional wisdom that immediately insists that recycling is the ‘green way to go’, there are several possible wrinkles in a recycling scenario that may sway the logic one way or another.  I’ll focus on two questions central to the decision to recycle:  1) is it better for the environment to recycle, and 2) is it economically viable to recycle.

The answer for question 1 seems obvious; any passing examination usually and unequivocally supports recycling, since it seems always better to recycle a thing rather than simply to toss it out.  But deeper considerations usually lead to far less certainty.  Take a moment to reflect on the fact that it takes energy to run a recycling program.  Most experts agree that the energy used to recycle is usually less than the energy expended in creating the product from raw resources, but the recycling process consumes fossil fuels in order to take used content and transform it into recycled product.  It is possible that the carbon footprint of a recycling process is larger than generating fresh from raw materials.  In addition, other pollutants can also result.  Paper processing, for example, creates a variety of unwanted fluids (effluents is often the name used) that have the vestiges of the dyes and inks and toner that once decorated the paper as well as the chemicals used to bleach the paper.

In The Reign of Recycling, John Tierney notes similar issues.  Tierney cites Chris Goodall’s book How to Live a Low-Carbon Life, in which Goodall calculates that the carbon footprint associated with washing plastic materials in hot water that was heated by coal-derived electricity can easily result in more atmospheric carbon than is saved in the recycling.  This undesired outcome results since recycling one ton of plastic saves just a bit more than one ton of carbon.  The mandatory washing of the plastic prior to its pickup can easily tip the scales into a negative environmental impact.  Plastic is not alone as a dubious recyclable.  It, glass, and compostable materials (food and yard waste) are the worst three materials to recycle, with compostable materials resulting in 20 tons of released carbon for every ton of material processed.  According to Tierney, the EPA estimates that more than 90 percent of greenhouse benefits come from a few materials: paper, cardboard, and metals like aluminum.  He also stresses that modern incinerators ‘…release so few pollutants that they’ve been widely accepted in the eco-conscious countries of Northern Europe and Japan for generating clean energy’ and yet are completely banned from discussion in the U.S..

In Can Recycling Be Bad for the Environment?, Amy Westevelt argues that the recycling trend lulls the consumer market into a false sense of comfort, giving ‘manufacturers of disposable items a way to essentially market overconsumption as environmentalism.’  Her point is that, while it is always a good idea to recycle waste and to conserve virgin materials by using less in packaging or content, reporting on modern recycling misdirects public sentiment to focus on rising recycling rates rather than the continued increase in consumption that has kept pace with or exceeded the levels of recycling.   She suggests that the backers of plastic recycling (American Plastics Council and the Society of the Plastics Industries, Inc.) sell recycling success as a way to distract or assuage the consumer conscience into believing that no change in behavior is warranted.

Westevelt isn’t alone in her concern about the environmental impact of this plastic bait-and-switch.  As 5 Gyres suggests in The Truth About Recycling, thinking that we’ve solved the plastic problem by recycling is not only false, it also prevents us from fully appreciating the possibility of exploring alternative materials.

Likewise, a careful consideration of question 2, based partly on the analysis of question 1, suggests economic forces that point towards creating from virgin materials rather than recycling existing products.

Michael Kanellos, in his article Profits Become Elusive In Recycling, points out that the economics of recycling are as susceptible to the laws of supply and demand as any other business.  If the commodity market stays high then there is financial incentive to dig into the ‘garbage mines’ to find value.  If it is low, then the cost of recycling fails to support the value gained from the reclaimed products.  Kanellos coins the term ‘garbitrage’ to describe the thin and fluctuating profit margins that the recycling vendor has to contend with to make recycling worth the effort.  As an example, Kanellos presents the case of Waste Management, one of the largest waste haulers and processors in the US.  In 2008, Waste Management was an enthusiastic recycler, looking to triple its processing load within a decade.  By 2012, less than halfway through their program, Waste Management was reporting an operating loss for the previous 18 months.

Investor’s Business Daily recently ran an editorial, entitled Some Inconvenient Truths About Recycling, in which they attack the ‘article of faith in the U.S. that recycling is a good thing’.  They stress that mounting evidence is showing that recycling is a waste of time and money.  The reason for this is the changing relationship between the U.S. and China, which had been the biggest importer of recyclable product.  Given the current economic climate, China is effectively closing its shores to our waste.  As a result, many of the activities associated with recycling are merely rituals that waste time and economic resources that would be more profitably spent elsewhere.

All the commentators agree that much of the collected, recyclable material now finds its way into landfills, often after a lengthy preparation, collection, and sorting processes.  Given the associated opportunity costs of these ultimately useless activities, we would all be better off by:

• focusing our recycling efforts on paper, cardboard, and aluminum,
• simply throwing the rest away,
• and investing the saved time on more important pursuits like minimizing our production and consumption of plastic.

That way we can properly conserve our time and resources and direct them to something better than following the common wisdom about recycling.

Once again California demonstrates to the rest of the country that it believes that the laws of economics don’t apply to the wonderful world of that Golden State out west.  At issue this time is the status of those individuals working within their gig economy and the protections that must be afforded to them at all costs.  Never mind the consequences that bring a little more misery and a new set of unwanted side-effects that redound to the detriment of its citizens so long as the state can ‘do the right thing’.  That unintended results and all of the collateral damage that follows could have been predicted and avoided by some sound economic reasoning never seems to enter the heads of the state’s judicial branch.

Now if you have been living under a rock, apparently like I have, then you may not actually know what the gig economy is and, as a consequence, why California’s latest juridical ruling has caused far more harm than good.  In short, the gig economy is the term used to describe those people who work as independent contractors or, as David Shadpour puts it in his article The Gig Economy: Pioneering The Future, “are workers who are not employees of the company that signs their paychecks”.

Of course, the notion that people can work as independent contractors is not a new one and the only justification for coming up with a new term (besides the celebrity and funding always desired by researchers) is the strong growth of on-demand services like Lyft and Airbnb that some economists and commentators believe represents a fundamental change in the way the economy works.

Despite the pithy labeling, no consensus exists as to how many workers actually populate the gig economy.  Larry Alton, writing for Forbes (Why The Gig Economy Is The Best And Worst Development For Workers Under 30), presents estimates that gig workers make up 34 percent of the workforce.  In contrast, Robert J. Samuelson reports much smaller numbers in his article Is the gig economy a myth? Samuelson cites a survey by Katz and Krueger that indicates that the percentage of people engaged in the gig economy rose from 10.7 percent in 2005 to 15.8 percent in 2015.  He then presents more current numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics that show that the percentage of the population in the gig economy had remained essentially flat over the last twenty years (9.9 percent in 1995, 10.7 percent in 2005, and 10.1 percent in 2017).

A likely explanation to this vast discrepancy is that, as Ben Casselman points out in Maybe the Gig Economy Isn’t Reshaping Work After All, the government’s statistics do not include people who do gig work as a supplement to their traditional 9-to-5 job.  He goes on to explain that while the growth in the gig economy may be flat in aggregate, certain industries have seen a marked growth (e.g. transportation) while others have fallen (e.g. construction).  In addition, he cites that the Federal Reserve recently released numbers showing that by including supplemental gig workers in with full-time ones, that nearly a third of adults engage in some form of independent contractual work.  The fact that these estimates suggest that 2/3 of the gig economy is comprised by workers engaged in supplemental employment (a ratio independently arrived at by the McKinsey Global Institute as reported in Independent work: Choice, necessity, and the gig economy).  This is an important point that will be discussed further below.

With some understanding of the statistics behind the gig economy in hand, let’s now turn to the reasons why people might engage in the gig economy.  Alton suggests that millennials, craving new experiences and shouldering student debt, turn to the gig economy to test the waters while alleviating their financial burden before deciding on a permanent employment choice.  Abha Bhattarai, in Now hiring, for a one-day job: the gig economy hits retail, puts her finger on another reason why certain sectors may be wanting independent contractors rather than permanent staff:  employers are wary of hiring full-time employees because of overtime and health-care costs.  These are only a few amongst the host of economic reasons for workers engaging in the gig economy or businesses only hiring contract workers.

Despite the clear data that indicate that a large fraction of those engaged in the gig economy do so as a ‘side hustle’, there are many commentators worried about the lack of protections afforded gig workers and who use, knowingly or unknowingly, faulty statistics and logic to bolster their case.  For example, Bhattarai rightly points out that contract workers are not covered under the National Labor Relations Act and, thus, don’t have rights to a variety of employee protections.  Unfortunately, she then goes on to criticize that most gig workers (she cites 85 percent) make less that $500 a month without acknowledging the fact that at least 2/3 of them are engaged in supplemental income or without analyzing the number of hours worked.  Likewise, Alana Semuels laments in her article The Online Gig Economy’s ‘Race to the Bottom’,  that third world workers engaged in freelance activities are forced to enter a global marketplace with ‘endless competition, low wages, and little stability’ without discussing the possibilities that their lives were filled with ‘endless poverty, low prospects, and little stability’ without the freelance work, which she begrudgingly admits may have raised wages and broadened opportunities.

This kind of fuzzy thinking (which Frederic Bastiat would be inclined to describe as ignoring the unseen costs) has clearly colored the California Supreme Court.   Or perhaps the court was reacting to statistics that ‘indicate’ that the California’s rise in poverty lies squarely at the feet of the gig economy.  Jeff Daniels seems to argue just that point in his article Nearly half of California's gig economy workers struggling with poverty, new survey says. But as Daniels own statistics show, only one in every 20 Californians struggles with poverty while being in the gig economy in contrast to the nearly 1/3 of all Californians and 47 percent of California workers that he cites as being in the same sorry state.  Thus, 42 percent of California workers struggle with poverty for reasons that have nothing to do with the gig economy.  These workers may even be able to benefit from the gig economy – or more precisely they may have benefitted.  That was before the court ruled that many gig workers should have the pay and benefits of employees (as reported by Moore and Nuzzo in Gig economy will do wonders for Florida, if we let it).

Now the situation is much darker.  Rather than providing for more economic growth and better wages this latest ruling, which adds more compliance burdens, seems to be having an adverse effect on businesses and workers alike as discussed in this very insightful video from Sacramento.

Sigh…Maybe the California Supreme Court should get a new gig.