Posts tagged with: Anthony Davies

Seattle-mystWhen I was growing up I had a buddy—let’s call him “Bob”—who was constantly asking, “What happens if we do . . . ?” Bob’s curiosity, however, only led him to wonder about foolish actions. He never pondered, for example, what would happen if we all volunteered at the senior citizens center. Instead, his thinking ran more along the lines of what would happen if we jumped off the senior citizens center.

The reaction of me and the rest of my friends was always, “Let’s find out!” But we were more prudent than Bob (or maybe just more cowardly) so we’d encourage him to try whatever reckless idea he had in mind so we could learn from his experience. We learned, for instance, that if jump off the 3-story senior citizens center, a stack of cardboard boxes will not be enough to sufficiently break your fall.

Bob’s shenanigans would daily provide for us what social scientists would call a “natural experiment.” A natural experiment is a study of the effect of an independent variable, which has not been planned or manipulated by the researchers, on a dependent variable. (The word ‘natural’ in the term natural experiment therefore refers to an event that is not planned by the researchers.)

The city of Seattle is about to pull a Bob, by foolishly raising the minimum wage to $15 per hour. The effect on the citizens of Seattle will be almost entirely harmful. But it will provide a natural experiment on the effect of raising the minimum wage laws that the rest of American can learn from. Anyone who isn’t already convinced that increasing the minimum wage has a detrimental impact on employment and harm minority workers will, in a few years, have solid proof. We will all be able to look to Seattle to see the difference between good, albeit naive, intentions and sound economic policy.

Here are some of the effects I predict the policy will have in the next three years:
(more…)

In the discussion of whether the problem with our national public debt is a question of receipts, outlays, or both, I linked to a helpful set of graphs from Anthony Davies, an economics professor at Duquesne University. This data shows that even though a variety of tax rates have changed a great deal over the years, the federal government has basically taken in receipts within the range of 16-20% of GDP over the post-WWII era. If you haven’t looked at this presentation before, you should do so now.

And today, Grove City economics professor and AU faculty lecturer Shawn Ritenour links to another chart, which compares these receipts against historic federal outlays (or spending). He notes (and refutes) Joe Weisenthal’s contention that “any politician who says Washington has a spending problem, rather than a revenue problem, is speaking from a position of anti-tax ideology, rather than empirical data.”

But I think if you look at the history of receipts and outlays a bit closer, you’ll see that the variance in receipts over the last decade are well within the historical norms. But the variance in outlays over that period isn’t outside the norms, either, in the sense that it continues a disturbing trend after 1970. (The data for current and future years is estimated and gleaned from sources here.)
There used to be some correlation between the red and blue lines. But not in today’s Washington.
Again, given this historic perspective, I think it’s hard to blame the blue line for the current debt levels. Keep in mind too that since these figures are a function of GDP, as the economy grows, other things being equal so too does the spending and receipts of the federal government.

In addition to the larger versions of the graphs clickable above, you can download this set of graphs in PDF form here, and visit our “Principles for Budget Reform” page to read more related commentary.