The federal stimulus law and a later extension provided states an extra $80 billion in 2009 and 2010 for Medicaid, the nation's health care program for the poor. This was done by reducing the state's share of the program from a national average of 40% to 28%.
This bargain rate declines slightly April 1 and expires completely July 1. That means the average state responsibility on a $1,000 Medicaid bill will rise from $280 today to $400 July 1 — a 43% increase.
The bonus federal matching rate depends on when the bill is paid, not when the service is provided or the bill is received. Because states run the $400 billion a year program — while the federal government reimburses them — states can time payments to maximize the federal share.
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Stimulus and Medicaid
States rush to settle Medicaid bills
Thursday, March 17, 2011
Height
Looks like I need to find an asian woman to date. Anthropometry of Love: Height and Gender Asymmetries in Interethnic Marriages.
Both in the UK and in the US, we observe puzzling gender asymmetries in the propensity to outmarry: Black men are substantially more likely to have white spouses than Black women, but the opposite is true for Chinese: Chinese men are half less likely to be married to a White person than Chinese women. We argue that differences in height distributions, combined with a simple preference for a taller husband, can explain a large proportion of these ethnic-spefi c gender asymmetries. Blacks are taller than Asians, and we argue that this signifi cantly affects their marriage prospects with whites. We provide empirical support for this hypothesis using data from the Health Survey for England and the Millenium Cohort Study, which contains valuable and unique information on heights of married couples.
Elder Porn
The Japanese are well known for their unusual taste in porn. The latest is apparently referred to as 'elder porn'. Shigeo Tokuda is apparently a star of the genre.
NYT
$180 for something I previously got for free? I think I'll probably be reading a lot less New York Times.
Tuesday, March 08, 2011
Public vs. Private Sector Pay
I thought I would wrap up a bunch of the blog posts on public sector versus private sector pay, and union versus non-union. First, in this debate I've come to realize people's prior beliefs are strong, even if uniformed. Showing them data merely results in what has been called the confirmatory bias. They pick out the parts that validate their position and discount the data which does not. There have been many posts and op-eds but let me point you to a few. Adam Ozimek had a useful post which point to the related empirical work:
On the issues of the relationship between public sectors unionization and spending, taxing and state deficits, John Sides of the monkey cage has produced a bunch of nice bivariate correlations. (here, and a lot more here, and a final roundup here). He notes here, that a single comparison of two points is misleading, but multiple comparison of all combinations of two points is just a regression! Of course, like any regression it is still subjected to an omitted variables bias.
The current state budget shortfalls probably have far more to do with the housing market, than public sector unions. As this graph suggests.
Here is the macroeconomic case against unions.
Useful Comments from Richard Freeman on Labor Unions with this jewel here:
Here is a good comment from inside higher ed.
Here are my earlier comments. (here and here).
He linked to three reports (here, here, and here) that show that public sector wages are no higher than, and often lower than private sector wages.Part of the discussion of public versus private is also a union versus non-union argument. I think Adam does a good job of discussing it. I would suggest that he should include an interaction term as well (ie union*public) as well. That said I think the evidence is that there is a wage premium for lower educated union public workers. There is a negative premium for higher educated non union public workers (ie university professors).
A final point I’d like to make is that a wage premium is not equal to public sector union power. A powerful union may use all of it’s bargaining power to negotiate for absolute job security, which could then select for a different set of workers with lower unobservable skills. In this case you would observe wages equal to or even below private sector wages despite a clearly powerful union. Some would argue this is exactly what teachers unions do.
On the issues of the relationship between public sectors unionization and spending, taxing and state deficits, John Sides of the monkey cage has produced a bunch of nice bivariate correlations. (here, and a lot more here, and a final roundup here). He notes here, that a single comparison of two points is misleading, but multiple comparison of all combinations of two points is just a regression! Of course, like any regression it is still subjected to an omitted variables bias.
The current state budget shortfalls probably have far more to do with the housing market, than public sector unions. As this graph suggests.
Here is the macroeconomic case against unions.
Useful Comments from Richard Freeman on Labor Unions with this jewel here:
If you had the ear of Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, who is pushing a bill to strip public sector unions of their bargaining power through the state legislature, what would you say?
I would say: consider what happened to John Howard, former Prime Minister of Australia. When he gained control of both houses of parliament, he did what the governor of Wisconsin seems to want to do: he forced through the legislature (in which his party had a small majority) a policy to radically restrict union activity, with the goal of basically de-legitimising that institution in society. John Howard was thrown out of office in the next election; he even lost his own seat. If you push to undo an institution that is part of the fabric of society, one that many people believe should be available to workers who want it (whether or not they themselves want to be part of it), you might find yourself pushed aside.
Removing collective bargaining from the public sector and lodging all power with employers will not solve the economic problems of U.S. states and cities. It will just remove one mechanism for bringing workers and management in the public sector together to deal with the fiscal problem that neither of them caused.
Here is a good comment from inside higher ed.
Here are my earlier comments. (here and here).
Monday, March 07, 2011
Innovation in Recessions
Starbucks claims to have had several.
Q: Was the decline due to the recession, or was it Starbucks failing to gauge consumers?
A: There was a dramatic change in consumer behavior. On a parallel track, Starbucks has to assume responsibility for decisions that were made. There were self-induced mistakes. But the last quarter (first fiscal quarter of 2011) was the best quarter in our 40-year history. When our back was against the wall, we were able to do our best work.
Q: In the depths of the recession, was there a moment you thought the Starbucks empire could implode?
A: I don't want to seem arrogant, but I always believed that Starbucks would be able to weather the storm. We certainly had challenging moments. But there was not one single moment when I thought we couldn't overcome the challenges. I have a book coming out at the end of March about the last two years of our transformation, Onward: How Starbucks Fought for Its Life without Losing Its Soul.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)