Category Archives: Econ & Money

Brad DeLong Does Suskind & O’Neill

Notes: Suskind and O'Neill. Why read the book when you've got Brad to give you all the juiciest bits—and explain why they're juicy!

Posted in Econ & Money | 1 Comment

Bush Labor Dept. Explains to Employers How to Avoid Paying Overtime

You'd think the Labor department was about helping workers, at least in an election year. But not this one. The Dept. is preparing new rules which will no longer require that employers pay millions of higher-paid employees overtime; in the future, however, 1.3 million low-paid employees (paid under $22.1K per year) who are not covered by the current overtime requirement will have to get time and half if they work over 40 hours. In a combination of chutzpah and political ham-handedness, the Bush Labor department is explaining to employers how, they can evade this new rule in order to keep down their lowest-paid workers' pay packets: they could, for example, cut hourly wages, so that with the overtime the total pay remains the same.

The AP story explaining this was in the Miami Herald, but doesn't seem to have made either the NYT or the Washington Post. It contains the most bald-faced denials of reality by a press spokesman, one Ed Frank, I've seen for a long time: Despite publishing instructions on how to avoid paying workers extra for overtime, “We're not saying anybody should do any of this.” Right. We're just explaining their options to them very carefully. Let's nominate Mr. Frank for a Ron Ziegler Award. [Sadly, Tammy McCutchen can't be included among the nominees, because she's an administrator, not a press secretary. Even though she's the Labor Department's Wage and Hour Division administrator who said that making a “payroll adjustment” which lowers hourly wages but keeps the total including overtime constant, one that results “in virtually no, or only a minimal increase in labor costs,” is not a pay cut.]

In fairness, I should note that the Labor Dept. also lists raising base salary above the threshold as another way to avoid paying overtime (although for workers near the cap, this 'raise' may paradoxically reduce their total takehome when they are required to do substantial ovetime).

Continue reading

Posted in Econ & Money, Politics: US | 5 Comments

Shorter George Will

Shorter George Will

Now that Clinton is safely out of office even I agree that Robert Rubin is a good economist, so if Rubin says that economic predictions can never be certain it follows that we cannot be certain that the Bush deficit is really as bad as people say, and therefore it's ok to ignore everything I said in the past about deficits and continue to support Bush and bash his deficit hawk critics, especially if they are Democrats.

Posted in Econ & Money | 1 Comment

Dollar vs. Euro Suggests Bush Economic Plan Fails Basic Market Test

Once again justifying the Economist's Big Mac Index, which had been saying the dollar was overvalued, the dollar has been crashing against the Euro. This is particularly noteworthy as the Euro-area is not itself in the most wonderful economic shape. Which means that the currency traders think we're in even worse shape (click the imgage for details of the slide over the last 30 days). Lovely.

Posted in Econ & Money | 3 Comments

Update on Digby Jones Quote

I’ve had an emailed reply from the efficient, and no doubt quite busy, CBI press office to my query asking for confirmation that Director General Digby Jones had said what the Evening Standard quoted. In my query I asked for the text of Digby Jones’s speech. Here’s the reply:

There is no speech this came from an interview with the Evening Standard – Digby Jones is speaking today though, at 12.30

The speech and press release will be on the website later.

And it is, but it's about the EU.

Posted in Econ & Money | Comments Off on Update on Digby Jones Quote

Are They That Stupid? Someone Is, And It’s Bad News

Brad DeLong expresses doubt as to whether (as I noted earlier that the Evening Standard had reported) even the Bush administration could be quite dumb enough to be strong-arming US defense firms in hopes of getting them to close up shop abroad and bring jobs to the US:

I do not believe this. I cannot believe this. Incompetent, short-sighted, ungrateful, and mendacious as we all know the George W. Bush administration to be, even they wouldn't do something as stupid and counterproductive as this.

Would they?

I understand Brad's reluctance. Like him, I don't want to think that our leaders can be that dumb. And the Evening Standard is not the gold standard for reporting.

Trouble is, it's not that easy to figure out exactly whether the Director-General of the Confederation of British Industry Mr. Digby Jones actually said what was reported in the Evening Standard. The text of the speech doesn't seem to be online. I've e-mailed the Confederation of British Industry in the hopes they will send it to me.

In the mean time, we have to make do with the newspapers. The usually reliable Financial Times more or less echoes the Evening Standard. A Scottish paper suggests this isn't about private strong-arming so much as the “Buy America” campaign. And the Daily Telegraph says that the pressure came from Congresspeople — some of whom unquestionably are this stupid — and not from the White House. And, indeed, if you look at what the FT and ES actually say, they don't finger the Bush administration as such — just give the strong impression the Administration is the source of the pressure from the context, which is about Bush's visit.

But even if the pressure came from Bush's allies in Congress, instead of directly from the administration, this isn't good.

Continue reading

Posted in Econ & Money | Comments Off on Are They That Stupid? Someone Is, And It’s Bad News