The Dom Post reports that, while the cost of sick days to employers is $700 per year per employee, the loss from employees turning up and being semi-productive when sick is $900! They then recommend that employers press workers to stay at home until they’re better.
There are two problems I have with that: their assumptions and their method of dealing with opportunity cost. Read more
Dani Rodrik has interesting stuff to say about the way policy is formed. He discusses whether government policy is driven more by the prevailing ideology or by the interests of powerful lobby groups. There are two key ponts he makes:
isn’t it the case that the reason trade unions, say, have lost power in recent decades is the ideology of deregulation which swept Washington, D.C.? Or that U.S. auto makers have been unable to get large-scale import protection because this was a no-no in the prevailing ideological climate?… The fact that the U.S. wants fiscal stimulus and Germany doesn’t cannot be explained by the relative power of different groups within those countries. It has much more to do with the way in which their respective governments have defined the problem and the “lessons” of history they have drawn. Similarly, France wants more global regulation in large part because, well, France believes in regulation. Sure, Britain and the U.S. prefer a lighter touch in part because their financial sectors are more powerful–which in turn is due in part to the Reagan-Thatcher ideological revolution.
If we accept Rodrik’s argument then we must ask where these ideologies come from. In a democratic system there is no avoiding the fact that the prevailing views of the government are usually the ones voted for by a plurality of the citizenry. I’d like to think that this is the case because it would disturb me to believe that money can buy power that a democratic majority cannot achieve.
Paymark has reported some interesting results for electronic card sales over March.
In their news story they say the food and liquor are doing well relative to March last year, travel looks soft, and if we adjust for the funky timing of Easter (last year it was in March, this year it is back to its normal April) sales are down a bit.
Now, I remember last March – and I remember Stats NZ said that it wasn’t going to adjust for Easter because, when it comes to retail sales, it isn’t clear what the impact is.
Using my poor memory and a touch of logic, I recall the timing of Easter boosting the sales of specialty foods and tourist related activities – as people were coming around to hang out with family and celebrate Easter in a different month then usual. In net terms this lead to a movement of these types of sales from April to March. The place where retail sales did struggle was motor vehicles and the such – however, these aren’t the sort of purchases that turn up in the electronic card numbers.
As a result, today’s figures maybe don’t show such a weak story – maybe tourist spending isn’t quite as bad as they are saying, and maybe food spending is very robust. I wouldn’t be surprised if liquor spending is strong – as it can be relatively counter-cyclical. However, it isn’t clear that they should be revising the figures down on the basis of Easter …
Yesterday I saw the Watchmen movie. I haven’t read the comics or any of that jazz, but I was told that it provided a compelling critique of utilitarianism. As an ethical theory it definitely illustrated the short-comings of utilitarianism. But in the way economists use utilitarianism – namely as a framework to hang value judgments off – the argument is far less compelling.
Note if you don’t want any spoilers don’t click the tag …
Read more
Freakonomics reports that an Oregonian politician wants to implement bicycle licensing and registration. He says that cyclists use the roads just like cars, but they don’t have to pay a cent towards maintenance. Cyclists’ comments reveal their disgust at the idea but, as an avid cyclist myself, I must confess that I have some sympathy with the proposal. Read more
So Barefoot and Thompson have seen a sharp increase in houes sales in March (although the increase on last March is exagerrated – given that Easter was in March last year).
I managed to get quoted in the article on it – and I sounded a little more positive than I expected. So lets discuss if people agree with these statements:
Sales were ridiculously low, it was unsustainable in itself.
Auckland was struggling a good year or so before the rest of the country. I’m confident Auckland’s going to be the first place moving. There’s just not enough properties in Auckland in the first place.
Got at it – once someone else has started I might get in on criticising the statements myself 😉 . There are some other things I said that weren’t in there that might put these in context – but adding that would destroy the fun 🙂