Econompic - negative real interest rates encourage savings

The basic premise behind stimulatory monetary policy is that lower interest rates reduce the cost of debt, and decrease the returns to savings, encouraging present spending and maintaining asset values. But recent experience (particularly in the US) has shown that in a low (or negative) real interest rate environment, savings rates are climbing.

Jake over at Econompic has put forward a reason this might be the case. He argues that if an individual needs to save a certain amount for future consumption, for example someone who wishes to fund their retirement, a low interest rate means they need to SAVE MORE NOW to reach that point.

What surprises me is that Jake’s hypothesis is fairly consistent with Milton Friedman’s permanent income hypothesis, which asserts that people will try and smooth out their earnings over their lifetime (through savings decisions) to maintain a relatively constant level of expenditure. In Friedman’s model, a transitory income, like prize money, would not be spent all at once, but mostly saved and spent over the rest of one’s lifetime. While the reduced debt burden from low interest rates may been seen as temporary by some people and not greatly affect their spending, the reduced return on savings DEFINITELY means that smoothing out income for retirement requires greater levels of saving.

For example, if interest rates are 5%, someone might want to save $1million in order to earn $50,000 per year in returns on which to live during retirement. But if interest rates are 1%, that person needs to save $5million in order to earn $50,000 in returns to fund their retirement.

One might suggest that low interest rates mean that people who need to save will save more, and people who don’t, will save less. This might translate to quite a variation in saving patterns by age, with the soon to retire boomers increasing savings, with the young workers saving less.

The low interest rates and high savings rate correlation probably also has a lot to do with household repairing their balance sheets following massive losses on equities and housing (particularly in the US and the UK).

Over to Jake for the details (original post here).

Smoking decreases health costs to society

The academic literature generally concludes that smoking reduces health costs to society. This is in stark contrast to commonly held beliefs that there are substantial health care costs borne by society from 'vices' such as smoking, alcohol consumption and fatty foods (which are the target of future regulations).

In fact I will argue (slightly tongue in cheek) that as a society we would be better off if more people would take health risks, and it would be a simple solution to the aged care burden many fear will occur when the baby boomers retire.

The following academic results are typical (my emphasis).

Health care costs for smokers at a given age are as much as 40 percent higher than those for nonsmokers, but in a population in which no one smoked the costs would be 7 percent higher among men and 4 percent higher among women than the costs in the current mixed population of smokers and nonsmokers. If all smokers quit, health care costs would be lower at first, but after 15 years they would become higher than at present. In the long term, complete smoking cessation would produce a net increase in health care costs, but it could still be seen as economically favorable under reasonable assumptions of discount rate and evaluation period.

And from here

Until age 56, annual health expenditure was highest for obese people. At older ages, smokers incurred higher costs. Because of differences in life expectancy, however, lifetime health expenditure was highest among healthy-living people and lowest for smokers. Obese individuals held an intermediate position.

As I have said repeatedly

My core argument in this field has been that increasing preventative health care, while having the benefits of a healthier and long life, often come at increased total lifetime health costs, rather than decreased costs as is often proposed. Remember, we all die some day, and any potential cause of death postponed will allow another to take its place, which of course has its own health costs. Alternatively, a more healthy existence may make us more productive for longer and lead to us contributing more in taxes over our lifetime than the potential increase in health costs which were paid through the tax system for our preventative care.

I argue that most unhealthy vices provide a net benefit to society in terms - they reduce health costs by more than the reduction in tax contributions to health care which may occur due to illness.

The reason is simple. Most of the serious health problems associated with drinking, smoking and obesity take a long time to present. A smoker whose habit had no impact on their lifetime employment, but dies as a result of lung cancer upon retirement at age 65, has still contributed all their lifetime productive efforts to society, including plenty of transfers to others via taxes on tobacco itself, but avoided ongoing health costs from ageing, and costs of the pension.

It sounds cruel, but it is true. The rest of us are better off if people die soon after they retire (unfortunately they are not). The costs of these health vices are therefore borne directly by the people who partake in them, to the benefit of those who choose not to. Perhaps an alcohol and tobacco subsidy is in order?

The only situation where relatively healthy people are worse off from the poor habits of others is if the illness resulting from some unhealthy habit or behaviour occurs early in life and is a barrier to employment and social contribution in general.  In this case the 'unhealthy choice' would result in a massive reduction in their own well-being AND incur costs on others.

The academic literature seems to suggest that this situation is relatively uncommon compared to the alternative, where apparently unhealthy habits do not radically decrease people's productive contributions during their working like.

We can see then that the aged care burden we face is a result of people living healthier and longer lives, especially in the period after retirement. This is mostly the results of better nutrition, lack of war, and importantly, far greater medical knowledge and technology. Unhealthy consumption habits, like smoking, actually have a net effect of reducing the health care burden to society.

As a final note, the amazing gap between academic understanding, public perception, and political ramblings, suggest that taxes on tobacco and alcohol are more about raising revenue than reducing society wide health care costs. The counterintuitive and technical nature these academic conclusions make them easy to keep isolated from policy discussions, allowing politicians to keep any debate at the most superficial level.

*I am not a smoker, but am an occasional drinker, and generally want to live a long time, so I selfishly choose to stay as healthy as I can.

Updates and a CityCycle apology

Plastic bag banning continues to gain momentum

Well known demographer Bernard Salt had a stoush with Dick Smith in a little documentary a few months ago discussing Australia’s population growth.  Now he is back with more nonsense.

Brisbane’s CityCycle scheme, from my observations, appears to be well used.  I was pessimistic about the potential take-up rate of the scheme, but in the past six weeks of operation I have seen 27 people using these bikes – about 26 more than I expected. I do however live across the road from one station, work in a building adjacent to a station, and cycle past another half dozen twice per day.

Interestingly, I have seen one person using the scheme helmetless and smoking while talking on a mobile phone (I don’t have a problem with this if they are not riding dangerously, which they weren’t), and one bloke walk up to the bikes in work attire and promptly retrieve a helmet from his backpack before shooting off on a hire bike.  I can only hope that with more (are there more cyclist, or just people deciding to use the scheme to avoid bike theft and wear and tear?) cyclists there will be a strong push for more user-friendly bike lanes.

And just for fun, a hilarious rap battle between Keynes and Hayek to entertain the inner economics nerd.

Sin tax myths – why smokers reduce health costs

Smokers have been the target of Australia's latest sin tax. Meanwhile, debate continues over using sin taxes to reduce consumption of 'unhealthy' foods such as soft drinks and confectionary.

(The word unhealthy is used quite loosely due to the fact that there is sufficient uncertainty about health – Are eggs good or bad these days? Margarine? – and because it is typically not the food itself, but the quantity consumed of a single food that is unhealthy.  Almost any food item consumed in excess will be unhealthy).

The primary arguments in favour of sin taxes are that

1.      the taxes reduce ‘harmful’ or ‘unhealthy’ consumption, and

2.      the taxes raised offset likely health costs such behaviours incur on others.

Unfortunately neither argument is compelling.

Too good to be true environmental solutions

... roughly 42 percent of U.S. lighting energy (in Canada the fraction might even be a little higher) goes to incandescent bulbs. ...compact fluorescent lamps in all sorts of sizes and shapes that have roughly quadrupled efficiency -- 11 watts replacing 40, 18 watts replacing 75, and so on. They last about thirteen times as long as a regular light bulb; therefore each one of them saves you not only three quarters of the electricity, but also a dozen replacement bulbs and trips up the ladder. That more than pays for them, even though these things are rather expensive.

Think of such a compact bulb, with 14 watts replacing 75, as a 61 negawatt power plant. By substituting 14 watts for 75 watts, you are sending 61 unused watts -- or negawatts -- back to Hydro, who can sell the electricity saved to someone else without having to make it all over again. It is much cheaper to save the electricity than to make it -- and not only in thermal stations. It is cheaper for society to use these bulbs than to operate a Hydro plant, even if building the dam were to cost nothing. Each bulb has a net cost of minus several cents per kilowatt- hour, and no dam can compete with that! - The Negawatt Revolution 

The crackpot with a mo, Amory Lovins, wants people to be paid to not consume electricity as a way to promote energy efficiency and decrease the demand for energy. He has been pushing the negawatt bandwagon for twenty years, yet for all our dramatic increases in energy efficiency, we consume more energy than ever (or more correctly, we use more natural resources to generate more electricity, heat and motion than ever). 

The term negawatt describes the fact that in a capacity constrained electricity generation system, reduced energy consumption by one customer allows an increase in consumption by another customer. Without the reduced consumption by one customer, the increased consumption by the new customer would only have been possible by investing in new generation capacity. Thus, the energy saved is as good as energy generated - so much so that the energy generator could pay users to reduce their energy consumption.

From an engineering perspective there is little wrong with this concept. Unfortunately, an economic perspective reveals many flaws.

Flow-on effects of recycling - are there net benefits?

It is widely claimed that recycling “saves resources.” Often, recycling proponents claim that it will save specific resources, such as timber, petroleum, or mineral ores. Sometimes particularly successful examples are singled out, such as the recycling of aluminum cans. Both of these lines of argument rest on the notion that reusing some resources means using fewer total resources.

Daniel K. Benjamin

Like efficiency, the word recycling reflects positivity from all angles. How could anyone say a bad thing about recycling?

I propose not to say a bad thing for the sake of cementing my identity as a super-sceptic, but to examine in detail the potential flow-on effects of recycling and determine whether the espoused benefits can theoretically be delivered.

Generally two benefits of recycling are proclaimed. First, waste will be diverted from landfill, thus we can reduce the space required for this purposed and reduce the threat of leaching from landfill sites into groundwater systems and other environments. Second, recycled material will substitute for raw materials and thus reduce consumption of natural resources which may have associated negative environmental externalities.

These are two distinct benefits, and achieving one does not necessarily imply achieving both.

There are also two different economic scenarios for achieving recycling with different outcomes – the profitable recycling scenario, and the unprofitable recycling scenario that requires government support.

The profitable scenario represents an improvement in overall economic efficiency, thus, like the case of profitable energy efficiency, it facilitates future economic growth and improves our productive capacity.

In this scenario, recycled material cannot be said to be diverted from land fill, because it would never have been put there in the first place due to the material’s value to remanufacturing. If the material was simply dumped on the street there would be an opportunity for a business to emerge to collect the material and sell for a profit. Without a counterfactual we cannot estimate the effect on either of our two recycling claims.

If we assume instead that the counterfactual scenario is one where the technology had not yet emerged to make recycling profitable, then we can now consider the flow-on effects from the technology. It is best to have a single material in mind, say glass, when thinking of these effects.

First, the price of the final goods (windows, bottles etc) using the newly recyclable material will decline due to the reduced cost of recycled instead of raw materials. Thus we will see an increase in demand (not a shift in the demand curve, but a new point on the demand curve at a lower price) for these final goods and therefore an increase in demand for recycled and/or raw materials (recycled glass or silica from natural sand deposits). Depending on the availability of recycled material compared to the total quantity of raw materials, this can lead to greater demand for natural resource itself (sand mining).

We can now say we have probably diverted waste from landfill leading to a greater quantity of material circulating in the hands of society (as either capital equipment – glass in buildings perhaps- or soon to be recycled consumables – maybe bottles), but we cannot say with certainty that the new recycling technology has reduced demand for the particular natural resource in question. Nor can we say that demand for, and consumption of, other natural resources remains unaffected. In fact the new recycling technology, since it improved overall economic efficiency, is likely to increase demand for all natural resource inputs to the economy.

The alternate unprofitable scenario represents a decrease in overall economic efficiency, and will reduce overall economic activity compared to scenario where government did not use its coercive power to enforce this unprofitable venture.

In this scenario we are likely to see a decline in waste to landfill compared to the economically efficient situation where recycling is not subsidised. We face the same situation of compensatory demand due to price declines of final goods manufactured using the cheaper subsidised recycled materials. This scale of this offsetting behaviour cannot be readily estimated and is likely to strongly depend on the relative prices and quantities of the recycled materials and raw material inputs are a particular point in time. A decline in overall demand for raw materials in the economy as a whole is certain in the unprofitable scenario due to the overall reduction in economic efficiency.

For unprofitable recycling the net result will be a reduction in waste to landfill of both the recycled good and other goods (since we can now produce fewer goods in total across the economy), and a reduction in resource consumption of the recycled material and all other resource inputs to the economy.

In what is becoming a familiar environmental theme at this blog, it should be clear that indirect measures to curb negative environmental impacts from our activities, such as promoting conservation behaviours, profitable energy efficiency, and recycling, have questionable net impacts on the environmental issue at hand.

Returning to our two main environmental goals of recycling – reduce negative impacts form landfill sites and reduce resource extraction that involves an environmental burden – we can clearly offer more direct measures which are both easy to establish and have certain environmental benefits.

The first environmental goal can be achieved by setting minimum environmental standards for landfill sites to address leaching (or any other associated problem depending on local conditions) including, perhaps, restrictions on location. In response to these criteria, landfill operators (public or private) would need to adopt appropriate measure to limit external impacts – possibly lining their pits with impermeable material, sorting, washing or removing particular types of waste, or some other creative response. These extra costs of waste disposal – the internalised environmental cost – will flow through to the cost of disposal, and may render some recycling programs profitable.

For the second environmental concern, resource extraction, similar direct controls can be used. Sticking with the glass example, the scope of sand mining can be limited through planning controls where natural environments which are valued by the community. Once this limit is established, sand mining in that area can proceed, at any particular rate, with certainty that there is a finite limit to the environmental cost.

These limits would never be, strictly speaking, perfect. They would at best reflect the perceived value of the environment to the community. There is no reason that the limits should not be stricter in some areas than others.

As an indirect environmental measure with questionable benefits, recycling, like efficiency, is claimed to be a panacea for a variety of poorly defined environmental ills. We often forget to critically examine the link between this indirect environmental ‘remedy’, and the target environmental illness.

Energy efficiency - further reading

A robust discussion on the impact of energy efficiency on energy use took place in the journal Energy Policy over the decade since Len Brookes' article The greenhouse effect: the fallacies in the energy efficiency solution in 1994.  It concluded (for now) with another article by Brookes in 2003 entitled Energy efficiency fallacies- a postscript.  Brookes' conclusions are almost identical to my own, and those of Blake Alcott - capping or rationing resources where their use entails some kind of externality.

Brookes also adds taxing resources to reflect the cost of negative externalities, which one assumes, would be spent on reparation activities to return to a new optimal resource allocation which internalises the cost of pollution and eliminates the possibility of rebound effects (if reparations are possible).

It is worth reading his conclusions in full (below the fold):

Energy efficiency: A flawed paradigm

The word efficiency carries a meaning immersed in all things positive – you never hear that being more efficient could possibly be detrimental.  In fact, if you can bear the evangelical fervour, you may have read about achieving ‘Factor Four’ or ‘Factor Five’ gains in energy efficiency, as part of a ‘Natural Capital’ revolution comprising a ‘decoupling’ economic growth from a growth in the consumption of exhaustible resources – aka ‘sustainability’.  You may even have heard that I=PAT, where environment impact (I) is a function of population (P), affluence (A) and technology (T), and that becoming more efficient will enable a desired level of affluence will far less environmental cost.

Believe me, this is all nonsense, and indeed counterproductive to the stated aims of curbing resource use and decreasing negative environmental externalities.

When it comes to natural resource use, and the externalities associated with resource extraction and production, efficiency alone is the enabler of greater consumption.  William Stanley Jevons first noted that technological improvement, in terms of greater efficiency and therefore productivity, was the enabler of greater coal consumption in Britain back in 1865 in his book, The Coal Question: an Inquiry Concerning the Progress of the Nation, and the Probable Exhaustion of our Coal-mines. His observation was coined Jevon’s Paradox, even though the argument that technological improvements in resource efficiency (modes of economy) leads to greater resource use was already widely accepted in the labour market:

“As a rule, new modes of economy will lead to an increase in consumption according to a principle recognised in many parallel instances. The economy of labor effected by the introduction of new machinery throws labourers out of employment for the moment. But such is the increased demand for the cheapened products, that eventually the sphere of employment is greatly widened.”

The Environment Revisited

I want to revisit some of the key environmental themes of this blog that have had very little airtime lately. In particular I want to revisit, over the next month, the unintended consequences of some of our favourite environmental policies and personal choices.

For those new to the blog, the divergence of post topics from my blog title is explained here:

...understanding property is the key to a reasoned approach to preserving our quality of life by preserving environmental amenity. Maybe I am more of a ‘quality of life’ economist who believes there are many non-market goods, including the quality of, and accessibility of natural environments, that are major contributors to our well-being.

However the increasing fanaticism I have observed in some areas of the climate change movement, the lack of ability for some environmentalists to see the forest for the trees (pun intended), has lead me to distance myself from some of the core environmentalist views.

As a rule of thumb I believe we should first focus our efforts on local, tractable environmental problems with clear externalities, and implementable solutions – protecting diversity and fish stocks in the Great Barrier Reef, tackling air pollution and improving urban amenity, and preserving the quality of waterways and wilderness areas. Climate change, that global intractable problem, has dropped down my list of concerns, even though my previous research focussed on ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The development of my ideas on the environment is the reverse of renowned ‘skeptical environmentalist’ Bjorn Lomborg’s u-turn. He once held a strong position that climate change was far down humanities list of concerns, particularly noting the obvious an immediate threats from treatable diseases in the developing world. Now climate change to the top of his list, no doubt to pitch his new book to cashed-up fanatics.

My second rule of thumb is that personal ‘green’ consumption choices make no difference, and small actions do not add up. These behaviours are typically offset by other economic adjustments in upstream production and by choices of others as prices respond. These effects are know an rebound effects.

A recent article in The Economist highlights new research showing these rebound effects in action. The study estimates that new energy efficient lighting technology will increase energy consumption in the long run. My own research showed that conservation behaviour, such as using lights and electrical appliances and driving less, will also result in minimal change as money saved get spent elsewhere in the economy.

I intend to revisit ideas about waste, efficiency, environmental taxes, recycling and solar power over the next month to see how my ideas have developed, and to seek input to develop them further.

Helmet law research hits the headlines

Helmet laws hit the headlines with a new Australian study proclaiming their ineffectiveness at providing safety to cyclists, while in Canada the debate is heading the other way (due to this study - sorry I can't get the full text to review the methods).

The Australian study neatly controls for the number of cyclists and distance cycled by comparing the ratio of head to arm and hand injuries resulting from cycling activities from hospital records. A change in this ratio (lower head injuries per arm and hand injury) would be a clear indicator of the success of helmet wearing in preventing head injury.

The figure above shows the ratio (ICD9) from 1988 to 2000. Helmet laws were introduced in 1991, and self-reported compliance for two age groups (<16years and >16years) are plotted from 1991 to 1995.

The essential argument is that the large decline in the ratio of head to arm injuries occurred before the helmet law, and much before compliance with the law. In the two year period where helmet wearing took off following the legislation (1991 to 1993), the ratio dropped from 0.8 to 0.75 – hardly a success. The drop in the two years preceding the helmet law was from 1.15 to 0.8.

The author suggests that other road safety measures contributed to the decline, while the law itself would have contributed to a decline in the number of cyclists (some evidence for the decline is here) which itself made cycling more dangerous and lead to a flattening of the trend -

The reduction in numbers of people cycling may have actually increased the risk to the remaining cyclists because of Smeed’s Law and the safety in numbers hypothesis.

Economic myths - another dose

Population growth

I have written at length on why population growth does not improve welfare. Mark Crosby over at Core Economics reiterates these fundamental arguments.

The pro-population growth arguments are theoretically flawed, and empirically dismissed. Below is a chart of the relationship between population growth and GDP per capita for around 200 countries and localities, showing a distinctly inverse relationship. If I was in the business of improving welfare, low population growth would be a key avenue.

Another emerging myth is that population growth will decrease interest rates. Renowned property spruiker Chris Joye has created plenty of media fanfare recently with his spurious connection between population growth and interest rates. This table shows the interest rates in 23 countries, and if I’m not mistaken, shows that countries with the lowest population growth (and highest GDP per capita) also have the lowest interest rates.

Food

Food myths are widespread. The environmental movement wants us to believe that vegetarianism is better for the environment and that ‘organic’ (what does that mean?) food is more nutritious and can solve hunger around the world. The agricultural lobby would have us believe that food self-sufficiency is of utmost importance, although their argument is shallow at best.

The latest myth to be busted is that chickens are pumped with artificial hormones and steroids to make them grow faster and larger. However, it appears that hormones are not part of the poultry picture at all.

While I firmly believe that raising animals for food should be conducted in a humane manner, those who push for change would garner more support if they were fully informed of current practices - their message could then be taken seriously by industry and government. Furthermore, the organic food movement could concentrate on promoting farming practices that reduce externalities, as a result of chemical use for instance, and improving land quality. The incentives for such change often align with the long term goals of the agricultural industry and may attract wider public support.

Safety

Under the rebound effect banner I have discussed how some innovations to improve safety can backfire if peoples’ behavioural response is to take on more risk. For example, the vigorous uptake in sunscreen use has led to a culture of sun exposure, offsetting the intended consequence of reduced skin cancer rates. The name for this behavioural response in the context of risk taking is the Peltzman Effect.

You can find this type of response in broad range of situations. Most recently, in trials of automatic lane correction technologies in cars, one participant noted:

...that she would love to have this feature in her own car. Then, after a night of drinking in the city, she would not have to sleep at a friend’s house before returning to her rural home

Minimum wage

The business lobby loves the textbook response to minimum wage laws, but even world renowned economists are sceptical.  No doubt this debate will continue.

Automation and the housework rebound effect

As I have previously argued, innovations that aim to save time, increase safety, decrease energy consumption can be subject to flow-on rebound effects that lead to the opposite result. These counter-intuitive results have lead to ineffective government intervention and bizarre social norms.

A typical challenge to the idea of rebound effects goes like this.

“If a business has to pay each worker more due to government intervention on wages, they are clearly going to employ fewer employers. Are you challenging the Law of Demand? If the price of labour is higher, demand will be lower.”

No, I don’t argue that if we hold everything in the world outside of an individual business constant that the business will employ more people. I argue that to believe the world is held constant robs you of the vision to see flow-on effects to society and the ability to estimate the real net effect of a policy or action.

Today's rebound effect concerns time saving and housework.

The Proximity and Lateness Rebound Effect

I have a habit of labelling any unintended consequence that works in the opposite way to the intended consequence as a rebound effect. With this in mind, I hereby declare the discovery of the Proximity and Lateness Rebound Effect.

The discovery is not mine of course, but the name is. I learnt of this bizarre social phenomenon here.

The Proximity and Lateness Rebound Effect (I would appreciate any better name suggestions) describes the offsetting behaviour of people to commuting distances. One would initially think that moving closer to their workplace, their relatives, friends or other regular destinations would reduce lateness, but in fact the opposite effect can potentially occur – as your commute decreases your lateness increases (in frequency - you are late more often).

Here’s my proposed theory as to why this may occur.

First, 100% punctuality is surely suboptimal.  Because each trip has a degree of uncertainty, if we budgeted for perfect punctuality we would have to allow for a commuting time under the worst circumstances every time.  We would be far too early most of the time just to ensure that we weren't once a minute late.

Now suppose that being a little late is not a big problem, but being quite late is a serious problem. We might say that we want to be less than 10 minutes late 70% of the time, and less than 20 minutes late 95% of the time.

If your commute is typically 50mins, but traffic congestion and delays mean that the trip takes less than 70mins 95% of the time, less than 60mins 70% of the time, and less than 50mins 50% of the time, you can budget for a 50 minute commute and meet your lateness expectations. You will be on time 50% of the time, more than 10mins late 30% of the time and more than 20mins late a mere 5%.

If instead your commute is a mere 10mins on average, with only a very small variation in time (say less than 2 minutes), and you budget 10mins for your commute you will far exceed your lateness requirement. Therefore you may start allowing less and less commuting time to get to your destination, and soon become accustomed to regularly being a little late, but never very late.

Because of the difference in trip variation, the person with the long commute needs to be more cautious to avoid being exceptionally late. Doing so increases the frequency that they arrive early. On the other hand, those with short commuting distances have very little chance of being extremely late, and therefore need to pay little attention to factoring in their commuting time and may regularly be a little late.

My personal experience of moving closer to work is just this. I almost treat the 10 minute commute as negligible, and am typically a little late to everything. Previously, when the commute was about 30 minutes I would ensure that I had budgeted enough travel time, with a little room for delays.

Induced traffic, super profits, and 3D TV

Induced traffic (a type of rebound effect) should be a major concern for Campbell Newman’s TransApex money pit. One would think that the need to duplicate the Gateway Bridge just 19 years after its completion was evidence enough that road space does not improve travel times for very long. We don’t want a city that looks like the picture above in another 20 years.

On that topic, I drove across the William Jolly Bridge on Monday at 4.30pm, and Thursday at 9am. I was alone on the bridge. I fear that the Hale St Bridge, at $1.50 then $2.70 each way, will be completely empty except for maybe a couple of hours each weekday – surely not a good way to spend $370million.

Ken Henry defends the Super Profits Tax on mining against a wave of political and media misunderstanding and misrepresentation. Whether the government adopts Henry’s ideal version of the tax, or some other politically modified version (or none at all), remains to be seen.

An interesting history of the private provision of public goods

3D Cinema and TV – how does it work and why can’t a normal TV project images that trick the eye into seeing 3D?

The leisure dilemma: Rebound effects from productivity improvements

A recent report from UK think-tank New Economics Foundation generated plenty of publicity recently by suggesting that a 21hour standard workweek would significantly improve well being by giving people more time for family, friends, neighbours, and leisure activities. My own experience is that reducing work time has surprisingly large positive impacts on well-being.

Interestingly, economist John Maynard Keynes envisaged in a 1930 essay on the Economic Possibilities for our Grandchildren the following situation

Thus for the first time since his creation, man
 will be faced with his real, his permanent problem--
how to use his freedom from pressing
 economic cares, how to occupy the leisure,
which science and compound interest
 will have won for him, to 
live wisely and agreeably and well.

The productivity gains imagined by Keynes did eventuate. Everywhere we look we can see far greater output per hour of labour, from agricultural production all the way through the production processes in our complex 21st-century economy.

However recent research suggests that leisure time has been relatively constant since 1900, and time spent on home production activities (cooking, cleaning etc) has actually slightly increased. Additionally, while time spent at work over a lifetime has decreased since 1900, most of this is the result of more time spent studying.

How is it that we continue to fill our time not with leisure, but with work, study, and household chores?

There is a rebound effect at play.

To properly explain how this rebound effect occurs at a national (and sometimes international level), we need an analogy closer to home. Instead of businesses and industries improving productivity across the economy, imagine yourself improving your productivity during your working life. You start on low pay as a youngster and edge your way up the ladder to better paying jobs over time.

Immediately we can see the analogy is sound. Most people don’t take their gains in productivity (as reflected by increases in their salary) as leisure time. Rather, they continue to work the same hours (or more) and receive a higher income.

Why?

The problem is one of cooperation and it has striking similarities to the classic prisoner's dilemma. You see, if you take your productivity gains as leisure time, and the next person doesn’t, they can bid up prices for things you might like to buy (such as land). However, if you both cooperate and each take more leisure time, you will both face accessible prices.

In our analogy, if everyone took their gains as leisure time, incomes would be relativity even, but each person’s work/leisure ratio would be different. The most productive people would work the fewest hours and vice-versa. Because each person’s income is the same, there would be little opportunity for people to outbid each other on prices, or out consume each other in status displays.

Furthermore, as our productivity increases (or our hourly rate of pay in this analogy) the gains at the margin from working just one more hour are far greater. Compared to when you were the local barista making $15 an hour if you worked longer, you might now make $60 per hour and find that you can make in a couple of hours in the evening what you used to make in a day.

How do we overcome this cooperation problem?

There is a simple answer at an individual level, and that is to decrease your consumption expectations and take your productivity gains as leisure (as I have done). There is also a more difficult answer at a society-wide level. Yes, we can regulate maximum working hours and penalty rates for overtime. However, penalty rates increase marginal benefits from overtime hours. Maybe instead we could have anti-penalty rates. After a certain number of hours by law your pay decreases per hour, until after say 30 hours, there are zero benefits from working any longer.

But, as I have discussed before, regulating working hours is a tricky game. Such a law would encourage a cash economy for labour in order to avoid the laws (and avoid taxes), allowing individual workers to get ahead.

In fact, in the spirit of free choice, I would discourage further regulation of hours. Instead, I would opt for solutions such as more public holidays (which also allow a coincidence of leisure for more workers), and labour laws that encourage flexibility and part-time work.

Maybe my grandchildren will be so lucky as to face Keynes’ leisure dilemma.

Helmet law rebound effects and the success of terrorism

I write regularly about rebound effects - those unintended consequences that occur due to behavioural adjustments.   I wrote my Master’s thesis on the rebound effects from energy efficient technologies and household energy conservation behaviour (a good summary is here, my thesis is here, a draft paper on household conservation is here, and a draft paper on the effect of government environmental subsidies is here)

I have written about rebound effects from using photovoltaic panels.  The rebound effect from recycling, which enables us to use even more of the raw material we are trying to conserve. Recently, I wrote about the potential rebound effect from sunscreens – because we don’t have the immediate signal of sunburn to tell us that we have had enough sun exposure, we tend to spend more time in the sun.

One area I am particularly adamant that unexplored rebound effects exist is in preventative health care costs – by preventing one disease, we enable people to succumb to other diseases, which have potentially greater treatment costs.

But these sly rebound effects do not end there.

The sunscreen rebound effect

I’ve just returned from a few days at the beach with my family. One thing that stands out as a key function of a parent in the summer beach environment is making sure your child avoids getting sunburnt.

This got me thinking about a world without sunscreen. This cheap little cream enables us to withstand sun exposure like super-humans, avoid painful sunburn, and partake in activities that would be out of the question in a 'no sunscreen' world.

Since sunscreen allows us to tolerate so much more exposure to the sun, is it actually contributing in some way to increased incidence of skin cancer? Are the net health benefits of sunscreen actually much lower because of our change in behaviour?

 How big is the sunscreen rebound effect?

There seems to be some acceptance of the sunscreen rebound. This article states that “Sunburn may even protect against melanoma - by keeping people out of the sun.”

Again here:

The Australian experience provides the first clue. The rise in melanoma has been exceptionally high in Queensland where the medical establishment has long and vigorously promoted the use of sunscreens. Queensland now has more incidences of melanoma per capita than any other place. Worldwide, the greatest rise in melanoma has been experienced in countries where chemical sunscreens have been heavily promoted.

And here:

...sunscreen use tends to prolong the amount of time people spend in the sun while they are on vacation—and that only sunburn modifies the behavior of sun-seekers

And here:

Sunscreens suppress natural warnings of overexposure to the sun and allow excessive exposure to wavelengths ofsunlight which they do not block. Because sunscreens create a false sense of security, more effective measures to reduce sunlight exposure, such as limiting time spent in the sun or use of hats and clothing, may be ignored.

My experience suggests that all of these statements are true to some degree.

If everything was held constant - time in the sun, covered clothing, etc (notice the decline in hat wearing in the past few decades?) - then sunscreen may be quite effective at preventing skin cancer. But humans have a tendency to adjust their behaviour to take maximum advantage of such innovations.

The question that remains is whether there is still a net health benefit from sunscreen. But due to the plethora of uncontrollable variable in any longitudinal study, I'm not sure that we will ever have definitive statistical evidence for this.

Rebound effect in action

The image below is from an email sent by the Queensland Government Climate Smart program.  What an odd prize for a program designed to reduce energy consumption!

Health costs revisited

In July 2008 I wrote how preventative health care, such as screening and early treatments, actually increase the total cost to society for medical treatments.

Now, there is some more evidence in my corner. The US Congressional Budget Office is now on my side, with plenty of research to support the claim that preventative medicine adds cost to the health care system, rather than reducing costs.

Who would have thought that my original ideas (I had not read any of the studies that this letter refers to) would reflect reality!

I stated it like this:

What has happened is that improvements in medical treatments have enabled us to live longer lives, and because of much of the preventative treatments, we die less suddenly then ever, increasing these 'death postponing' medical costs. Because we can diagnose more problems, we can visit doctors more readily, and we treat more medical conditions then ever. Thus, it is because of the very efficiency and effectiveness of medical technology that our demand for it has grown, both during our lives, and in our ‘prolonged death’.

And the CBO summarise one study like this:

The researchers found that those steps would substantially reduce the projected number of heart attacks and strokes that occurred but would also increase total spending on medical care because the ultimate savings would offset only about 10 percent of the costs of the preventive services, on average.

Remember, we all die. If you prevent someone from having a heart attack, although you may prolong their life, they will die from something else, and most likely, they will need further medical treatment for that ailment.

And now the economics blogosphere has picked it up here.

Some clarification on the solar riddle

My last blog was too brief, I suspect, for the challenging idea it presented. So I will elaborate a little further.

The key point I want to make is that a dollars worth of any consumption good or service, due to the infinite interdependency of economic production, requires an equal amount of resources for its production. A dollar spent on a pair of shoes requires an equal amount of coal, oil, minerals and other natural resource inputs, as a dollar spent on an apple, a hybrid car, a haircut, electricity, motor fuel, a solar panel, and every other good currently being produced. A dollar spent on any good also stakes a claim on an equal amount of pollution.

How can all goods be equal? Surely spending a dollar on a massage is better for the environment than a dollar on fuel or electricity?

But let us run through the flow on interactions in each of these cases. You buy a massage. You mistakenly believe that the environmental cost is negligible because there are no material inputs. What happens to the money then? The masseur then spends that money on whatever they choose – food, fuel, furniture, and any other items. Then what happens at each of these purchases/transactions? The dollar divides further to pay for the labour costs, and the upstream material inputs and so on ad infinitum.

The dollar spent on electricity can be traced in a similar way. The wholesale costs as well as the labour and rents of the electricity retailer are paid for. Then these upstream intermediate industries use this revenue to pay for all of their inputs. Any profits made along they way get spent on other consumption items. This single dollar continues to divide and change hands until it is diluted amongst all natural resources that supply our modern economy.

If a dollar represents a claim on a proportion of the resource inputs into the economy, this paints a different picture for environmentalists. There are no ‘green’ alternatives. Which brings me to the solar panels.

A $20,000 solar panel will generate less than $20,000 worth of electricity over its lifetime. If all consumption requires an equal amount of resources, then it takes more coal to make the solar panel than is required to generate the electricity it is intended to replace. In energy terms then, the solar panel is also likely not to produce more energy than is required to manufacture it in the first place.

But then again there is no harm in going solar – you will just have less money to spend on other things (oh, and they aren’t much good for the environment either).