Money can buy happiness after all

I came across some fascinating research showing that money can buy happiness if we use it well.  My favourite paragraph below.

Dunn and others are beginning to offer an intriguing explanation for the poor wealth-to-happiness exchange rate: The problem isn’t money, it’s us. For deep-seated psychological reasons, when it comes to spending money, we tend to value goods over experiences, ourselves over others, things over people. When it comes to happiness, none of these decisions are right: The spending that make us happy, it turns out, is often spending where the money vanishes and leaves something ineffable in its place.

Housing investment is not productive

Property spruikers are currently having a field day proclaiming the productivity of housing investment. These claims are fallacious. Housing investment does NOT improve productivity.

To clearly explain why this is the case we first need to define productivity. Productivity is a measure of output from a production process, per unit of input. A productive capital investment therefore enables more future goods and services to be produced per unit of input (such as labour, materials etc).

An example of a productive investment may be a machine that enables a new design of metal fasteners to be produced from less metal, and with less labour time, but is equally as strong. In this case we have a productivity gain in terms of materials and human labour time for the same output. This investment allows use to produce more fasteners in future periods even with no more inputs.

Housing does nothing of the sort. It simply houses more people and does nothing to improve the per capita productivity.

Let's use a little thought experiment to prove the point.

Irrational saving or rational spending?

One question economics prefer to avoid is why irrational solutions to common problems faced each day by individuals seem to work. For example, our lounge room clock is 20mins fast (yes, I know that’s a lot). But when chatting with my wife the other day about whether we should put it back to the real time we decided to keep it fast. For some reason if the clock says 8 o’clock, even though we know it’s 7.40, it seems later than it really is. I don’t know why, but it does.

Another classic example is saving. Economists assume that the savings rate is fixed by our preference for current consumption over future consumption (not only this, they assume that individual preferences are fixed over time – that’s right, from birth to death). To any person living in reality, this fixed assumption is obviously not true.

For example, there are literally millions of websites preaching new an innovative ways to implement a saving strategy. Freezing your credit card in a block of ice to overcome spending urges is one solution. Having your salary paid directly into a fixed term investment account that can’t be touched is another.

The intriguing question is why we can be rational enough to use these ideas, but not so rational as to not need them. I want to examine this point today.

CPI update

I was attempting to create a 'Make your own CPI' spreadsheet that uses the ABS price indexes for each commodity group and allows you to assign your own weighting.  I was also using the weighting from the German CPI as a comparison (which weights housing as 30% of the basket, while Australia's CPI has housing at 19% of the basket).

But there was a problem.

The price indexes for each commodity group were so completely manipulated by quality adjustment (and any other unknown statistical manipulation that occurs) that you could not dramatically change the final CPI figure.  Using German weightings I was within one percent (of the total change) over a 10 year period.

Have a look at the house purchase index used for the CPI against the ABS' own capital city house price index in the graph below.  The extreme magnitude of the disparity is quite shocking.  The index used for the CPI increased by 36% over the 7 year period, while the capital city median price index increased 92%.

What lesson should we take away from all this?  I for one will never trust an official statistic without first understanding the methodology behind it.

Food packaging less wasteful than none at all!

I wrote once before that the concept of waste has been distracting environmentalist for decades. Today I came across this exceptionally interesting article on food packaging. The main point is that packaging serves an important purpose - to preserve food. The longer food is preserved, the more likely it is to be eaten rather than wasted. Thus, packaging cuts down immensely on food waste.

I do however believe that some packaging, such as the excessive size of cereal boxes to ensure good shelf space, does not always result in benefits for consumers.

What I've found interesting lately...

There has been a lot of comment on bonuses in the banking industry since the onset of the GFC.  Read Dan Ariely's take on the effectiveness of bonuses here.

For those who believe that economics generally gets things half right, behavioural economics might be your thing.  A mix of psychology and economics, this field has been enlightening economists for the past two decades.  Some of the latest findings in behavioural economics are found here (highly recommended).

How not to climb the property ladder

Baby boomers and older generations often cite high expectations, and the inability to save, as the main hindrance to the younger generations’ ability to buy their own home. They go into great detail about how much it has always been a struggle to buy a home, and that if young people decreased their expectations and bought something small they could work their way up the property ladder.

I am one of those generation Ys looking to buy my own home, and from this perspective, it is not quite that simple.


The mythical property ladder
The argument that if younger generations decreased their expectations, and maybe bought a small apartment now, so that they could somehow work their way up the ‘property ladder’, is entirely misleading.

For example, a young couple buys an apartment for $200,000 in lieu of a $400,000 house they really want based on the contemptuous advice of older generations. They imagine that in 10 years they might be able to sell for $350,000, netting a profit of around $100,000 to spend on a larger home (after transfer costs). The problem is that larger homes have also increased in price by 75%, so that the $400,000 house is now $700,000. Buying that dream home has gone from a $400,000 prospect to a $600,000 prospect even with the apparent advantage of being on the property ladder.

The way to benefit from increasing property prices is to buy multiple investment properties, so that you leverage the benefits beyond your single dwelling needs.

No more avocados
Next, we can look into the arguments about spending a little less on luxuries to get a person into a home-buying financial position. Dining out, gadgets, and holidays all seem to get mentioned. But if we look into it, these relatively small expenses are not the main factor – the main factor is income.

A hypothetical future home buyer might spend $200 per week on dining out, ‘gadgets’ (mobile phones etc), and travel. That’s $10,400 per year – maybe $3,000 on a trip to SE Asia, $2,000 on gadgets, $2,000 on dining out, and the balance for other luxury items. Let’s see what that money could have done if it were funnelled into a property-buying strategy.

Assuming a starting point with no savings, this hypothetical person (or couple, or family) can save about $58,000 in 5 years assuming they receive 6% on their savings. If they thought they might one day want to live in a home that currently costs $300,000, by the time they save their $58,000 the home is worth $400,000 (at a 6% price growth rate). They now need $80,000 for their deposit. They continue saving instead of splurging and in another 5 years they have $137,000 saved. The home is now worth $535,000. They have enough for a deposit, but the repayments on their home and associated ownership costs are now around $900/week.

So after ten years of saving, living life without those luxuries that make it so much more enjoyable, they are in no better a position than before.

I’ll leave you with a question. If you bought a home for $100,000 in 1990, and the market his risen so that it is now worth $600,000, how much better off are you?

Tony Abbott...

…believes that a high price of oil will encourage new discoveries, such that the concept of peak oil is not valid.  This is a classic example of what could be called ‘Price religion’.

Could I suggest that Tony Abbott (and I guess many ideological economic zealots) try and apply their logic elsewhere.

For example, if the price of fish goes up, does that mean that we will discover more fish on the Great Barrier Reef?

If the price of land goes up, will we discover more land?

Of course Tony Abbott and other followers of the Price religion don’t believe we will find more fish on the reef if the price goes up. But somehow, they will leave their logic at the door when it comes to oil or other fossil and mineral resources.

Then again, he could just be reiterating his party line – it is probably not a good time to let the media catch a glimpse of anything other than unity in the Liberal party these days.

Best of luck with that Tony.

*Note: I have grown to dislike all the current political parties, although I used to give support to the Greens. Maybe there is an opportunity for a fresh young political party in Australia these days?

Fuel efficiency insights

I watched a Top Gear episode where Jeremy Clarkson raced a Toyota Prius and a BMW M3 around their test track for 10 laps. It wasn’t a race really. The BMW only had to follow the Prius as it drove the tack as fast as possible.

And what happened? The Prius, with its 1.3L engine used more fuel than the M3 with its 4L V8!

To make matters worse for the pro-hybrid lobby, Clarkson also drove a 1.7 tonne V8 Jaguar XJ6 from Basel in Switzerland to Blackpool in the UK on one tank of fuel – a similar result to the little VW Polo.

So what is going on here with fuel efficiency?

Psychologists at the RBA?

People have instinctual short sightedness. It is a primal trait. Each passing day adds risks to the realisation of future events. Our probability of dying increases, and the waiting time captures multiple risks of the event not occurring at all. In economese, that’s why we discount the future.

However, it is not all that simple. Behavioural economists have shown that people don’t discount in the expected rational way. Instead of treating each year into the future as capturing the same risk, each consecutive year is treated as less risky than the previous year – a concept known as hyperbolic discounting.

For instance, when offered the choice between $50 now and $100 a year from now, many people will choose the immediate $50. However, given the choice between $50 in five years or $100 in six years almost everyone will choose $100 in six years, even though that is the same choice seen at five years' greater distance

Why does the RBA need to know this?

The strategy of a gradual withdrawal of monetary stimulus by incrementally raising interest rates is meant to allow people time to adjust to higher interest rate levels. However, if people discount the likelihood and impact of each further interest rate rise, they will not adjust until it is too late anyway. The instinct of the masses will be to all but ignore the highly probably increases in interest rates in the near future.

This may be one reason for the long lags between execution and outcome in monetary policy.

A quarter of a percent increase in rates every month (1% over four months) is going to hardly register in our animal minds – each change is too marginal, and probability and impact of each future change is heavily discounted. A 1% immediate increase followed by no change for 4 months would actually change behaviour in the way the incremental approach is intended.

Have you heard people who have just bought a new house talk about the inevitable interest rate hikes – “We’ll deal with that when the time comes”. They are simply acting on instinct.

Population caps: Social catastrophe or sound planning?

My favourite lobby group, the Property Council of Australia (PCA), have attacked South East Queensland Mayors for starting debate about limiting population growth in the region through town planning restrictions.  The PCA's argument is that restricting development in a region has disastrous social and economic impacts. They wield the crossed supply and demand swords to argue that house prices will sky-rocket in areas with restrictive planning regimes.

Not surprisingly, their arguments are flawed.  Here's why:

100th post: Bicycle registration?

I wanted to write a beautiful piece reflecting on two years of blogging for this event – my 100th blog post. But instead, I’ll get down to some nitty gritty analysis of contemporary issues with an economic and environmental twist.

Today’s topic is cycling.

After a charity ride from Brisbane to the Gold Coast last weekend, the local rag has ignited the dry tinder of cyclist resentment present in the Australian motoring psyche (remember the Rex Hunt incident?). I want to deconstruct the emotional Cyclist V Motorist debate to see which positions hold merit, and what type of government intervention could provide benefits for all involved.

The value of food security?

Food security, energy security, job security - all political terms that conjure up emotion, deliver electoral support, all the while remaining devoid of meaning.

I have been asked impossible questions in my job. But one comment recently sticks in my mind. It goes:

..there must be some data that they could have used to address the “value” of having future food security.

What value might that be? Do you want a dollar figure that represents the present value of all future value streams from having food security? And do you imply that food security means that Australia remains a net exporter of food?

Wikipedia provides a fairly detailed, but useless, entry on food security. It does not mention national self-sufficiency at all, but merely one’s access to nutrition, and the link with poverty. No surprises there.

I’m all for national pride, but arbitrarily deciding that a country must be self-sufficient in one particular good is a poor philosophical position. If we replaced food security with toilet paper security, or car security, or hat security, we would immediately reveal the absurdity of the argument.

That bloody housing shortage

It seems that the RBA's Anthony Richards may have been reading my blog. His comment today from a national housing market forum includes the following

I said in a talk earlier this year that most calculations available then put underlying demand at something like 180,000 to 200,000 dwellings per year. However, I noted that such figuring was based on simply extrapolating earlier trends in household size and ignored the likely impact of prices on the demand for housing. At some point, the overall demand for housing will be affected by the higher cost of housing. For example, with housing – both owner-occupied and renter – more expensive than in
the past, we might expect to see some young adults choosing to live with their parents for longer. We might expect some households to look for an extra flatmate rather than leaving a bedroom vacant. Some owners of holiday homes or second homes might have become more inclined to sell them, with those houses then occupied full-time.

Hence the ‘undersupply’ of housing might not be as large as sometimes thought. But this is not necessarily something that should reassure us – it may be because the higher cost of housing – partly reflecting supply side problems – has choked off some of the demand that might otherwise have existed.

However, by the end of his statement, fingers are squarely pointed at the pet issue for housing analysts, supply side constraints.  That bloody housing shortage gets a good run in his statement as well. 

I also wonder how we are meant to know the counterfactual demand that might otherwise have existed.  Isn't he just saying that demand for housing follows the law of demand?
 
His remarks are reported as evidence that the housing market is ready to 'take off'. But only time will tell whether the inverse correlation between change in housing shortage and change in price proves reliable in the longer term, or whether the RBA really can forecast market behaviour.

----------UPDATE----------

It looks like I'm not the only one who has interepreted the housing market exactly the opposite way to the RBA and other property bulls.

Those crazy French

The French have a reputation for pursuing the art of living. An appreciation of the finer things in life is a typically French quality. Their government reflects that pursuit back to the people through policies that reduce the hours of work of full time jobs, and that enable plentiful holidays. Their President, Nicolas Sarkosy, percieved as womaniser and playboy by some, embodies the French passion for life.

Sarkosy is now considering redirecting his government to use measures of happiness as a benchmark for progress; much like the quirky Kingdom of Bhutan, whose King Jigme Singye Wangchuck introduced Gross National Happiness as a measure of Bhutans progress in the 1970s.

It makes me wonder how subjective these measures might be, and how they will deal with the problem encountered by economists studying happiness - that after a shock to peoples happiness (death in the family, loss of job etc.), they return back to their equilibrium state rather quickly.  As a society, does this mean that this measure may lose validity, as the population has an equilibrium level of happiness that is not determined by external factors?  Poor government decisions would quickly drop from the radar as people returned to their previous happiness level. 

I can answer that one myself - no.  Because the measures being discussed are simply subjective weighted averages of external measures, such as air quality, income inequality etc.  The happiness measure therefore faces the problem of reconciling these subject external measurements with peoples actual self reported happiness.

Another interesting problem facing happiness researchers is that they can find very counterintuitive results.  For example, a new job actually decreases happiness, rather than increases it as would be expected.  An of course there is the Easterlin Paradox, which suggests that wealth is not an important factor in happiness.

But, in the end, what gets measured get managed.  If we as a society strive for progress of a kind that reflect our values of fairness, equality and our environmental concern, then maybe Gross Domestic Happiness is the tool for the job.  Maybe, it's simple another example of politicians playing politics.

Doesn’t current monetary policy indirectly target asset prices anyway?

There has been plenty of talk about the RBA targeting asset prices by leaning against bubbles. All reports are that this is unlikely to happen in the foreseeable future. And for good reason.

They would face two problems;
a) identifying bubbles, and
b) using an economy wide instrument, interest rates, to target asset prices in an individual sector. All other sectors will suffer as a result.

But after thinking about this after footy last night, doesn’t inflation targeting automatically lean against asset price bubbles if they appear in a broad range of sectors?

Think about it. Asset price increases flow on to the price of consumer goods. Property price rises are the simplest example. Commercial property price increases have increased the costs of business, for everyone, which eventually flows though to retail/consumer prices. I don’t have much data at hand, but it would appear that asset prices are a good leading indicator of inflation. When interest rates are increased to curb inflation, they also curb asset price growth.

Thoughts?

Economists strike – what next?

One wonders about such things (and here). The most highly educated group in our society (university academics if you are still wondering) are threatening strike action for better pay.

The question in my mind is; will the economics departments be participating in such actions, and what is there reasoning?

The economic academics I know think that the university lifestyle, autonomy, and interesting research projects, mean that moderate pay is sufficient to attract good talent. After all, that’s what keeps them in the game – it’s not the money honey. Why then the need for more pay?

Surely if there was a problem attracting staff, universities could voluntarily offer higher salaries for some positions?

In the end, academics always have self interest to fall back on as a justification for participating in strikes. Although, they could just as easily benefit from the strike action and not bother participating – another self-interest motive at work.

Oh, the mystery.

Conspiracy!

I don’t take anything at face value. I give credit to conspiracy theories, as they often seem as plausible as the mainstream interpretation of events. Many times though, I simply don’t care, and even if I did, I couldn’t do much about correcting any misrepresentations of history.

I want to throw another one out there.

I have written before how implying causality between correlations of changing global surface temperature and increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide is statistical mumbo jumbo. But considering we know so little about whether the global climate will in fact ‘change’ (we still don’t know if that is for better or for worse) as a result of humanities combustion of fossil fuels, we seem to be taking quite radical actions. Households appear to want to do their part to prevent some hypothesised distant future even of low probability, while immediate and dire problems exists all around us (maybe more so in other parts of the world than the Lucky Country). So the question remains, how did such a fringe issue become so mainstream?

Today’s conspiracy theory is that a group of very powerful world business leaders (the big oil men) saw the imminent peak of fossil fuel production, and the resulting problems of a declining productive capacity of the economy. They wanted to get governments to act on this problem without having to admit that the problem existed. So, they utilised the fringe climate change movement, giving them a voice in mainstream circles. Any government actions implemented to curb climate change would conceal the peak of oil production for a little longer. Government research and subsidies may even assist in finding alternatives for big oil to invest in. All they while they can maintain that oil reserves are plentiful, keep confidence in their business and the share price high, while having governments unknowingly assist them to wean themselves off oil.

They use lines like “the stone age didn’t end because of a stone shortage” to show that change can happen voluntarily.

Anyway, that’s a nice one for today. I’ll leave you with this interesting comment from here.

I'm a bit of a conspiracy theory buff and one of my favorites is the meta-theory: all conspiracy theories that become popular are actually produced by the government to keep the paranoids occupied looking for aliens, bigfoot, and psychics instead of focusing on the more nefarious intrusions into civil and social rights. Meta-theory has a lot of benefits, such as that it explains why government explanations for things like Roswell are so terrible: a good explanation would leave only a few true believers, a bad explanation actually creates more believers in the conspiracy. As a final benefit, generating conspiracy theories as red herrings is cost-effective. A conspiracy theory works by arguing from the void/gaps. All the government need do is create a few vague clues and let the mind of the legions of paranoids do the rest of the work filling in the huge, ambiguous spaces. Why would anyone investigate mundane government corruption when there are aliens and psychics to research?

Where did we leave our common sense? Is it behind the new plasma screen?

This article raises the point that we have a tendency to eat more after exercise, negating the potential weight loss benefits. I don’t think this is breaking news. Nor does it actually mean that exercise won’t make you thin, as the title so controversially states. In fact, the following excerpt shows the ridiculous need to frame a discussion about how to address the compensating hunger from the exercise in emotive and controversial terms:

Exercise, in other words, isn’t necessarily helping us lose weight. It may even be making it harder.

Common sense tells us that diet and exercise are the ingredients to weight loss (and gain mind you – athletes are right into this diet and exercise equation). Eat less, exercise more, and you should lose weight. Eat more, exercise less, you should gain weight. And for those who want to gain muscle, heavy exercise and a high protein diet with plenty of calories. I heard a third hand story once that a famous Iron-man was asked in an interview whether he would consider writing a book about his particular views on health and fitness, and he replied along the following lines: “It would be a pretty short book”. It is after all, a simple equation.

Also, imagine that reality TV show where contestants lose weight. Are we to think now that they would have done a better job without all the exercise? Or that they could have really shed all that weight by sitting on their arse, but eating slightly less - really?

Anyway, I wonder where common sense has gone sometimes.

Child care subsidies and maternity Leave: New incentives and unintended consequences

The maternity leave debate was raised yesterday with an angle I had not thought about before, but being an economist, really should have. It suggests that maternity leave has the unintended consequence of encouraging women with young children to work rather than stay home with their children. Rather than bringing families together, it actually tears them apart. Let us examine this claim.

The article claims that more than 80% of children under 5 years of age attend formal day care in Sweden, where 12 months maternity leave is the norm. This figure must surely be closer to 100% of children aged 1-5, given that mothers (or fathers) are paid to stay home for the first year of their child’s life. In Australia, the number of children under 5 in formal day care is currently less than 40%, and much of that I would imagine is part time.

Both the pro and anti maternity leave debaters need to get straight the purpose of their policy. That way we can examine whether there are possible unintended consequences which can undermine the suggested outcomes.

For example, the pro-maternity side appear to want to reduce the cost of child rearing to working mothers. Fair enough. But the unintended outcome of a maternity leave is to decrease the costs of child rearing for working mothers, but not stay-at-home mums. The new incentive structure encourages mothers to choose work over staying home with youngsters.

Complementing maternity leave is the current child care benefit scheme. I have mentioned before how cheap child care can be after all the subsidies are considered – about $15/day/child. This policy increases the net benefits of working for mums, as the cost of working, in the form child care, is reduced. These subsidies provide incentives for mothers to return to work quickly after the birth of their children.

Sweden is the classic case study of the pro-maternity leave lobbyists, but I wonder if they have really examined the outcomes of Swedish policies in detail.

Consider this comment (all quotes from here): 

Policies such as childcare and parental leave have meant that the majority of Swedish women are employed in the labour market and remain there throughout their lives, with only minor interruptions after the birth of a child.

And: 

from 1990-1998 the percentage of women engaged in part-time work fluctuated between 43 and 47 percent, while since then it has decreased to between 33 and 36 percent.

It appears more kids in full time, rather than part time, child care is what you get.

The following graph is of the period following the introduction of 180 days parental leave, at 90% of previous salary, in 1974 in Sweden. This was extended to 9 months in 1978.

During the 1970s and 1980s, the state and the municipalities both covered approximately 45 per cent of the fees, leaving the remaining 10 per cent to be covered by parental fees.

Again, subsidising child care works, in that it increases the uptake of child care. Not subsidising it works too. Cost of childcare exploded in the 1990s, and

…by 1998, 17 per cent of the costs of childcare were being covered by parental fees

The graph above clearly shows this impact. But what of the 2000s boom? We have another policy change to explain that one.

In July 2001 the Swedish government expanded childcare to include children of parents who are unemployed and in January 2002 to include children of parents who are on parental leave looking after a sibling (Swedish National Agency for Education, 2003). In addition, in January 2003 all children aged 4-5 became entitled to 525 hours of free attendance in childcare per year.

It is time for the pro-maternity leave lobby to ask whether having almost all of our children aged 1-5 in full time child care is a desirable social outcome.

My gut instinct is no, but I have no reason for this position. My son is in family day care two days a week, and he started this at 18months of age. He enjoys it, and he learns to socialise with other kids. Since putting kids in child care is a voluntary action of parents, my inner economist says that it must be the best outcome in the circumstances. Of course, the circumstances are the direct result of government policy tweaking the incentive structure.

In the end, it appears maternity leave policies do not bring families closer together, but create a generation where parents and children become strangers.