How much is this island worth?

I would appreciate some feedback on a little conundrum I face at work.  The following analogy is close enough for our purpose, and what I want to know is how much the island is worth?

Imagine a large island was discovered in Australian waters in the 1960s.  The government takes ownership of the mostly desert island.  It has little environmental value, with a surprising lack of biodiversity, some small mineral deposits that are uneconomical to extract, and otherwise is of little use. 

The government decides that they may as well put the island to some use, and offer people a licence to inhabit the island, and the rights to the minerals and any vegetation they find.  The licence is offered for free with the condition that the licence holder make use of it within 3 years (by inhabiting the island or making use of its resources in some way).  By 2010 a dozen people have licences and inhabit the island.  The government estimates that they could offer 100 more licences before the islands land is fully ‘developed’.

The government changes its licensing policy and decides that licences will be converted in title of the land in the island - much like it is on the mainland.    It now has 12 blocks of land in private hands, and 100 in government hands.

The government then decides to sell its remaining blocks of land to the market.  At what price could they sell these 100 blocks?

I see two drivers of price:

1. The previously free and seemingly non-scarce licence is replaced with a scarce piece of land, therefore people will be willing to pay something simply out of speculation of future value (because they now don’t have to inhabit the island to keep the block).

2. The price is still worth nothing if people weren’t willing to take the licences for free for 50 years.

How do we estimate the market price, if any, of these blocks of land?

iHate Steve Jobs or Why I Won’t Buy Anything Made by Apple (Yet)

Guest post by Ben today

At the moment it seems that the ascendance of Steve Jobs and the Apple Empire knows no limit. With the media player and smart-phone markets sewn up and their eyes firmly set on conquering the tablet PC market with the omnipresent iPad, it seems that Apple can do no wrong.

But not for me; I can see the Apple vision for the future and it’s a safe, bland, white-chrome corporate hell. Why do I say this? Well maybe it might have something to do with:

• Apple’s restrictive licensing conditions for the sale and development of apps which basically amounts to censorship and discourages innovation;
• Their refusal to allow 3rd parties to sell apps; iTunes is it – monopolistic price gouging anyone?
• Draconian digital rights management – installing unlicensed apps on you iProduct voids the warranty as does ‘jail-breaking’ them;
• Stupid ongoing court antics with Adobe meaning that iProducts aren’t compatible with Flash;
• Rechargeable batteries which can’t be replaced;
• And the thing that irritates me the most: requiring the use of propriety peripherals e.g. iPod shuffles are designed so that you can only use Apple headphones; USB devices or HDMI monitors can’t be plugged into an iPad - you need to purchase a Apple ‘adapter’ first etc.

But these are secondary to my main issue with Apple, which is their pricing policy.

Housing crash makes us winners and the bubble checklist

It’s no secret I am forecasting price declines (or prolonged stagnation) in the Australian residential property market. The intricacies of this topic have led many to the conclusion that the government won’t let that happen - there are simple too many people going to lose in the short run, even if we may all benefit in the long run. While I agree that the government may not let this happen (although foreign ownership rules are being tightened up again), and may produce an arsenal of economic weapons we haven’t even though of yet, I disagree that there are more losers than winners from a significant housing price correction.

The mainstream ‘more losers than winners’ message is aptly summarised in this article:

The only people who would rejoice in a house price slump, it seems, are the young and aspirational. As Willem Buiter put it in his 2008 paper for the National Bureau of Economic Research, 'Housing Wealth Isn't Wealth', “…the young and all those planning to trade up in the housing market are made better off by a decline in house prices. The old and all those planning to trade down in the housing market will be worse off.”

This view is wrong.

Suggestion box and a call for help

After more than two years of blogging I have still not run out of topics to discuss. Like the television series Mythbusters, who seem to find that humanity can produce a constant stream of urban legends, I too seem able to constantly find economic myths, political promises, and social conundrums to pick apart.

However, I would love to hear what topics are currently of interest to readers – anything from social, environmental, and political concerns to the downright nonsensical. Please post a comment if you have any suggestions and I will endeavour to investigate in future posts.

For your interest, some of my favourite topics include:
• leisure time, helmet law and sunscreen rebound effects
• the food security myth
• arguments against population growth
• unintended consequences from maternity leave and child care subsidies
• why preventative health care adds to rather than diminishes the cost of the health system (here and here)
• and of course the many myths surrounding the housing market (here, here, here, here and here)

Finally, I would very much appreciate your help promoting this blog to the world. If you have your own blog site I would appreciate a plug (and will reciprocate).

If you want to be very helpful, you could promote some of your favourite posts by email, twitter, or some other medium to your friends and family, or post a link on your Facebook page.

One final prediction.  Next week's CPI release from the ABS will come in lower than expectations.  The probability of the RBA increasing interest rates again will drop from 70%, and the AUD will drop at least 1c against the USD.

CityCycle scheme, bicycle helmet laws, and a better alternative

In my bio I promise to turn ideas on their heads to gain a better understanding. In this spirit I ask the following question of Brisbane City Council’s proposed CityCycle bicycle hire scheme – is it better for council to subsidise a bicycle hire scheme to stimulate bicycle use, or is it better for council to subsidise a car hire scheme to encourage bicycle use?

(And yes council will have to subsidise the scheme through the donation of public space, and possible contributions to ongoing costs, as has happened with such schemes in Europe, even though hire costs and advertising on bikes provide the main sources of revenue for the operator).

I suggest the latter may be preferable. Here is my logic.

Wine Equalisation Tax, microbreweries and the grape glut

Subtle examples of the unintended consequences of government intervention in markets are not hard to find. Today we follow a path from the introduction of producer rebates for the Wine Equalisation Tax on wine makers, to the grape glut of 2010, to the call for tax relief from microbrewers.

The Australian government introduced a Wine Equalisation Tax (WET) to smooth out price changes when sales tax was abolished and the GST was introduced [A New Tax System (Wine Equalisation Tax) Act 1999]. However, small wineries receive a rebate on the WET for the first $1.7 million of production (a rebate of up to $500,000). Enshrining this rebate into law sheltered small wineries from the rigours of market discipline, and could be a key contributing factor to the current grape glut. At least 1,250ha of vines were abandoned in SA in 2008-09.

Did the rebate contribute to the glut, and should we offer a similar rebate to brewers?

Friday quick links

My childhood street is famous for building cubby houses in trees on council land

Obesity epidemic growing for a century - much longer than ever thought before….
and now Jamie Oliver does his best to tackle obesity the ‘old fashioned’ way, but faces strong resistance in the US, even after success in the UK. He faced tough opposition on the Letterman show:

'I don't care how much ground up sea grass you eat or wheat germ - or stuff you find in your pocket. As long as they are selling 160 different types of cookie what hope do you have?'

Oliver appeared to become resigned to the fact he wouldn't convert Letterman to his way of thinking, turning to the audience and saying: 'As you can see ladies and gentlemen, my challenge is big.'

Does this support a 'sin tax' on junk food, or are we aware of the obesity externality and simply don't care, making obesity an optimal outcome?

China housing bubble and government intervention
Beijing recently introduced much tighter rules for home loan lending. The discount on the mortgage rate for first home buyers has been cut, while discount for second-time home buyers has been scrapped altogether. In addition, second-time home buyers have to make a deposit of 40 per cent of the value of their home, while people buying their third home have to come up with a 60 per cent deposit.

A bit of social engineering for home ownership that just might work? Would there be any major problems implementing such restrictions in Australia (we could start a company to buy the investment property, but then only have tax beenfits in the 30% corporate tax bracket, and face the costs of company reporting requirements)?

Interest rate gamble
Looks like my bet was closer to the mark than it first appeared with weak lending data (a leading indicator) pointing to house price declines. Will the RBA let that happen?

More support for a National Resources Fund (this time from RBA chairman Warwick McKibbin)
RBA board member Warwick McKibbin suggests that Australia follows Norway’s lead and sets up sovereign wealth fund that goes beyond the narrow ambition of the Future Fund to finance public service pensions. Norway’s 4 million souls now own a fund worth more than $US400 billion, throwing off a big contribution to national income every year.

The plastic brain: a theory of human experience

Norman Doidge has written a book that encapsulates the latest research in neuroplasticity and delivers it to the curious mind in an intellectually stimulating and satisfying read. The Brain that Changes Itself: Stories of personal triumph from the frontiers of brain science, is a book that had me raving to family and friends after each chapter. I could only put it down to ponder the significance of the subject matter to human society before reading on.  I want to take this opportunity to highlight a few titbits that stuck with me.

Economic arguments against population growth

While Population Minister Tony Burke may be new to the debate, the population debate itself is certainly not new to politics. In 1994 the Commonwealth commissioned an inquiry (the Jones inquiry) into Australia’s population and carrying capacity, yet the inquiry failed to make firm recommendations. One of the inquiry’s authors then wrote a book in protest of the ‘government’s timidity’ and concluded that

... a sensible population policy for Australia would be to aim at stabilising the population within a generation or so and that this was quite feasible if net immigration of something below about 50 000 a year (say 100 000 migrants in gross terms) could be maintained. Population would then more-or-less stabilise somewhere between 19 and 23 million (depending on actual immigration) sometime before 2050.

Now, Tony Burke is faced with twin challenges of developing a policy position on population that keeps enough people happy to keep him in government.

We can easily run through some of the options available to Minister Burke – stimulate or dampen population growth. I suspect he would also like to encourage migration away from capital cities due to the ‘obvious housing shortage’, but as far as I can tell the Federal Government has little power to influence such regional migration (maybe an income tax relaxation depending on how remote your residence?)

To stimulate growth we could increase migration intake, and encourage higher birth rates – maybe $15,000 per child would do it? Or Burke could moderate population growth by reducing immigration quotas and discouraging high birth rates (by removing the baby bonus or even having a ‘child tax’).

But which option is best for Australia? Are there strong economic arguments in favour of either higher or lower population growth? I would argue that on balance, economic principles strongly favour a declining rate of population growth (even a negative rate of population growth not a problem).

For a start, we need to discredit some of the nonsense economics floating around. Bigger is not better. China and India both have plenty of people, while countries with the highest per capita incomes and standards of living generally have fewer people. China has greatly reduced population growth with its one child policy and seen vast economic growth – shouldn’t China have failed to grow because its population stabilised? The map above shows a pretty clear inverse relationship between population growth rates and standards of living.

Nor is a comparison of population density meaningful in this debate, or we could argue that any region with a low population density is ‘underpopulated’ (like Antarctica or the Simpson desert) because we have compared the region to Hong Kong or the Netherlands.

One core economic argument in favour of a greater population is that utility theory suggests that a trillion people living in poverty and slavery are better that one million happy and fulfilled people, leading lives directed by their own desires. It is known as the repugnant conclusion. I doubt anyone believes this is a good outcome, nor is claimed to be a good reason for greater population – it just happens to be at the heart of economic theory and can spawn unusual conclusions.

A second argument appeals to economies of scale and suggests that with greater domestic consumption industries can expand to a point where they have economies of scale that make them internationally competitive. Why domestic population is currently a barrier to industry development is beyond me. If there are no artificial constraints on trade, shouldn’t the world be the marketplace of any industry even in its infancy? This argument only works if you couple high population with protectionism (the infant industry argument, which itself is often challenged).

A third argument, that may be the focus of this debate, is that the demographic shift towards a flat population pyramid means that the proportion of people in the workforce will be much lower, and that public welfare support for the elderly will become a burden on a smaller workforce. However, one does not need to think too hard to realise that stimulating population growth simply delays this inevitable demographic shift. We have known this shift was coming for decades yet have failed to act. But it is not too late to implement solutions more practical than stimulation population growth.

Another argument is that of national security. Unless we have enough people, we won’t be able to defend our borders. To truly defend Australia from all others, how many people would we really need? 150million? More? This is a ridiculous argument and a reason we have strong allegiances with countries with large defence capabilities.

Apart from these arguments for high population growth over low growth or declining populations, Chris Joye cites the following reasons for a population minister, all of which have confusing and possibly contradictory implications

1. Australia’s long-term human capital requirements
2. The ramifications of those population projections for real GDP per capita and public finances;
3. The infrastructure that will be required to support the population base;
4. How that infrastructure will be funded by the public and private sectors;
5. The consequences of the population expectations for the nation’s housing needs;
6. Where we expect to locate this new housing (i.e. in which cities), and hence our long-term urban plans; and
7. The inextricable linkages between new housing supply and infrastructure investment, where the latter is a condition precedent to ‘enabling’ new shelter.

My response would include such lines of questioning as:

• Why would our human capital requirements ever be greater than our human capital?
• Why would population change have ramifications on per capita measures of GDP?
• Would not points 3), 4), 5), 6) and 7) suggest a slower rate of growth is preferable?

My last challenge leads to the heart of the arguments against high rates of population growth. My (and many others) argument is that providing basic services for these new people diverts investment from new technologies that improve per capita productivity. Population growth inflated by policy wonks is a burden many of us would choose to live without.

Like my argument that housing investment does not improve productivity, simply expanding the scale of capital infrastructure (such as roads, water supply, electricity supply etc) to match the scale of the population does not improve our per capita productivity. This investment diverts labour and resources away from actual productive capital investments such as new manufacturing technologies.

A second economic argument against stimulating population growth is that a high fertility rate will keep women (and some men) out of the workforce for longer. If we are worried about the welfare burden on a smaller workforce, we should also be worried about so many parents out of the workforce, and the increased welfare burden from the children (their education and health costs).

My final argument against high rates of population growth is that environmental impacts of new land developments are difficult to assess. The faster our rate of population growth, the lower we will be our standards of environmental controls. New mines, new housing, new industrial areas and ports will all have environmental impacts. To preserve environmental amenity for the current population, we should be careful about these impacts and adopt a cautious approach.

And what of a declining population? Traditionally a population decline was the result of war or famine, but, as suggested here, that doesn’t mean population decline should always be in the disaster basket.

But if the causes are benign, what about the consequences? If the decline in the number of people is slower than the natural growth in productivity (or output per person), then the economy will still grow. For example, a modest population decline of 0.25% a year would reduce Britain's economic growth rate of 2.25% to just 2% a year. That's hardly a recession. The number of consumers may decline, but the growth in incomes-and export markets-will ensure that demand stays buoyant. Nor will there be a demographic crisis, with huge numbers of old people overburdening those of working age. Population decline also leaves fewer children to support, train and educate for the first 20 economically unproductive years of their lives. The dependency ratio of workers to non-workers is virtually unaffected whether the population is growing 0.255 a year or falling 0.25%. Adjustments to an ageing society-discouraging early retirement, moving from pay-as-you-go to funded pensions-will be necessary in any case.

A high rate of population growth, stimulated by policy wonks on the back of fallacious economic reasoning, is a social burden I am sure we can do without.

The Norwegian solution to Dutch Disease

If you are unfamiliar with the term Dutch Disease then read on, because Australia has it, and needs to address it for our long term prosperity. 

Interest rates up

The RBA maintains its credibility today by following through with their threats of a rate rise, and in the process, making my forecast look ridiculous.  I still maintain that declining asset prices will pressure the RBA to decrease rates in the near future.

The combined impact of the cessation of the FHOG boost and the interest rate increases of 2010 paint an interesting picture for Australia's housing market.  Obviously my bearish outlook remains.

Why not a fixed money supply?

I would appreciate thoughts on the matter as this is a bit of early brainstorming on the issue.

I asked this question in a macro-economics class at university once. It seemed simple enough at the time, and seemed to me like a pretty simple and effective way to control a country’s monetary system.

The question was side-stepped quite successfully. So I went to my knowledgeable friend instead.

While there are some interesting conversations happening, I have yet to find a solid overview of the fixed money supply idea and the implications in practice. 

Thinking out loud here, as a general rule technological change and capital investment will enable a given society to produce more goods in future periods. With a fixed money supply, that means that prices will decline over time – deflation.

So the relevant question becomes - how does an economy function with persistent deflation? And my friend has a lot more to say on that. 

Just quietly, imagine you lived in a world with persistent deflation, you would be blogging about a how crazy it would be to propose a world with persistent inflation – how on Earth would it function with the value of money being destroyed each day?

This interesting article outlines a number of tangible problems facing an economy with deflation, including sticky nominal wages and the inability for a central bank to have a negative nominal interest rate. However, past deflationary periods have not curtailed our passage of economic growth, nor do we often read about deflationary periods of prior to the Second World War. The graph below shows the number proportion of inflationary and deflationary years pre and post WW2. The ‘old fashioned’ long-run has almost equal periods of inflation and deflation - a time when money supply was far slower to grow than at present.



One problem is that deflation rarely recovers to mild inflation but springs back to hyperinflation, as suggested here. Because people hoard money during deflation, the government response is typically to increase the money supply, then, when deflation looks under control, these hoarded funds come back into circulation in the real economy leading to rapid inflation. With a fixed money supply, this effect should be dampened.

Maybe then the best thing for governments to do is live with a little deflation, rather than actively responding by increasing the money supply. From the Austrian School we get these insights into the money supply, and why a little inflation might still be a bad thing, and find this conclusion:

... to Mises even a monetary policy that would pursue a pre-determined rate of money supply expansion (as proposed for example by Milton Friedman's k-percent rule) for stabilizing a broadly defined price index would remain a potential source of crisis which, in turn, bears the risk of undermining the value of the currency. This explains why Mises, in an effort to reduce that very risk to the ideal of a free society, argued for stopping the expansion of the money supply, thereby arguing for a concept quite different from today's state-of-the-art monetary policy.

With a fixed quantity of money maybe we could end up with less volatile swings in the value of the currency because behaviour would not be influenced by expectations of monetary policy changes. The expectation of a standing by the fixed money supply would lead less uncertainty, less hoarding, and potentially far more confidence in the currency.

However, we are still left with detailed questions about how debt or could work in this environment, whether people can perceive negative nominal gains as positive real gains (maybe there is a behavioural bias), and whether such a system provides a strong incentive for innovation and capital expansion.

Glenn Stevens' predicament: He wants us to believe interest rates are heading up without actually putting them up

I imagine it is a tough job being the nation's central banker. But the recent television interview with Glenn Stevens, RBA Governor, has made it quite clear the predicament he currently faces.

Stevens warned that property speculation is not the path to riches (the Real Estate Institute of Australia was apparently surprised by this statement). Obviously he is very worried about the stability of Australia's massive residential property market.  But to achieve the desired outcome, he needs to fool us all.

Is it all about GDP and growth?

(Guest post from Christian)

So if you believe the numbers, in the recent downturn, Australia managed to avoid 2 consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth and therefore had no recession.  This is an often proudly quoted fact by various Australian politicians and economists as a sign of the strength and resilience of Australia's economy and its wise management.  But what exactly does it all mean for the people of Australia?

Friday quick links

1. Most findings of statistical research are false, and can be easily demonstrated to be so.  If I haven't convinced you to scrutinise statistics carefully, then this may. Warning: the linked paper is a little nerdy and mathematical.

2. Is prescribing a placebo a good idea?

3. One laptop per child and a computer on every student's desk - some evidence that computers help children learn computer skills, but detract from their learning of other more basic skills such as maths and English. 

4. My interest rate bet looks shaky - straight from the horse's mouth.

5. Moral self-licensing is when doing something good in one part of your life helps you justify doing something bad in another part.  This 'green' consumer experiment is a classic - ..green shoppers, however, earned on average 36¢ more, showing that they had lied to boost their income.

I must say that in moments of raw self-reflection I can see myself issuing a subconscious (sometimes conscious) moral licence.  'I've been good for a while, now I can justifiably do something bad" 

Maybe it has something to do with our upbringing.  I know that I often reward my son with otherwise 'bad' foods (he loves Jatz crackers) when he has behaved well.  It would be nice to conduct a cross-cultural comparison on this topic. 

It is also a example of actively reverting to the mean.  People think they are at the extremes of socially normal behaviour, so they do something that is at the other end of the spectrum to keep themselves in line with others.

Affordable housing supply from a market crash

It seems that no matter what the objective market conditions are like, the same lobby groups (the Housing Industry Association and the Property Council of Australia for example) and property spruikers continue to trot out the housing shortage claim in an appeal for government assistance.

If you truly believed there is a housing shortage and hence an affordability crisis, a market crash (price declines >20%) is the best solution. I will outline my reasoning by referring to the appropriate economic models – the same models misused by those who believe that government intervention is causing supply constraints.

Book review: Embracing the Wide Sky

Autistic savant Daniel Tammet wrote this gem, and yes that means he has ‘rainman' like mental skills.  In fact, he learnt Icelandic (his 11^th language) in the week prior to being interviewed for an Icelandic television program. 

Why the next interest rate move is down

Most economists predict another rate hike by the RBA. I am not like most economists and predict the next move will be down. My reasoning is founded on the unfortunate necessity to maintain housing values in order to avoid serious disruption to our financial system. The RBA will move strongly to reduce the interest burden on debt should they see evidence of a fall in house prices (aka values). The following snippets are therefore worrying for the RBA:

Random externalities

A complete reiteration of my arguments against exceptional circumstances provisions for farmers can be found on today on Business Spectator courtesy of David Leyonhjelm.  Simply, we fear a non-existent negative externality of diminished food production should farm businesses fail.   

As a parent I also found this article on the externalities of public advertising quite intriguing.  It seems that movies (private consumption decisions) need to be classified to prepare the viewer for their level of violence and sexuality, yet advertising in public spaces seems to be M rated even when Parental Guidance is not possible.  To avoid this negative externality on children and parents could we not adopt the G rating standard from the film and television industry as the standard for public advertising?

Those who are a fan of the movie Pay it Forward will ba happy to see that acts of kindness can spread through society very easily.  Just another bit of evidence for how culture can change behaviour and how our preferences, expressed through our behaviour, are not fixed at all (as economists would have us believe).  Given this is an example of a positive externality, economic theory would suggest we will face a constant battle to ensure a socially optimal level of kind acts.  Luckily the research suggests that once we adopt a strategy of kindness we don't go back to selfishness very easily.

Newsflash: Property Council of Australia makes a reasonable point

The Property Council of Australia is a powerful lobby group known for ignoring truth and reason in its appeals for support from all levels of government.  The PCA’s latest battle surrounds the proposed amendment to the Valuation of Land Act 1944 (the Act), which will clarify a number of definitions for determining the ‘unimproved’ value of commercial buildings – a value upon which land tax liabilities and local government rates are calculated.

(As a strong proponent of land taxes I should be paying particular attention to the necessary practicality of  valuing unimproved land.)

The property lobby sees this Bill as a tax grab due to the likelihood of higher land valuations, and they have mustered plenty of support from other industry associations to stop it getting passed.

What follows is a brief analysis that suggests the Bill is quite unworkable, that the PCA has actually raised real issues with the practicality of the Bill, and also suggests extreme incompetence by the Queensland government.

Proposed changes to Section 3 of the Valuation of Land Act 1944

Words removed are struck through, and inserted words are in red. 

(1) For the purposes of this Act—

unimproved value of land means—

(a) in relation to unimproved land—the capital sum which the fee simple of the land might be expected to realise if offered for sale on such reasonable terms and conditions as a bona fide seller would require negotiated as a bona fide sale; and

b) in relation to improved land—the capital sum which the fee simple of the land might be expected to realise if offered for sale on such reasonable terms and conditions as a bona fide seller would require, assuming that, at the time as at which the value is required to be ascertained for the purposes of this Act, the improvements did not exist. negotiated as a bona fide sale, assuming the improvements did not exist.

Thinking like an economist

This article is the first I have come across that compares housing prices and costs to hours worked, which is the ultimate measure for comparing housing affordability across countries or over time (although hours worked for average rent would also be a good measure).

According to the CommSec analysis it now takes 19,374 working hours to pay for an average house at the average hourly rate of pay, compared to just 7,500 hours in 1960.  That's ten years of full time work in 2010 versus 3.9 years in 1960.  I admit the data may be a little skewed if it is truly generated using averages (means), rather than medians, however there seems to be a strong message coming through.

It also supports my claim about the leisure dilemma, and the ability of others to bid up prices if they choose to work more hours.

An alternative way to gamble on the markets

I have previously mentioned on this blog how investing and gambling share many traits in the short term.  Now, you can literally combine the two with Centrebet now taking bets on the value of the ASX200 at the end of the month.  I would suggest that the odds generated by Centrebet on this gamble will become a salient leading indicator for economic commentators worth their salt. Currently the outlook is positive for March.

The week's best economic commentary

The best Australian economic commentary I have read all week is here.

Drought is not exceptional

The front page of yesterday's Australian newspaper reports Agricultural Minister Tony Burke's recent speech outlining his intention to reform Australian drought policy. The specific part of the Exceptional Circumstances subsidies targeted by the Minister's speech was the interest rate subsidy. Under this scheme farmers in drought declared areas can have 80% of the interest on their farm debts paid for by Australian taxpayers.  Farmers were provided $61 million per month in drought assistance at the end December 2009 - or about $730 million per year.

As a side note, it makes me wonder how substantial agricultural subsidies must be in Europe. Australian direct agricultural subsidies amount to approximately 8% of farm income, while in most European nations subsidies account for greater than 60% of farm income.

What I find particularly interesting about drought policy is the logical dilemma encountered when determining what are in fact 'exceptional circumstances'.

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.

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.

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.

Firday quick links

No need to correct my spelling.  It's my new revenue generating strategy (thanks Ben). At least it will be if current research on misspelled domain names is anything to go by.
It appears that someone has spent time investigating the potential ad revenue from websites that are misspelled variations of popular websites. Surprisingly, a viable business model is to register misspelled website domains, and simply post ads relevant to the real website (or to the real website), to ultimately generate a decent profit.

But is there anything wrong with that? The authors of the study think so, and they have launched a lawsuit seeking damages from Google for facilitating this practice with their Adsense for Domains tool.

To me, this is a classic example of market fulfilling a niche function. There is nothing stopping businesses buying the domains which are misspellings of their own if they are willing to pay more than the value of revenue generated by advertising to the current domain name owner. Further, I would suggest that typing a web address to navigate to a site is fast becoming obsolete as you can generally navigate to the site with less typing by using a search engine.

In other news, the Brisbane Young Economists Network is hosting an event in Brisbane on the 4th March.  Pecha Kucha presentations will be given by some local economics PhDs, drinks are supplied, and there will be plenty of time for socialising. 

23 things I have discovered about Singapore

A guest post today from my very good friends Yo and Matt who are currently living in Singapore.

Yo's list -

1. People buy whitening products for their skin – it is considered more beautiful – funny that a tan is beautiful in the west! No one sunbakes.

2. The people walk very slowly, they are never in a hurry.

3. No one EVER sticks to the left.

4. People always sit on the aisle seat in the bus so that no one sits next to them

5. “la” is said at the end of most sentences (I still don’t t know why this is)

6. People hold a business card with two hands when passing it to someone whom they have just met.

7. The umbrella is actually useful on a sunny day *shame* and is a must for the handbag

8. Pashmina’s are also a necessary handbag item – the air-conditioning is set to arctic wherever you go.

9. Chewing gum is not illegal

10. You get the cane for any sort of graffiti (10 lashes I believe)

11. Kids don’t play in parks, or generally for that matter...they are very academic from a young age

12. There are alot of really, really expensive cars: Ferraris, Lamborghinis, Bentleys, Aston Martins...etc etc

13. Public transport is exceptionally cheap to encourage high patronage – it really puts Australia to shame. It is also very efficient (except to Matt’s work of course).

14. Affordable housing is done well, there are very little, if any homeless people.

15. Maids (mostly from the Philippines) invade Orchard road on Sundays – it’s their day off

16. Being Caucasian, and blonde (and female), you get stared at alot...you learn to win stare-offs very well. (Phebs, prepare yourself)

17. You pay for incoming calls on your mobile

18. You don’t see many policemen.

19. Shopping is a sport. More importantly, bargain shopping.

20. It’s all about the food here. Everyone is always asking about your next meal. (Chappo will fit in just fine)

21. Taxi’s are cheap, which is odd considering a Toyota Yaris is about $50k (just imagine what the Ferrari’s cost).

22. Starting Salary for a graduate engineer is about A$20,000.

23. You can have a maid for A$400/month. They will work 6days/week.

To round out Yo’s top 23 things to a top 30, Matt adds-

24: Almost all residents who live in Singapore are not from Singapore. Most are from Malaysia, Indonesia and other surrounding countries.

25: “Can” means yes, as in yes I can do that

26: Cash for payment is received in two hands (similar to Yo’s no. 6)

27: When someone invites you out to Friday afternoon drinks, that means you leave work late, not early

28: You can pay $2 for two coffees. You can also pay $20.

29: In addition to Yo’s no. 20, people never bring lunch with them to work. We don’t even have a microwave in the kitchen. Lunch with Singaporeans is always a sit down hot meal in a restaurant or cafe.

30: A 100m walk to a Singaporean is equivalent to a 1k walk to an Australian. No one walks very far here.

Global Barefoot Marathon

I have never run a marathon.  I never considered myself a runner. But lately I have grown to enjoy the rhythm of running, the pureness, and the simplicity of putting one leg in front of the other.

It is with this in mind that I propose to run my first marathon on the 20^th June 2010.   Want to join me?

Here’s the deal.  I know there are a lot of passionate runners out there all around the world, and I want to share this run with them.  While we cannot share the run with a physical presence, we can share the spirit of the run by all running together – a global marathon, synchronised, with people participating in the experience from around the world.

Randomness and probability: quantify with caution

One of the main lessons (or reminders for those trained in statistics) found in the Drunkards Walk deals with the reliability of data. Mlodino makes the important point that people latch on to numerical values. He uses wine tasting rankings as an example of how the numerical ranking has a huge impact on price, yet under blind tests, the people ranking are next to useless at actually determining which wine they are drinking.

Let’s look at a recent example of people latching on to the quantity without thinking of the error. Lately, ABS data has shown that unemployment has fallen by 0.1% - what is the probability that in reality unemployment has actually risen?

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.

Fail: CPI, housing and the cost of living

This short article about inflation, and the ABS review of the Consumer Price Index (CPI), prompted me to write again on the subject.  In fact, some friends and family who recently returned from a few years abroad have also been bugging me about why Australian prices have shot up so much, yet we hear almost nothing about rapid inflation.  Housing prices in Brisbane have typically increased 200% in the past decade - around 7% per year.  If housing was just 10% of the CPI basket, it alone would contribute 0.7%pa growth to the index.

First, let's be clear about the purpose of the CPI.  In principle I believe that measuring the price level is impossible as the type and quality of goods and services in the economy changes constantly. However, some indicator about the changing cost of living is still important for determining changes to welfare payments and calculating real growth in incomes. 

Unfortunately, not many people know that the CPI does not measure the change in the cost of living (see p6 of the ABS CPI overview report here).  The ABS method, including quality adjustments and the weighting of household consumption goods, means that the CPI fails to be a useful measure for determining real incomes and purchasing power. 

Randomness and probability: can people intuit probability?

One of my concerns with the evidence on the misinterpretation of randomness and probability in The Drunkards Walk arises during the discussion of the first law of probability: The probability that two events will both occur can never be greater than the probability that each will occur individually. While the law makes intuitive sense, the evidence that people fail to apply it to their reasoning is a little flimsy.

Mlodino asks us to consider an experiment from Khaneman, Slovic and Tversky’s famous book on judgement under uncertainty. Given the brief description about the Linda below, eighty eight subject were asked to rank the statements that follow on a scale of 1 to 8 according to their probability, with 1 representing the most probable, and 8 the least. The results are in the order ranked by the participants from most probable to least probable.

See the results under the fold and why their finding, that people have poor intuition of probability, may be incorrect.

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).

Ugly city syndrome

This article suggests that ugly cities are the result of poor political leadership. That seems like a long bow to draw. I believe the cause of ‘ugly city syndrome’ is more subtle, and maybe we just have ourselves to blame. The simple answer might be that in the modern day of cheap international travel we are comparing ourselves to a wider selection of cities.

But where are the incentives to create a beautiful city? 

The Australian property market debt gamble

Investing and gambling are often mistaken for each another.  In one, you take risks based on known probabilities, in the other, unknown probabilities.  In one, you will probably win in the long run, in the other, you are bound to lose out.  In both pursuits we are psychologically predisposed to scams.

I find it interesting that prudent advice for gamblers is to risk only your own money, while for investors it's a different story - the more leverage the better.  But there must be an optimal level of leverage, otherwise we would all simply continue to borrow and destroy the value of the currency through money creation.

Given the realities of our world, one would expect that leverage below this optimal level would not persist for an extended period, as people would begin to notice the advantages of more leverage, nor would leverage or debt beyond this optimal level be able to persist.   It is therefore interesting to ask how would we know if we are above this optimal level?

UPDATE - How not to climb the property ladder

I really appreciated the discussion on my last post, and wanted to clarify some of the issues raised.

My two key points were:
1. The capital gain made from buying a cheap home and upgrading later does not always improve your ability to buy a larger place in the future, and
2. That forgoing life's little luxuries to start a savings plan directed at owning your own home is not always effective.  The 'work hard and save' mantra does not work if prices increase faster than your ability to save.

The issues flagged by readers were that
1. I ignored increased wages
2. I ignored the paying down of principle, and
3. I ignored the fact that rents increase in line with CPI while loan repayments do not.

My response is under the fold.

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?

How randomness rules our lives and why statistics need discipline

I have been reading Leonard Mlodino’s terrific book The Drunkard’s Walk, which is essentially an historical narrative on the development of thought around randomness and probability intertwined with modern statistical anecdotes. I would highly recommend this book to you all (especially if the inner nerd in you enjoys a little mathematical philosophy like mine does).

I feel the need to share some of the most interesting insights, and highlight some of my remaining concerns about the nature of randomness and probability. My main reason for caution is because the normally practical and insightful discussion occasionally crosses the boundary between mathematical and statistical insight and plain old common sense. These instances reiterate my stance that statistics need discipline. For now I will put these to one side – topics for future posts.  Today I want to share one of the more interesting insights into differentiating luck from skill with some basic probability theory.

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.

Population growth and the residential property market

I have been asked to develop further my ideas on population growth and residential property.  I hope to make it clear that arguments using population growth as a cause of future house price growth are probably misleading.

The first chart (above) shows the rate of population growth (RHS) and the the growth in the ABS capital city price index (LHS).  There are two important things to take away from this chart.
1. The rate of population growth can change very rapidly, and extrapolating past trends will always miss changes to this rate.
2. There is no significant relationship between these two figures over the period.

The land tax remedy

I have made  my point about the social benefits of land taxes clearly in the past.  I want to now direct the interested reader elsewhere for some informative discussion.

Here is an excellent article discussing land taxes and land price bubbles in an Australian context.  More from the same author here, and a plug for his personal blog here (take note of the CPI discussion - I want to discuss that in more detail in the future).

For those who want to digest some of the classic writings on the issue, see Progress and Poverty by Henry George (written in 1879).

Unfortunately there is a powerful political lobby working against such beneficial tax reform.  The Property Council of Australia has been pushing for reductions in land taxes, citing any increase in tax revenue from this source as a national embarrassment.  Of course, the large increase observed in Queensland (below) is partly due to the extremely low land tax base in 2007/08.  Not mention of the scale of the tax, just the increase.  Queensland's land tax revenue was just a third of the land tax revenue of NSW in 2007/08.

A little off topic now, but over drinks on the weekend I was talking to a Dutch friend of mine who also happens to be an economist.  He is thinking of moving to Australia but is very hesitant due to the exorbitant cost of living here compared to incomes.  He recently bought a new apartment in a the 'happening' part of town, and his total costs per month (including loan repayments, body corporate, rates, and his insurance for the home, car and motorbike which are a package) are 800Euro ($1300AUD). That's only $300AUD per week for all those expenses combined! That is below the median rental rate for a 2 bedroom apartment in Brisbane (including new and old stock).

There are a number of reasons for this.  In Holland, interest on loans for owner occupied dwellings is tax deductible.  The interest rate itself is just 4%.

So if the Dutch average household income is slightly higher than Australia's, and the Dutch have generally less land available, why is owning a home so affordable there?  And why is the rate of Dutch home ownership (54%) much lower than Australia's (70%)?

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.

Are economists cheapskates: A case study

Lately, economists have been copping it from all angles.  They have been widely acknowledged as cheapskates, following this Wall Street Journal article.


My personal view is that economists are either; (a) more aware of the satisfaction they derive from various goods, services and activities (they know their utility), or (b) studying economics makes us more aware of which choices provide more satisfaction.


I tend to agree with this point about economists, and myself in particular (from here):
They are cheap in the sense that they need to be convinced of an item's value—and be convinced of the fact that there is no cheaper way of getting that item—before paying up. They hate being wasteful, and they take a cold, scientific approach to maximizing efficiency.

GI Joe and the Market for Lemons

GI Joe is possibly the worst movie ever (see the number of goofs and plot holes here). But I still spent 2 hours watching it, even though there were plenty of better things to do with my time. Am I simply a fool?

The answer is, well, maybe. The reason I sat all the way through is that I thought the movie might redeem itself by having a nice twist at the end, or even a few cheesy lines that I could laugh at. But no.

Considering the number of terrible films made this type of situation is relatively rare. It is easy to get a number of honest reviews to narrow down the quality before watching a film.

In any case, it got me thinking that movie markets are similar to lemon markets because the quality of the good cannot be known in advance. In a true lemon market the quality cannot generally even be known after the good is consumed.

Economics of work and leisure

Recently, I cut back work to 4 days a week with a surprising result. Rather than feeling like I am enduring marginally less of a bad thing, I am actually finding work more challenging and interesting – even though I am surrounded by the same public sector circus.

I feel like a 20% cut in work has resulted in an 80% improvement in my work satisfaction, rather than merely a 20% boost.

As an economist I really shouldn’t be surprised. Economic theory suggests an optimal work time – there are decreasing marginal benefits to work (in terms of pay), and increasing marginal costs (in terms of time, level of stress, level of frustration etc).

But this experience (and the popularity of this television show) has got me thinking about how the wellbeing of society at large can be improved by working less.