While I agree that turning a problem around and looking at it from the opposite perspective, as Neil Irwin does in this New York Times op-ed on wages:

One of the economy’s biggest mysteries is this: The labor market is the strongest it has been in a decade, yet wages are rising barely faster than inflation.

For some reason, the booming job market and ultralow unemployment rate, which fell to 4.4 percent in April, haven’t led employers to raise pay in a meaningful way. That flies in the face of a basic assumption of how the economy works: A tight labor market is expected to lead to pay increases that in turn fuel broader inflation.

But the mystery of the missing pay raises may have a surprisingly simple solution, and one that sheds light on the larger economic challenges of our age.

can provide insight, I think he’s overplaying his conclusion. Yes, if inflation is low and productivity stagnant, you shouldn’t expect rapid wage growth. However, I think he’s reaching when he tries to explain a very recent turnaround with localized increases in the minimum wage:
In the last few years, though, that trend has partly reversed: Workers’ slice of the pie has increased a bit. More than at any time since 1970, wage gains in the two years through June 2016 outstripped the gains predicted by inflation and productivity in our simple model.

Why? Minimum wage increases in several states probably contributed.

What percent of workers were affected by that change? I just don’t think it’s a credible explanation. There’s another one available. Consider this graph, graciously provided by Heritage.org:

Let me summarize that for you. For the last couple of decades Americans have been taking their pay increasingly in the form of health care insurance and the cost of that insurance has been rising rapidly.

If, as has been claimed for the last several years, health care expenses were not rising as fast as they had been, it means that employers might be able to offer more compensation in the form of wages.

Why, as the graph also illustrates, total compensation has lagged productivity so greatly for so long, remains an open question but it’s one that will need to wait for a later post.

I agree with the editors of the Washington Post’s assessment of the newly-elected representative from the state of Montana:

“GIANFORTE GRABBED Jacobs by the neck with both hands and slammed him into the ground behind him.” That was Fox News reporter Alicia Acuna’s account of how Greg Gianforte allegedly assaulted Guardian reporter Ben Jacobs, the day before Mr. Gianforte won a special election to fill Montana’s at-large congressional seat. Along with an audio recording of the incident, the eyewitness accounts confirm that the now-congressman-elect engaged in brutish behavior. That he subsequently tried to blame Mr. Jacobs for the incident, in which the reporter was merely asking an honest question, makes Mr. Gianforte’s actions all the more inexcusable.

Inexcusable means inexcusable. The House, led by Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.), who said “there’s never a call for physical altercation,” should have made clear that Mr. Gianforte would not be welcome in the chamber.

Historically, the Houses of Congress have had the power to limit their own membership. Ever since Powell v. McCormack the only grounds that either house of Congress has had for refusing to seat a member has been those specifically laid out in the Constitution. Shoving a reporter isn’t one of them.

I think that Paul Ryan should make it very clear to Mr. Gianforte that he’s not welcome in the House and do whatever lies in his power to follow through with that. Regardless of your feelings about reporters in general or the particular reporter involved, resorting to physical altercation is beyond the pale. Having principles means acting on them even when it goes against your interests.

Claims that this incident in Montana is emblematic of Republicans in general or of a grave disorder in our politics seem overwrought to me. There are more than a half million elected offices in the United States which means that there are more than a million candidates for office. One incident of battery doth not a trend make and claiming that it does sounds more to me like opportunism than analysis.

BTW, based on my experience as a juror in a case of battery, don’t be surprised if Mr. Gianforte is never convicted of anything or, if convicted, is merely given a nominal fine and probation. Battery is harder to prove than you might think. If my experience is any gauge it’s as indicative of malice on the part of the plaintiff as it is miscreance on the part of the defendant.

I cannot say that I think particularly highly of the impending “Yelpification” of health care, as remarked on at the Health Affairs Blog:

Yelp is beginning to play a role in helping patients with their health care decisions. But whether Yelp ratings will drive patients in the right direction—toward high-quality providers—is still unclear.

In an April 2017 New York State Health Foundation (NYSHealth)-funded study, the Manhattan Institute explored the extent to which Yelp ratings of hospitals in New York State correspond to objective outcomes measures across all of a hospital’s patients. The study found that higher Yelp ratings are correlated with better-quality hospitals and can offer consumers a useful, clear, and reliable tool that can be easily accessed. In short, for one very important measure—potentially preventable readmissions—Yelp ratings appear to have a moderately strong correlation with that measure. That is, higher Yelp scores for hospitals are associated with lower readmission rates. These results build on prior evidence that found a similar relationship between Yelp scores and Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) patient experience measures for the hospitals in the study.

But while this research has helped to move the needle on validating Yelp as an important asset in the tool chest of health care quality tools, there are still important questions left unanswered.

In fact, I think that the effect of the Internet, especially patients diagnosing their own conditions using Google, has probably to increase the cost of health care, at least at the margins.

The diagnosis or treatment that you want is not always the diagnosis or treatment that you need. I doubt that motivating physicians to accede to patients’ wishes is the right way to go. “Give the lady what she wants” is fine in retail. In the professions, not so much.

The only thing I can add to this Reuters article on the health benefits of walking is that I walk between three and five miles a day every day, 365 days a year. Having dogs will do that for you.

This article at Circa by John Solomon and Sara Carter on the FBI’s abusing the power it had been given by sharing the data it had received from warrantless wiretaps with third parties doesn’t really tell us anything we shouldn’t have already known. Governments can’t just be trusted with power. It will inevitably be abused because governments are composed of people not archangels.

It also suggests to us the likely outcome when protecting your institution is the highest value, a common failing of bureaucracies. It’s truly amazing what can be overlooked when your job depends on your overlooking it.

In his Christian Science Monitor article Laurent Belsie curtly summarizes the state of the solar panel industry:

Chinese-owned competitors are flooding the global market with cheap, subsidized products. Manufacturers in the United States, which invented the technology, are so battered by imports that they’re on their last legs.

and then goes on to touch on the factors that might be taken into consideration in the federal government’s response to the situation including:

• free trade
• maximizing the number of U. S. jobs
• maximizing the number of solar panels installed
• the course of future technological development in solar energy

So, what’s the right policy?

I know what I would do. I’d impose a Pigouvian tax to offset the price effects of China’s subsidies, its labor laws, its failure to enforce its own environmental protection laws, and the benefits it’s derived from raiding U. S. technology. I’d also end subsidies to the domestic solar industry. Then I’d let whatever happens happen.

However, that reflects my values and objectives. It’s certainly not a minarchist solution. Countering the mercantilist actions of the Chinese government requires action by the U. S. government.

What’s the right policy?

The BBC reports that British intelligence agencies have stopped sharing information with the United States because of U. S. intelligence leaks:

Police investigating the Manchester Arena bomb attack have stopped sharing information with the US after leaks to the media.

UK officials were outraged when photos appearing to show debris from the attack appeared in the New York Times.

It came after the name of bomber Salman Abedi was leaked to US media just hours after the attack, which left 22 dead.

Theresa May said she would tell Donald Trump at a Nato meeting that shared intelligence “must remain secure”.

The US’s acting ambassador to the UK “unequivocally condemned” the leaks in a BBC radio interview.

“These leaks were reprehensible, deeply distressing,” Lewis Lukens said.

“We have had communications at the highest level of our government … we are determined to identify these leaks and to stop them.”

Who’s responsible?

1. Trump
2. Obama
3. Hillary Clinton
4. NeverTrumpers in the U. S. intelligence services
5. The U. S. news media
6. There are so many to choose from

As you may or may not know Moody’s has downgraded China’s credit rating. Remarks Michael Schulman at Bloomberg:

On Tuesday night, Moody’s Corp. downgraded China’s sovereign credit rating for the first time in 28 years. In doing so, the rating agency is acknowledging the dragon in the room: China will have to pay the price for its epic debt binge, whatever policymakers do from here.

The burning question in China these days is whether the government is serious about tackling the debt pile that’s exploded since the global financial crisis. Total outstanding credit grew to around 260 percent of GDP at the end of last year, from 160 percent in 2008 — one of the biggest and fastest expansions ever. Officials say they’re keenly aware of the need to deleverage, and there’s evidence that recent efforts to deal with the problem are starting to have an impact. What’s uncertain is whether the government has the will to push ahead with reforms even as companies start to default and the economy slows.

Here’s my question. China is a monetary sovereign, almost all of its debt is internal, and the government has a majority ownership of most of its banks. What difference does its credit rating really make?

Just for perspective, the U. S. does not have the very highest credit rating. That’s reserved for countries like Canada, Australia, Luxembourg, and Switzerland.

I found Virginia Postrel’s post at Bloomberg on the boosterism of China’s “Belt and Road” program entertaining:

As a product of the New South, I know boosterism when I see it.

I recognize the underlying insecurities, frequent wastefulness, and over-eager efforts to demonstrate importance. I also understand boosterism’s valid purposes and claims. Boosters have something to prove — to themselves as well as outsiders — but that doesn’t mean they’re wrong to make the effort. Their offended pride often drives achievements surpassing those of more established and complacent places. Jaded westerners may cringe at the video of multicultural children singing praises of the Belt and Road, but it’s hardly the worst way for an ambitious world power to assert its ascendency.

China’s authorities need a victory for domestic political purposes and as victories go the “Belt and Road” program seems pretty benign. And, as I’ve noted before, they write a heckuva good press release.