LyrArc Article Gist
The median household headed by a person 60-62 years of age with a 401(k) account has less than one fourth of what is needed to maintain a standard of living at retirement, according to data from the Federal Reserve and analyzed by the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College for the Wall Street Journal. Including Social Security and any pensions or other savings, the savings are way short of what is needed for retirement. Households used in this data had a median income of $87,700 in 2009. The 85% needed for a decent standard of living upon retirement is $74,545. Social Security would provide an estimated 40% of pre-retiremment income, or $35,080 for that median family, leaving $39,465 that has to come from other sources. The median 401(k) account has $149,400 which would only provide a fixed income each year of $9,073- only one fourth of the $39,465 needed. To generate that $39,465, households have to have $636,673, and only 8% of American households approaching retirement have that amount. Half of the families have other pension income of $26,500 a year, which added to $9,073 in 401(k) income gets the total income up to $35,573. Other studies using different data by the Employee Benefit Research Institute show results that are largely similiar. The Employee Benefit Research Institute, is supported by 401(k) providers. Its estimate of the median person is based on individuals in the 60's who have worked at the same company for more than 30 years. This data shows an estimated median person having about $158,754, not much different from the Fed data. Why is the amount in most Americans 401(k) savings so low? There was a mistaken sense that a 6% annual contribution, with a 3% company match would be enough. Vanguard Group says the current median amount that people contribute is 9%, counting the employer contribution. Now Vanguard is advising people to contribute more, 12 to 15%, including the employer contribution. Other problems for the low savings is that saving started late, or contributions were suspended after a job loss, or medical emergencies, other debt. The stock market collapses of 2000-2002 and 2007-2009, added to the problems, by wiping out a portion of the savings. The low rate of interest on savings for most of the last decade hurt even conservative investors and lowers the kind of retirement account income used by seniors. The way people are coping with this is to work longer, in some cases into the 70's, cutting down on spending for food, travel, and taking greater risks for higher returns, risks that could make the situation worse....

LyrArc Article Gist
Izzo looks at the diverging picture presented by two Labor Department surveys of unemployment in the U.S. for July 2012- an increase of 163,000 jobs or 195,000 fewer people working. One, the Household Survey is based on survey of individual households counts people and the other the Establishment Survey based on a survey of employers counts jobs. If one person holds two jobs he would be counted twice in the Establishment Survey and once in the Household Survey. If a person is a unincorporated self employed person, a family employee who isn't paid, a farm worker who is employed but not paid he is counted in the Household Survey, but left out in the Establishment Survey. The Labor Department prepares a third measure of the number of people working by adjusting for multple jobholders and for workers not counted in the survey of businesses. By this third measure the U.S. economy added 108,000 jobs in July, which is far less than the 163,000 jobs shown added in the Establishment Survey. Because of the increase in parttime work it is likely that more people are doing multiple jobs which may explain some of this difference. Another reason could be the severe drought in the U.S. that may be reducing the opportunities for work for freelance construction maintenance and day laborers because of restrictions on water use. This shows that it takes several months of data to get some sense of where unemployment is headed, adjusting the numbers for unusual events or weather, and looking behind the numbers to the sectors generating jobs. In the first quarter of 2012 more jobs were generated in the U.S. because of a mild winter, followed by fewer jobs in the second quarter, which required looking at the two quarters together to get a better picture. Adjusting for the long term unemployed who have quit looking is also necessary to get a correct reading of U.S. unemployment levels....

LyrArc Article Gist
The majority report of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commisssion says Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernanke, regulators, and several financial institutions were responsible for what was an "avoidable disaster." The report criticizes Mr Greenspan for advocating deregulation and considers the failure to stem the flow of toxic mortgages under his leadership at the central bank as a "prime example" of negligence. The report also says that the New York Fed under Timothy Geithner, now Treasury Secretary, also missed signs of trouble at Citigroup and Lehman. There are 6 Democrats and 4 Republicans on the Commission. The fourth Republican has his dissent, calling policies to promote home ownership, the role of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac a major cause. The panel was hobbled by internal divisions and staff turnover, which have made what should have been a report of major significance into one marred by partisan differences. The majority report itself was heavily shaped by Phil Angelides, the committee's chairman, and it has many literary phrases. Overleveraging was a critical factor in the crisis. For every $40 in assets, the US's 5 largest investment banks had only $1 in capital to cover losses. The banks hid their leveraging with derivatives, off-balance sheet entities and other devices. The banks relied heavily on short-term debt which worsened the crisis. The report also said the Clinton adminstration's decision to exempt over-the counter derivatives from regulation- made in the last year of Clinton's term- also helped set up the ground for later events leading to the crisis....

LyrArc Article Gist
The authors, Becker, Davis and Murphy, are from the University of Chicago. They point out that the uncertainty created by the Obama administration's programs including healthcare and social investments in education, energy conservation, and the desire to reduce carbon emissions, all tend to slow business expansion and investments to create jobs by putting additional costs on business. The expanding federal deficit and national debt also create additional uncertainty. Their point is that it was a mistake to start making major changes to transform the U.S. economy at this time, and that it would have been wiser to do these changes after the economy had recovered completely from the crisis. All efforts they say should have been concentrated on establishing conditions for a strong recovery. When combined with the lack of regulatory reforms to fix problems left behind from the crisis, and other failures, serious questions arise about how things will turn out in coming years. See Krugman- The Feeling of 1937, where Krugman takes this up from another angle, again with concerns about the future....

LyrArc Article Gist
A report from the U.S. Federal Reserve on the impact of the financial crisis of 2008-2009 on the wealth of American households. Between 2007 and 2010 says the report the median net worth of American families went down by 39%, from $126,400 in 2007 to $77,300 in 2010. This had the result of putting Americans back to the level of net worth in 1992. Much of the loss in net worth was from asset value reductions. The median value of stock market based retirement accounts decreased by 7% to $44,000. The biggest drop was in housing values- falling by 42% to $55,000 in the three years. Americans are working down their debt- a quarter of families are debt free, credit card balances declined 16% to $2600 from $3100 from the period 2007 to 2010 of the report. Yet the median level of family debt remains the same as more families support their kids education by taking out college loans. Median income fell about 8% to $45,800 in 2010, with income losses especially large in the manufacturing industries as the U.S. manufacturing sector worked to improve competitiveness. Other factors supplement this picture. The burden of college loans increased to over $1 trillion for middle and working class families. With the burden of college debt young people were more likely to delay buying first homes, indefinitely dealying recovery in the housing market. Seniors on retirement see interest income from savings negligible with low interest rates and higher risk in a volatile stock market. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
David Stockman was Budget Director under President Reagan and known for his prodigous grasp of statistics in the national budget. Here he takes on what he describes as disproportionately large and destructive banking system for the U.S. economy, which he says the nation desperately needs less of. He supports the small tax of 0.15% of the debts other than deposits of financial conglomerates. His words are some of the strongest yet to come from one of the most prominent people on Reagan's economic team about how the nation's banking system has beome unproductive in supporting economic activity which is its reason for existence. The destructive effects on social cohesion and the middle class is emphasized. He says for years the Fed has run an insanely loose monetary policy that has encouraged this behaviour and socially detrimental profit seeking by the banks and other companies. He sees the big banks as dangerous institutions in today's economy engaged in a bull market culture which believes in entitlement and profitseeking behaviours regardless of its detrimental nature for the national economy. The recent profits of the banks in 2009 and the resulting bonuses are a result of the Fed's easy money policy and bank's gambling at the Fed's monetary casino as he puts it, with money obtained at little cost from Fed-controlled money markets. This article helps to eliminate the distorted perspective in today's climate that paints criticism of splitting up the banks, or otherwise restricting banks in engaging in proprietary trading and risky behaviours, as government interference. As Stockman puts it these banks are already in some sense wards of the state and not private enterprises and this issue is not relevant. The question now is how to set things right and this involves possible solutions such splitting up banks that are too big to fail, restricting risky behaviours and preventing proprietary trading, and other actions as unusual steps for unusual times to get things working back to normal. In other times Stockman would not have said this in an op-ed piece if this were not so....