SAVINGS' DEATH IS EXAGGERATED
Capital-gains taxes skew the rate
What a difference a data revision can make. Only a few months ago, economists were pointing out that the slide in the personal-savings rate--saving as a percent of disposable income--was exaggerated because of a problem in the way the number was constructed (BW-June 29).
Then, in midsummer, the Commerce Dept. revised the rate downward, from around 3.6% to just 0.6% in the second quarter, setting off alarm bells in the financial markets. If people were really spending virtually all of their income, the reasoning went, a sharp retrenchment in consumer spending could be in the wings.
Moreover, the specter of disappearing savings was cited as evidence that consumption and economic growth were being driven by a "wealth effect"--that is, by people with big capital gains in the stock market who had decided to rev up their spending and draw down their savings. This implied that the expansion was acutely vulnerable to a stock market correction.
What has escaped notice, however, says economist Peter D'Antonio of Citibank, is that the latest revision in the savings rate still fails to address the basic problem with the numbers: the inconsistent treatment of capital gains and capital-gains taxes.
The savings rate is expressed as a percent of disposable personal income, which by definition includes current income such as wages and salaries, interest, dividends and rent--but doesn't include realized or unrealized capital gains. Yet capital-gains taxes are subtracted from personal income to calculate "disposable income." And since capital gains have exploded in recent years, taxes on these gains have soared as well--reducing disposable income and the reported savings rate.
The upshot, says D'Antonio, is that half of the decline in the savings rate over the past year can probably be attributed to the sharp rise in capital-gains taxes rather than to a jump in spending. Joel L. Prakken, chairman of Macroeconomic Advisers in St. Louis, estimates that the current rate would be well over a percentage point higher without the tax effect. (His own view is that a better measure of savings would reflect both capital-gains taxes and realized and unrealized capital gains.)
To Citibank's D'Antonio, all of this implies that the wealth effect is less powerful and slower acting than many analysts seem to believe. Personal savings are not as depressed as they appear, and fears of a sudden sharp contraction in consumption caused by a market correction are exaggerated.By GENE KORETZReturn to top
Return to top
DOES HIRING MINORITIES HURT?
Affirmative action and productivity
Critics of affirmative action often claim that it causes employers to hire less qualified and productive workers, resulting in inefficiencies in the workplace. Advocates contend that it has generally spurred the hiring of more women and minorities without compromising work performance.
To determine which view is more accurate, economists Harry J. Holzer and David Neumark of Michigan State University analyzed the results of a survey of some 3,200 employers in the Atlanta, Boston, Detroit, and Los Angeles areas from 1992 to 1994. Their findings suggest that affirmative action programs have little if any negative effect on worker productivity.
The survey results indicate that employers who stress affirmative action in their recruiting programs make extensive efforts to attract and screen job applicants. They also are more likely to provide training to those they do hire and to evaluate their performance carefully. While such efforts enable companies to hire more female and minority workers, the survey results indicate that aside from educational backgrounds, the qualifications and--more important--the work performance of such hires are on a par with other employees.
To be sure, those employers whose affirmative action policies are focused more directly on hiring and who don't engage in strong "outreach" recruitment efforts, do indicate that they are more likely to hire less-qualified females and minorities. But even these workers' job performance does not appear to suffer-- probably because their employers also tend to provide them with more training to bring them up to snuff.
In short, claims that affirmative action entails costs in terms of lower worker productivity aren't borne out by employer reports.By GENE KORETZReturn to top