Marginal Revolution

The wisdom of Garett Jones

Workers mostly build organizational capital, not final output. This explains high productivity per 'worker' during recessions.

That is from Twitter, the link is here.

Give them your tired, your poor, your huddled masses

Three countries that relied on low-skilled immigrant workers during good times — Japan, Spain, and the Czech Republic — have recently introduced voluntary return programs programs, popularly known as "pay-to-go" programs, in an effort to reduce the number of unemployed immigrants.

The programs established in 2008-2009 generally provide unemployed legal migrants with stipends that cover the cost of a one-way plane ticket "home." Some programs also offer migrants a lump-sum payment.

More here.

Assorted links

1. Geithner meets with bloggers, and here: "We were offered a tray of cookies at the meeting, from which I abstained on principle. Those of you who think that's silly have no idea how much I like cookies."

2. Assuming a can opener, more on health care costs.

3. More on the multiplier (shout it from the rooftops).

4. Mandates don't stay modest.

5. Lane Kenworthy reviews Create Your Own Economy.

Do cellphones outnumber light bulbs in Uganda?

Maybe so.

Hat tip goes to the always-impressive Rachel Strohm.

One path to the Georgist solution?

Without bankruptcy protection, a city that couldn’t pay bondholders would be forced to raise taxes until it could. This happened to West Palm Beach, Florida in the Depression and property tax rates rose to 42.5 percent of assessed value.

Here is more (interesting throughout) and I thank Chug for the pointer.

Fifty Years of Economic History in one Figure

David Beckworth sums up a lot of recent economic history in one figure.

A few thoughts:  I wish Arnold Kling were correct that inflation is around the corner.  We could use some inflation to get back on track.  Nominal wages are simply not flexible enough to get the job done in short order and there is much to fear from populist backlash.

See also the link above for a remarkably similar figure for the OECD which illustrates the US's role of monetary hegemon. 

How to save The New York Times?

I was reading an NYT account of its finances and came across the following:

More radical moves, like dropping the sports section, have been rejected because they would undermine the quality of The Times or would not save much money, Keller said.

"Or"?  Which is it?  It would not  undermine the quality of the paper from a Platonist point of vew; the NYT sports section isn't even as good as USA Today.  It's hard to believe the section is cheap to produce, but if it were that again would imply it wasn't so special.

Is Keller trying to say something like: "We also don't think the section is that good, but if we cut it we'll lose those subscribers who take only one paper and still demand minimum sports coverage"?  For these subscribers, is it not possible to rent out somebody else's sports section and stick it in the paper with a NYT label on it and maybe an extra article about the Knicks?