How much is your free time worth?

One of the most important concepts in economics is opportunity cost.  When you think of the cost of an activity (e.g., going to a movie), you need to consider not just how much you pay (gas, price of ticket) but also the value of what you could have done in that time (walking your dog).

Putting a price on time is a tricky matter.  In a work context, economists use compensation as the measure.  But what is your time outside of work worth?  Clearly it must be worth more than you can earn in that time, otherwise you would be working!

A recent WSJ piece provides some useful guidance on how to price your free time.  Examples: do you take the flight with the three hour layover to save $100?  Do you do your own laundry or take it to the cleaners?  All of these questions end up revolving on how much you value your own time.

There is now a calculator to help you value your time at a website called Clearer Thinking.  I found out that my own answers were very inconsistent.  I wanted a lot more money to work an extra hour per week than I was willing to pay for a machine that would save me an hour each week.  I am guessing I am not alone in that regard.  Try it out!  Especially good for new MBA students who will need to be examining the value of every spare hour once school starts.

Airlines and antitrust

On the peak holiday travel weekend the Justice Department announced that it was launching an antitrust investigation into the airline industry.  The four largest airlines in the U.S. now have 80 percent of the market.  Three of those airlines were involved in mergers, all of which were approved by the Justice Department!  The feds seem concerned that whenever an airline exec says the word "discipline" at an industry conference, it is secret code for "price fixing" or "capacity limiting."

A recent WSJ piece looked carefully at recent trends in air travel capacity.  It turns out that there are 12% more domestic seats for sale now than two years ago, hardly what you would expect for an industry with high fixed costs and (now with lower fuel prices) more modest variable costs.  Airlines are cutting back on flights but adding more seats to each flight by (1) reducing space between seats and making the seats smaller and (2) replacing small regional jets with larger aircraft.

If the feds are seriously searching for a factor limiting capacity in the industry, they might want to take a look at airports.  When was the last time a new airport was built in a major city?  When was the last time a new runway was added or more gates were added in the average city?  If local governments fail to invest in airport capacity, it will be hard for the airlines to put enough seats in place to meet demand.

Employees: cost or asset?

Companies pay a range of wages for what are essentially the same jobs.  For instance Costco pays higher rates than Walmart, and other retailers fall in between (with no doubt some even higher than Costco and others even lower than Walmart).  This violates the infamous "law of one price" in economics, so there must be something else going on.

I recently came across the research of Sloan MIT professor Zeynep Ton in a NYT column by Joe Nocera that addresses this issue.  Professor Ton has focused on supply chain management practices in retail.  She found that companies do a great job of getting product from China (or wherever else it is made) to the store.  But once the product hits the loading dock, things often went haywire.  The product needs to be in stock in the right place of the store, and apparently that is easier said than done.

Ton compared execution success to HR practices and found that companies that paid bottom dollar and provided little to no training were the ones that were having the most difficulty; the results were published in Harvard Business Review.  Her conclusion: "investing in employees can boost customer experience and decrease costs."

With more retail companies raising wages, it will be very interesting to see how the remaining low wage employers in retail react.

Why labor's share of income is falling: another take

Labor's share of gross domestic product has dropped from 66 to 61 percent over the last 20 years, contributing significantly to income inequality.  Most experts (myself included) have focused on globalization, technological change, and labor market institutions such as collective bargaining and the minimum wage as contributing factors.

Harvard economist Robert Lawrence has written a provocative paper about that suggests another strong possibility: that capital investment (structures, equipment, software and the like) has lagged and as a result labor income has declined as a share of GDP.  The story goes like this: technical change has augmented labor instead of capital; in other words, one person can now do the work of two or more persons.  If accompanied by inelastic demand, this increase in the effective supply of labor results in lower labor income.  Another key part of Lawrence's study: labor and capital are complements, not substitutes.

This runs completely counter to the view promoted by Piketty that capital growth has resulted in income redistribution.  Piketty recommends income redistribution through wealth taxes.  Lawrence's results imply the exact opposite -- we need to take measures to increase capital formation in order to help labor.

More job openings than ever before

The U.S. Department of Labor reports that last May there were 5.4 million open positions, more than ever before.  Although still considerably smaller than the 8.3 million who are unemployed, the ratio of open positions to unemployed persons is close to what it was before the Great Recession, according to WSJ.

This lends further weight to the argument that the job market really is beginning to tighten, despite the large drop in the size of the labor force and the number of workers who are in part-time jobs but would prefer full-time jobs.  It is a good time to be on the market!

Is it time for more overtime?

Last week President Obama announced new regulations that will expand the availability of overtime. Overtime is restricted to hourly employees, along with salaried employees who lack managerial responsibilities.  Defining the latter is dicy, so historically eligibility has been determined via a salary threshold.  Right now overtime is limited to those managers making less than $455/week.  The new regs kick that up to $970/week.

On the surface this would mean that about 5 million additional employees will now be eligible to collect overtime.  But we should expect employers and workers to make adjustments.  Under the old rules, exempt employees had an implicit understanding with their employer -- even though we do not get overtime, we are involved in a fair exchange where we provide so much work in so many hours and in return we receive so much income.

Employers looking to avoid the extra overtime charges have two options: cut hours so that they do not have to pay overtime rates or demand more work to be completed in the existing hours.  Assuming the overall workload stays the same, the first option will make sense for firms with low training costs and low spends on employee benefits (benefits are typically paid on a per person basis, rather than on a per hour basis).  Such firms can cut hours per person and hire more people.  The second option, which will usually involve downsizing, makes more sense when training new help is costly and benefits are expensive.

In deciding which course to take, employers have to make sure that they retain employees.  Whether they cut hours or increase workloads, employees will be worse off than before unless they start receiving some extra overtime pay.  Also, whatever deal is reached with the workers who are newly eligible will have to apply to those who were already eligible.  Bottom line: I expect to see adjustments along all three dimensions -- overtime hours worked (lower), workload expectations (higher), and overtime income received for newly eligible employees (higher).

Time for a student loan? Don't ignore private lenders

Most student loans today originate directly from the federal government.  But this recent WSJ piece points out that, for some students, the private sector is a better option.  Three factors are critical: parental co-signers, credit scores, and wealth.  Borrowers will want to compare origination fees, ability to postpone interest while in school, and interest rates.  Some lenders even allow refinancing if interest rates fall.