Raleigh: the next big startup hub?

According to Inc. magazine, the answer is yes.  The article brings up the three research universities, space availability, and a strong entrepreneurial network as factors that will make Raleigh the next Austin or Portland.  NC State and the Poole College of Management play a crucial role through Centennial Campus and HQ Raleigh.  Who knows, maybe Amazon or Apple will decide to locate here as well?

Update on washing machine tariffs

Six months ago I posted on the likely effects of tariffs on washing machines.  As any NC State MBA student would know, a tariff on washing machines would lead to (1) higher prices, (2) fewer purchases (demand curves slope downwards), (3) more domestic production, (4) fewer imports, and (5) increased government revenue.

WP columnist Catherine Rampell provides an update in a recent column.  The not-so-surprising news is that after a 20% tariff, washing machine prices increased 17% in May.  There is more domestic production, but some of it will be coming from new factories that Samsung and LG plan to open in the US.

The news on the job front is less clear.  Other things equal, Whirlpool would expand production in response to higher prices.  But the washing machine tariff is not an isolated event.  Tariffs on steel have increased production costs of washing machines, dampening the increase in domestic production (and jobs).  Also, European countries are preparing their own tariffs in reaction to the aluminum and steel tariffs and U.S. washing machines are on their hit-list.

Rampell cites estimates that US consumers will pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in higher prices for each domestic washing machine job saved by the tariff.  Most of this money will not filter its way to the employees, who are going through their own spin cycle.

Who has the upper hand in China-US tariff war?

Headline in yesterday's WSJ "White House Sees Edge in China Talks."  Ok, what's the secret sauce for the USA?  Is it the availability of close substitutes for Chinese imports or superior negotiating savvy?

No, it is nothing that subtle.  Instead the White House argument boils down to this: the US exports relatively little ($129.9b) to the US whereas Chinese exports to the US are HHUUGGEE ($505.5b)!  So US tariffs can inflict more damage on the Chinese than Chinese tariffs can inflict on the US.

Problem with this line of reasoning: the costs of a tariff war fall much more heavily on US consumers of imported goods than on US exporters impacted by Chinese tariffs.  With a 25% tariff, not only does the price of imports go up by that amount but domestic producers raise their prices by the same amount.

Bottom line: the pain of a tariff war with China will be asymmetric, with US consumers bearing most of the damage in terms of higher prices and less variety.

Job openings exceed number of unemployed

Earlier this month the Labor Department reported that there are more open positions than there are unemployed workers.  There were 6.7m openings at the end of April, well above the 6.3m unemployed.  This is the first time this has happened since the data series on job openings launched in 2000.

Although this is encouraging news for individuals looking for work, keep in mind that many employers prefer to poach talent away from someone else.  The unemployed have to compete against people who already have jobs for open positions.  Also there are many people involuntarily working part-time who are trying to gain full-time positions.  Takeaway: employers still have a large pool of position-seekers from which to draw, but the pool has gotten smaller relative to the number of open posts.

Companies with open positions will now consider changing the skill and experience requirements and increasing wages.  Consider the following example from WSJ:

To attract workers, the Saladworks restaurant chain has raised its starting wages about 5%. It also has relaxed standards on tattoos and piercings, allowed employees to wear jeans and bandannas, and gotten more flexible about schedules.

How much do new employees value corporate social responsibility?

Many firms tout their devotion to the triple bottom line and corporate social responsibility (CSR).  Why do they do it?  One answer, according to University of Chicago economist John List in an interview on Freakonomics, is that it helps attract and retain workers.

List made his reputation doing field experiments in economics.  He is so devoted to this approach that he has set up his own data collection firm HHL Solutions to do experiments on labor market issues.  HHL posted help-wanted ads on Craigslist in 12 cities.  The ads varied in terms of the hourly wage ($11 to $15) and whether they mentioned HHL's commitment to corporate social responsibility.  Not surprisingly the application volume was 33% higher at $15 per hour than it was at $11.  Surprisingly (at least to me), the application volume also was 33% higher when the ads mentioned CSR.

The next surprise: the people who responded to the ads mentioning CSR were more 10 to 25 percent more productive and more accurate in their data entry tasks.

So let's see -- lower your hourly wage costs AND get more output.  Sounds like at least one part of the triple bottom line is dong just fine in firms dedicated to CSR.