Friday, January 29, 2010

Immortals and Social Security Part I: A Drain on the Economy?

See the bottom of this article for a question I pose to the readers!

Older superheroesKingdom Come by Mark Waid and Alex Ross

Comic book characters live forever. Sure, Captain America and Batman recently "died," but not really. They were actually just shot through time. The Martian Manhunter was recently killed off in DC's Final Crisis, but does anyone really expect him to stay dead?

Superheroes and villains who don't have an unnatural ability to cheat death also manage to live forever. Perhaps the main reason for this is the notorious retcon, which Mark discusses at greater length here. Despite these elements keeping characters alive, there are actually still some good old-fashioned immortals living in these universes. These are the heroes and villains who naturally age at a much slower pace than the rest of humanity, use magic, have healing factors, and have access to nanotechnology or to Lazarus Pits. Regardless, they all end up living to be hundreds or thousands of years old. These are people like Wolverine, Ra's Al Ghul, Deadpool, Vandal Savage, Nick Fury, Black Widow etc.

Take Superman. Although Superman technically ages and may one day die of natural causes, several comics have established the notion that his life span would extend considerably beyond that of the average human. In most elseworlds tales that depict the future of the DC Universe, Superman is still portrayed as being full of vitality and bearing the appearance of a much younger man than his cohorts in the Justice League. Superman, however, is actually Clark Kent, who works as an investigative journalist for the Daily Planet.

In fact, many of these immortals have day jobs. They earn disposable incomes, buys things, pay taxes, and have retirement accounts. And this is where the problem comes in from an economic standpoint.

Batman is rebornThe Dark Knight Returns by Frank Miller

The problem with having a population of these immortals running around is that they could actually be a drain on the U.S. economy. I'm not talking about the rampant destruction they cause either. Specifically, I'm referring to the expenditures of entitlement programs like Medicare and Social Security.

Medicare is simple enough. You hit age 65 and you are automatically enrolled in a social insurance programs that provides you with government-sponsored insurance for the rest of your life.

Social security, on the other hand, is a little more complicated. To receive retirement benefits, you need to have worked for at least 10 years. While you work, you pay what's known as the Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) tax on your earnings (as does your employer), which goes directly towards funding retirees currently collecting on social security benefits. Once you hit retirement age (regular age for people born after 1960 is 67, or you can elect to retire at the early age of 62, but receive a smaller benefit), you become eligible to receive your annuity payment (a payment for the rest of your life). The benefit you receive is dependent income you've earned for the 35 years of work in which you earned the most. If you've worked for less than 35 years, the missing years are just filled in with 0s.

You can begin to see why this is problematic with a society populated by people who don't die for centuries or millennia. So what exactly happens when your life can extend many years beyond that of an ordinary human being or even indefinitely? Would social security and Medicare benefits still apply to you? Would you be allowed to work for 10 years, become a beneficiary at age 65, and then receive steady payments for the rest of your thousand-some-odd-year existence?

In actuality, the proportion of immortals to total citizens receiving social security and Medicare benefits is likely very small. As it stands, they're outliers and probably not really a significant cost for the government. However, it has the potential to become a real problem.

In fact, most of us are aware that social security is experiencing a major fiscal imbalance. According to Jon Gruber's wonderful textbook on public economics, over the next 70-75 years, the present discounted value of the program's obligations exceeds the present discounted value of the taxes it will collect by a considerable amount (something like $4.5 - $5 trillion). According to the 2009 Trustees report, the social security trust fund will be depleted by 2037, at which point payroll taxes will only be able to fund about 76% of expected payoffs to beneficiaries.


OOASDI Income and Cost Rates Under Intermediate Assumptions
(Reprinted from the 2009 Trustees Report)



There are many reasons for this. One is that that baby boomers are retiring. Another is that technology in the 20th century has improved life expectancy rates. Another is that birth rates have declined. Finally, the growth in wages has slowed in recent years. So, what we have is a new generation comprised of fewer workers paying taxes on earnings that have only marginally increased. And this is all to fund a population of elderly citizens that has grown considerably in recent years.

On top of this, consider how the population of mutants, aliens, sorcerers, demigods, and science-experiments-gone-wrong has increased in both the DC and Marvel universes in the past 20-25 years. If these groups continue to expand, then over time they may cease to be outliers and start posing a real cost burden for the United States.

Any government program is bound to run into the problem of moral hazard. Much like on real-Earth, I anticipate major reform social security financing reforms coming into play in comic book worlds. My question to you is: how can governments in DC and Marvel reform social security and Medicare to account for these immortal or long-living populations?

I'd like to hear from some of you and I'll make another post in the near future with some reform proposals!

Wednesday, January 27, 2010

Priorities, Lois Lane

Lois argues with Perry White about true news reportingSuperman: Secret Origin #3 by Geoff Johns and Gary Frank
Click to See The Rest of the Image

Poor Lois. She thinks that in times of economic trouble, particularly problematic for the newspaper industry, she can just continue to push the boundaries and report actual news stories about real issues. This just in, Lois: no one cares about the public transportation infrastructure or political corruption of frivolous waste of taxpayer money. Did you learn nothing in Econ 101? I think it was Adam Smith who said that the only way the newspaper industry can survive is by resorting to spectacle and sensationalizing stories.

Here are the kind of news stories you should be thinking about:

"Superman's Birth Certificate May Reveal Un-American Origins. Is He Fit to Save Our Country?"

"Experts Debate Whether Lex Luthor is Man or Alien Cyborg."

"Study reveals people are indeed better than fruit."

Priorities, Lois.


Tuesday, January 26, 2010

Ecocomics Explains: Preferences and Indifference

Ecocomics Explains is a new feature of this blog. Each episode, we will discuss a different economics concept--ranging from more basic ones to more advanced and mathematically involved ones--and highlight some examples from comic books that reflect the ideas.

In our last lesson, we discussed the concepts of opportunity cost and budget constraints. Namely, we analyzed a situation where our friendly, neighborhood Spider-Man was had choice between spending an hour of free time fighting criminals on the street or attending Aunt May's rehearsal dinner and earning some brownie points with the family. We learned in order to be efficient, Spider-Man should have chosen a combination of fighting criminals and earning brownie points that would have allowed him to spend all 60 minutes of the hour doing one of the two activities.

Unfortunately, this doesn't exactly tell us what combination Spider-Man should or would have picked. It merely gave us the range of possibilities that Spider-Man could pick from. The bundle he actually chooses depends on his preferences and utility. We'll focus on utility in another post, but for now let's talk about Spider-Man's preferences.

Note: when Spidey refers to taking photographs, he is talking about the photos he takes of Spider-Man fighting crime The Amazing Spider Man #600 by Dan Slott and John Romita Jr. (2009)

Recall that the situation we are analyzing, depicted in The Amazing Spider-Man #600, is just one of many examples of the sort of choices Spider-Man has to face as a masked vigilante. Either Spider-Man surrenders to his obligation to fight crime and sacrifice personal time with his family, or works on his family/personal life and runs the risk of keeping some criminals on the street for the time being. Unfortunately, Spider-Man never explicitly states that he has an hour and never discusses just how happy his family will be to see him, so those are numbers we made up for simplicity.

Basically what we're going to do from here on out is build a consumer choice problem for Spider-Man from the ground-up. The first thing we need to realize is that Spider-Man's preference fit certain axioms, or rules.

First, Spider-Man's preferences are complete. Basically this means that Spider-Man can rank his preferences over any goods or combination of goods. Given putting criminals in jail and brownie points, for instance, Spider-Man can say that he'd rather bag one criminal than earn one brownie point, vice versa, or even be indifferent between the two. There is no way that they are noncomprable, however. When given a choice, he cannot just shrug and say "I just don't know!"

Second, his preferences are transitive. Say a third good enters the mix: watching TV. Now say that Spidey would rather spend time with family than fight criminals, but would rather fight criminals than watch TV . Well, then Spidey obviously also prefers spending time with family to watching TV. So if:

brownie > criminal and
criminal > TV
==> brownie>TV.

Finally, there's non-satiation. This means that there is never a maximum amount of a particular good that will fully satisfy Spider-Man. That is, there is never a point where Spider-Man would cease to derive enjoyment from putting criminals in jail. The more criminals he bags, the more enjoyment he sees.

There are a few more axioms and some more mathematically rigorous ways that we can define these three (which we'll go over eventually), but for now this is all we need to know. Consider the following graph:

Suppose Spider-Man is at point A of the graph. That means that he chooses to spend his 48 minutes hunting down 2 criminals and spending enough time with Aunt May to earn 4 brownie points. We know from last time that this combination is in Spidey's feasible set (even though it's not efficient).

Now let's say that Mephisto shows up and decides to offer Spider-Man a deal. He says that in exchange for handing back one of the two criminals he just captured, Mephisto will use his magic to alter the Spider-Man timeline (again) and have it seem as though Peter had been spending time with his family instead. Obviously Spider-Man would not make the deal if he would rather be hunting criminals. So Mephisto says that he'll give Spider-Man just enough brownie ponits to make up for the lost criminal, but no more. Spider-Man tells Mephisto that he'd need 3 brownie points to make him equally satisfied. Deal done (but for some reason no one seems to remember Spider-Man's identity anymore).

Post-deal, Spider-Man is at point B of the graph. He has taken out only one criminal, but earned an incredible 7 brownie points with his family! And he is equally happy. This means that Spider-Man is indifferent between points A and B. He derives the same enjoyment out of both combinations of actions.

Looking at the graph, we can now map out Spider-Man's indifference curve (labeled L2). This curve marks all the points, or combinations of brownie points and criminals, that Spider-Man is indifferent between. As you can see, Spider-Man would get the same satisfaction whether he takes out one criminal and earns 7 brownie points (point A) or whether he takes out 3 criminals and only earns 2 brownie point (point C).

You might be wondering why the curve is not a line, similar to the budget constraint. Well, this is due to a phenomenon known as diminishing marginal rate of substitution. In microeconomics, dMRS is another axiom that defines the convex shape of the indifference curves.

The marginal rate of substitution is basically the slope of the curve at various points. It's tell you what individuals are willing to give up of one good to get another. Note that this is different from an opportunity cost, which tells you how much an individual would HAVE to give up of one good to obtain another. At point B for instance, Spider-Man is willing to give up around 3 brownie points to get 1 more criminal (to get from B to A). That's a slope of 3 so his MRS at point B is about 3. At point C, Spider-Man is willing to give up about 1 brownie point to get one more criminal. That's a slope of 1, so his MRS at point C is 1.

The intuition behind assuming a diminishing marginal rate of substitution is not very difficult to grasp. When Spider-Man is at point A, he has lots and lots of brownie points but very few criminals. Catching another criminal is looking very attractive to him at this point, so he'd be willing to give up a little more to get one. At point C, however, Spider-Man has used up more of his hour to catch more of criminals, but in doing so has sacrificed much needed time with his family and is dangerously close to alienating himself with only 2 brownie points. He would be willing to sacrifice less brownie points at point C for another criminal.

We'll continue with this next time on Ecocomics Explains!

Questions and comments are welcome. Also, if anyone has any suggestions of economics topics they would like covered, please feel free to drop us a comment.

Friday, January 22, 2010

No Government in My Medicare!

Tea bag the liberals? Really?Captain America #602 by Ed Brubaker and Luke Ross

Public opinion on economic policy seems to be the theme of this week's posts. Yesterday, we talked about the idea of offering more bailouts in New York City. In the latest issue of Captain America, we travel all the way out to Idaho only to find more riots and discontent.

Hey you, government! Yeah I'm talking to you! The people have spoken! "No government in my Medicare!" None! Divorce all federal interference from our federal programs.

I wonder if there's any way some nasty supervillain came take advantage of this sentiment. Someone like...an evil 1950s Captain America clone-person.

Click to see moreClick on image to see more!

Thursday, January 21, 2010

Externalities: Angel Edition

Superheroes fight crime and save lives. But by doing so they impose certain costs on people not directly involved. These are superhero externalities.

Angel unwittingly causes the death of an innocentAngel #29 by Bill Willingham and Brian Denham

Since Los Angeles went to hell and back, Angel has become something of a celebrity. Now everywhere he goes, people are starstruck. Seems pretty simple and non-threatening. As in any transaction, Angel reaps the benefits of being famous (more casework, more money, etc.) but also pays a cost for it (less free time to brood, a sense of disillusion, etc.).

Unfortunately the people he is protecting are paying an unintended cost, as demonstrated when Angel walked into a local coffee shop for a cup and accidentally created a panic that the neighborhood was under attack by a vicious (and equally fictitious) demon. This seemingly innocuous event resulted in multiple injuries and death.

Angel himself goes on to comment on this predicament of unintended consequences:

The public pays for Angel's fame

Lessons Learned from the Bennett Bailout

Earlier, we posted an in-depth discussion of the Marvel Universe's Bennett Bailout. To refresh your memory: former construction tycoon, current newspaper owner, and just ludicrously wealthy entrepreneur Dexter Bennett had somehow managed to persuade the United States federal government to award The DB, perhaps New York City's most prominent newspaper, a financial bailout.

Now that the bailout debacle is behind us (or so I think), it is important to look back and reflect on the lessons learned.

1) The public is fickle and easily swayed, but largely against bailouts.

NYC stickin' it to the manAmazing Spider-Man #613 by Mark Waid and Paul Azaceta

Unlike the real world, the economy can be used to spread fear and paranoia in comic books. Not only that--it can be done by a supervillain.

Where's the actual public on this? Well in March 2009, a CBS News poll reported that 53% of the public were against giving more bailout to financial institutions, up from 44% only three months prior. I haven't seen any more recent polls about the bailouts, but it isn't a stretch to assume people have grown more disillusioned over the past year. A reaction such as the one in New York City is sudden, yet not really shocking (pun intended).

However, the overwhelmingly harsh response from NYC is interesting here. For one thing, citizens seem to be confusing Dexter Bennett for a Wall Street guy and seem to be conflating financial institutions and banks with news organizations. It's one thing to be hesitant in providing more money to institutions that individuals believe were the primary source of the recession, but it's quite another to be upset with the The DB. It actually seems like the citizens are rallying not so much against Wall Street, but against all rich people in general.

Of course, it's probably that New Yorkers are upset to see their taxpayer money wasted frivolously on organizations that they don't believe need to be bailed out. But then their problem isn't exactly with Dexter Bennett, but with the Federal Government and its policies.

2) The public is largely uninformed about, well, everything.

Spidey be rollin'It's a sad day when people think that Spider-Man (who incidentally did not reveal his identity and is opposed to the Superhuman Registration Act of 2006) actually cuts a federal salary from the Avengers and pays no taxes on it. First of all, we know that Tony Stark pays a significant amount of taxes. Second, how would that even work? Would the Avengers hand him a check endorsed over to "Spider-Man," which he would then take and deposit into a Spider-Man bank account? And unless people actually think that Spider-Man is some sort of alien with no alter ego, he does pay taxes as Peter Parker.

3) Placing trust in Wall Street will only lead to destruction.

The DB is doneAmazing Spider-Man #614 by Mark Waid and Paul Azaceta

These are important life lessons. How many times have supervillains led the public against its superheroes using the prospect of a bleak political or economic future? I've said it before and I'll say it again. The best way to fight villainy is to educate citizens, especially in matters of the economy.

Oh yeah, and don't trust Wall Street.

Wednesday, January 20, 2010

Economics Themed Superheroes

Two weeks ago, we asked you all to submit your economics-themed superheroes/supervillains. Here are your submissions. Many of them were done using Marvel's Create Your Own Superhero function. Others were done using other software and one was hand-drawn! All of them are spectacular.

First, we have THE TOXIC ASSET, created by Tim. Too big to fail, just big enough to kill.

The Toxic Asset

Next, we have HELICOPTER BEN, created by E. Supplying justice, demanding vengeance...

Helicopter Ben

Next, we have CONFUSED EX-HIPPIE, created by Matt. "Whoa, my portfolio is, like, so diversified."

Confused Ex-Hippie

Next up is GOLDLINE by Baylee. He'll give you a gold rush!

Goldline

Next we have three characters and descriptions created by Paul Richard Gerome Wojtkiewicz.

The first is GOLD STANDARD, a powerful cyborg who vowed to protect the world from inflation.

Gold Standard

The second is TAXING COLOSSUS, a mysterious menace, which seeks funding for the diabolical skills of his master (yet unknown).

Taxing Colossus

The third is CLASSY, who in normal life is just an average billionaire, but when there is trouble, he speaks the phrase, "A Habitats System I Miss" that seems gibberish. Few know, however, that this is a magical anagram for the names of famous economists: Smith, Mises, Say and Bastiat.

Classy

Next up, we have HYPER INFLATION, created by Jeremy. The longer he stays in the fight, the more powerful he becomes! He'll burn through your strongest assets given the chance. The only way to bring him down is with 24 karat gold. Shadowbanker beware!

Hyper Inflation

Finally, we have HOMELESS SUPERHERO, created by D. He lost his job, but he is still a superhero!

Homeless Superhero
Again, all of these submissions were absolutely amazing and all deserve much praise. So praise them everyone!