Martin Feldstein among the faeries, reporting from a dreamworld.

Martin Feldstein says, “The US economy is in good shape.”

In this morning’s Wall Street Journal, Harvard professor Feldstein said, “The American economy is in good shape, better than critics think and financial investors fear. Incomes are rising, unemployment is falling, and industrial production is up sharply.” (p. A13)

I am glad to hear this because it echoes President Obama’s State of the Union assertions that “America right now has the strongest, most durable economy in the world,” and anyone saying America is in decline “is peddling fiction.”

The market problem is a market problem, according to Feldstein. Fed policy has pushed equities to artificially high levels; even after the recent decline, stocks are still 35% above normal.

He thinks the data showing that household income has stagnated is deceptive because it measures cash income. “The CBO explains that once corporate and government transfers are added to market incomes, and federal taxes are subtracted, the real income after transfers and federal taxes is up 49% between 1979 and 2010 for households in the lowest income quintile (with average total incomes of $31,000 in 2010). Real income is up 40% between 1979 and 2010 for households in the middle three quintiles (with average total incomes of $60,000) in 2010.”

These adjustments are interesting. Until a few years ago, the BLS when reporting on the number of Americans below the poverty line did not take into account government benefits. Today both numbers are available and you can choose between them depending on what point you wish to make. I noticed a couple of years ago, and wrote about it, that the average teacher in the local public schools with a master’s degree and 5-10 years of experience had about same effective income as a family of four on assistance. If the salary were $65,000, then about $20,000 comes off the top for health insurance (here the teacher pays half) and pension contribution (11% of gross income). Then we must subtract state and federal income taxes and NEA dues. On assistance, this teacher and his family could get subsidized housing, free healthcare, food stamps, and cash payments. In effect, he is no better off working, if we go by the numbers.

So why does he want to work? There are a number of reasons. He probably does not want to move his family to subsidized housing where he hears reports of frequent drug busts, shootings, assaults, and other crimes. He also likes being in a work environment where he is active, has interesting and dynamic colleagues, as well as other psychological rewards.

This is the point that Feldstein seems to miss. People don’t feel good about themselves if they are forced to depend on government programs. A good job is not an even trade for monetarily equivalent benefits. If you tell people in the latter group, or those who fear going there, that the economy is in good shape, they won’t believe you.

Going postal, and liking it

In recent years I have noticed that the service provided by the US Postal Service has improved a lot. Most letters I send to people in Massachusetts seem to get there in the next day or two, and letters to the rest of the country take two or three days. This is a far cry from thirty years ago when a letter to New York City from Boston could take a week or ten days, or three days, or five days (one never knew), while a letter to Washington usually took three days, but not always. The post office performance had been unpredictable, but now it has become fast, cheap and reliable.

I remembered this when I saw an article in the Wall Street Journal this morning on page B4, “Postal Service is Profitable.” It said the postal service in Q4 2015 earned $307 million and had its first quarterly profit since 2011. It also delivered 660 million holiday packages more than either UPS or Fedex and more than it had forecast. In fact, the post office is gaining market share from these rivals.

This interested me enough to glace at the post office FY 2015 report to Congress. In FY 2015, USPS revenues were up 1.6% to $68.9 billion, employees numbered 491,863, flat from the previous year, mail deliveries were down 1% to 154.2 billion pieces, and packages were up substantially to 4.53 million from 3.96 million. (+14%)

The USPS reported a net loss of $5.1 billion in FY 2015, about the same as in the two previous years, so the 4th quarter profit is particularly notable. It should be remembered that the USPS has been subject to unique charges by Congress. Unlike ordinary corporations, the service is required to amortize over a ten-year period the PSRHBF Prefunding Expense, which is the present value of the future health benefits of future retirees; this amount exceeds $5 billion/year. The service must also credit toward the pension of any military veteran it hires his full number of years of military service as if they were years at the post office; this transfers liabilities from the Department of Defense to the Postal Service and represents a subsidy to the defense budget.

So the post office is not in bad shape and it’s getting better. It has stopped shrinking and is growing slowly. One may conclude that a government-owned corporation can be efficient when subject to competition. This is one of those rare instances in which the thesis propounded by John Kenneth Galbraith in The New Industrial State has been realized, at least partly.

But what of UPS and Fedex? I remember reading years ago that Fedex had made few inroads into the domestic Swiss market because the post office there was fast, reliable and lower cost. I wonder if this sort of competition will develop in the US to an even greater extent than was evident during the holidays. I wonder if a similar threat exists in other markets, like Canada and the UK?