Source: White House Press Office
Press Gaggle by Principal Deputy Press Secretary Josh Earnest Aboard Air Force One en route Miami, FL, 3/29/2013
Source: White House Press Office
By Tim Worstall, Contributor Given that Greg Mankiw is a former Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers this is an excellent question he poses, one that’s well worth answering: There is one question I would like to see some reporter ask Alan Krueger, the president’s chief economist: How did they decide that $9 per hour is the right level? Why not $10 or $12 or $15 or $20? Presumably, the president’s economic team must believe that the adverse employment effects become sufficiently large at some point that further increases are undesirable. But what calculations led them to decide that $9 strikes the right balance? That is, a past holder of that job as economic advisor would like to see someone ask the current holder of it to explain the evidence leading to this particular number. And while I’m not even an economist, let alone anyone ever going to be in the running for that type of job, I can provide an answer. Which is that this appears to be around and about the rate at which anything actually happens. A minimum wage below around 45% of average wages seems not to affect anything or anyone very much. One of over 45% or so of average wages appears to have large bad effects and no really noticeable goods ones. Thus, given that average hourly wages in the US are around the $20 level at present, a $9 minimum wage would be, around and about, the level at which very little of anything much happens but we don’t therefore have many bad effects. …read more
Source: FULL ARTICLE at Forbes Latest
By Megan Slack
Today, Alan Krueger, Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, answered questions from the public about President Obama's State of the Union Address in an “Open for Questions” session moderated by Yahoo! Finance. Check it out below.
James S. Brady Press Briefing Room
11:58 A.M. EST
MR. CARNEY: Hello, everyone. Thanks for being here. Before I take your questions, I just wanted to mention that earlier today, at the White House, Valerie Jarrett, Senior Advisor; Gene Sperling, Director of the National Economic Council; Jeff Zients, Director of OMB; and Alan Krueger, the President’s chief economist met with the following business leaders in the defense contracting industry: Wes Bush, Chairman, CEO and President of Northrop Grumman Corporation; David P. Hess, President of Pratt & Whitney; Linda Parker Hudson, President and CEO of BAE Systems Inc.; John S. Langford, Chairman and CEO of Aurora Flight Sciences Corporation; David F. Melcher, CEO and President of ITT Exelis; Mike Petters, President and CEO, Huntington Ingalls Industries; and Marion C. Blakey, President and CEO, Aerospace Industries Association.
The focus of the conversation was the potential devastating impacts of the sequester going into effect as a number of the participants noted the notion that allowing the sequester to take effect would someone have limited effect or would be reversible, that notion was disputed heavily in the meeting. For some of these major companies, the impacts would be long lasting, as they would have to make decisions about programmatic changes they would make and therefore contractual changes. A company like Northrop Grumman, I believe, would have, for example, something like 20,000 small businesses in their pipeline that would be severely affected by implementation of the sequester.
And a lot of these companies, while they are defense contractors, also have a significant civilian side business operations that would be negatively affected by the impacts on their R&D budgets, for example.
So this is a very serious matter. I would also note that the participants did not support proposals thrown out there that we could somehow address only the defense spending side of the sequester, take care of that, but let the nondefense cuts kick in, across-the board cuts, or double up on the nondefense across-the-board cuts, because these companies depend for their workforces of their future on investments in education and in STEM education in particular, and in other areas of investment that this government makes to help build the foundation for our future economy. So it was a very good meeting and about a very important topic.
And with that, I go to the Associated Press.
Q Thank you. Does the White House have any response to the Boy Scouts delaying their decision on allowing gay members and leaders?
MR. CARNEY: We have no response. I don’t have a response to their process. You know that the President believes the Boy Scouts is a valuable organization that has helped educate and build character in American boys for more than a century. He also, as you know, opposes discrimination in all forms, and as such believes, as he said just on Sunday, that gay Americans ought to be able to participate in the Boy Scouts. …read more
Source: FULL ARTICLE at The White House Press Office
Friday’s jobs report shows the U.S. economy is improving, but Congress needs to act on policies that promote growth and avoid deep cuts slated to take effect next month, said Alan Krueger, a White House economist.
Source: FULL ARTICLE at Fox Business Headlines
WASHINGTON (OfficialWire) — The White House says Superstorm Sandy is partially to blame for the unexpected contraction of the U.S. economy.
Top White House economist Alan Krueger says the storm, which battered the East Coast, disrupted economic activity and destroyed $44 billion in fixed capital. Krueger also says federal defense spending shrank, in part because of uncertainty over automatic spending cuts that could have kicked in at the start of the year.