Edward Conard

Top Ten New York Times Bestselling Author

  • “A full-throated defense of economic dynamism.” - The Wall Street Journal
  • “…challenges misconceptions that distort our economic debates.” - Arthur Brooks, President of the American Enterprise Institute
  • “…a very valuable contribution.” - Larry Summers, former Secretary of the Treasury and director of the National Economic Council, president emeritus, Harvard University
  • “…a comprehensive explanation of the modern economy.” - Julian Robertson, Founder, Tiger Management
  • “…reminds us that inequality sends a signal of what society lacks most, in America’s case, entrepreneurship and risk taking.” - Lawrence Lindsey, CEO, The Lindsey Group, former Director of the National Economic Council
  • “Unintended Consequences is full of substance, it is one of the must-read books of the year, and once I finish it I will be giving it a second read through right away.” - Tyler Cowen, Professor, George Mason University
  • “…a must-read for serious students of economic policy.” - Glenn Hubbard, Dean, Columbia Business School, and former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers
  • “…a very valuable contribution.” - Larry Summers, former Secretary of the Treasury and director of the National Economic Council, president emeritus, Harvard University
  • “…reminds us that inequality sends a signal of what society lacks most, in America’s case, entrepreneurship and risk taking.” - Lawrence Lindsey, CEO, The Lindsey Group, former Director of the National Economic Council
  • “…a must-read for serious students of economic policy.” - Glenn Hubbard, Dean, Columbia Business School, and former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers
  • “Unintended Consequences should be read by anyone who takes for granted the superiority of progressive taxation and has not thought carefully about the trade-offs involved.” - The New Republic
  • “…challenges misconceptions that distort our economic debates.” - Arthur Brooks, President of the American Enterprise Institute
Upside of Inequality Oxford Unintended Consequences

Macro Roundup


Tuesday, May 12, 2020

AI Summary. U.S. exports of intellectual-property-related services, which include research and development, have not grown significantly since the 1990s, while offshore profits of U.S. firms booked in tax havens have risen rapidly. Reported software exports run about $30bn a year, a quarter of it to Ireland, reflecting corporate tax avoidance.

Brad Setser Council on Foreign Relations
Date Posted:
Is Database:
Database

IP export stagnation reveals trade paradox: Tech-driven US shows flat IP service growth since 1990s. Software exports only $30bn/yr, 25% to Ireland, suggesting tax strategy over trade gains. @BradStester

Do tax havens explain why U.S. IP service exports stagnated?

Core argument: U.S. exports of IP-related services, a category broad enough to include R&D exports, have not grown significantly since the 1990s, despite the U.S. being a service-driven economy with tech hubs in San Francisco and Seattle.

Despite the U.S. being a service-driven economy with major tech hubs like San Francisco and Seattle, exports of IP [Intellectual Property] related services have not grown significantly since the 1990s. This stagnation is surprising given the broad definition of IP services, which includes R&D exports. Reported trade data shows software exports at $30bn annually, with a quarter going to Ireland, highlighting corporate tax avoidance. The lack of growth in IP service exports contrasts with the rapid increase in offshore profits of U.S. firms, often booked in tax havens. This trend underscores that globalization's benefits have largely accrued to IP owners rather than through increased exports of advanced goods. The persistent trade deficit in manufacturing, exacerbated by the dollar's strength post-2014, further illustrates the limited impact of globalization on U.S. export growth, challenging the narrative that trade would bolster U.S. manufacturing and IP service sectors.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. U.S. exports of IP-related services, a category broad enough to include R&D exports, have not grown significantly since the 1990s, despite the U.S. being a service-driven economy with tech hubs in San Francisco and Seattle.
  2. Reported U.S. software exports total $30bn annually, with a quarter going to Ireland, a pattern attributed to corporate tax avoidance.
  3. Stagnant IP service exports alongside rapidly rising offshore profits of U.S. firms booked in tax havens suggest globalization's benefits accrued largely to IP owners rather than to exports of advanced goods, with the manufacturing trade deficit persisting as the dollar strengthened after 2014.

Brad Setser, "Five Points about U.S. Trade Over the Last Thirty Years," Council On Foreign Relations, May 8, 2020, https://www.cfr.org/blog/five-points-about-us-trade-over-last-thirty-years

Five Points about U.S. Trade Over the Last Thirty Years

1. Globalization hasn’t meant increased demand for U.S. exports of manufactures over time…

Exports of manufactures (using the SITC data from chemicals through miscellaneous manufactures) are no higher, as a share of U.S. GDP, than they were in the 1990s…

In fact, exports of manufactures are now, after the dollar's 2014 appreciation, about a percentage point of GDP below their average level in the 1990s.

Five Points about U.S. Trade Over the Last Thirty Years: Extended Excerpt Image 1


Back when I first learned about trade, the usual story around gains from trade was that trade would allow the United States to specialize in advanced manufacturing, and trade its knowledge intensive goods for imported goods from the rest of the world. That isn’t the story that has played out in the data.

If trade with NAFTA is set aside, the broadest possible definition of U.S. manufacturing exports—using the NAICS data here, which includes a lot of food processing*—puts exports beyond North America at less than 4 percent of U.S. GDP. Around a sixth of those exports are civil aircraft, aircraft engines, and aircraft parts—and thus are in a sector that is particularly exposed to the corona virus shock.

Five Points about U.S. Trade Over the Last Thirty Years: Extended Excerpt Image 2


For better or for worse (I would say mostly for worse), manufactured exports are a sufficiently small share of the U.S. economy that they really would have trouble driving a U.S. recovery.

The United States’ limited extra-regional exports are also not just a function of the United States’ large size—European (EA) exports to the United States and China are now almost three times bigger than U.S. exports to Europe (EU) and China (as a share of each region's GDP). Back in 2009 and 2010, the Obama Administration liked to talk about how the U.S. recovery from the global financial crisis would be led by exports and investment.

But it turned out that Europe’s recovery was the one that was led by exports…

Five Points about U.S. Trade Over the Last Thirty Years: Extended Excerpt Image 3


China's exports have come down relative to the size of its economy after the global financial crisis. But exports to the United States were about 4 percent of Chinese GDP before the trade war, and exports to Europe were around 3 percent of China's GDP. So exports to these two big markets alone exceed total U.S. manufacturing exports to the world.

2. U.S. exports of IP related services haven’t grown all that fast since the 1990s

This one surprises people. The U.S. is a service driven economy after all. And San Francisco and Seattle are home to a lot of very profitable technology companies (I used a broad definition of IP related services as well, one that includes business services to capture R&D exports).

Five Points about U.S. Trade Over the Last Thirty Years: Extended Excerpt Image 4


This stylized fact also surprised me to be honest. Following the money led me into the world of corporate tax avoidance. $30 billion a year in software exports does seem to be too low, but that is what is in the reported trade data. And yes, a quarter of those exports do go to Ireland. Go figure.

I wish a tax knock-down of Apple (showing the huge share of the profit that ends up in Ireland) was as widely known as the supply chain knock down that purports to show that only a small fraction of the manufactured value-add in an iPhone comes from China (that study is out of date by the way even if the fact checkers at large newspaper haven't noticed—China now accounts for about a quarter of the manufacturing value add).

3. The dollar’s strength from 2000 to 2003 really hurt the U.S. economy—having a currency that rallies in a recession isn’t necessarily a good thing.

Strong demand growth often pulls in imports and leads to an increase in the trade deficit.

Five Points about U.S. Trade Over the Last Thirty Years: Extended Excerpt Image 5


That’s what happened in the late 1990s for example. With demand growth then really strong, there was ample demand for U.S. made goods even with rising imports.

Five Points about U.S. Trade Over the Last Thirty Years: Extended Excerpt Image 6


This correlation (the red line in the chart above is net goods exports and it usually moves in the opposite direction of the dotted blue domestic goods demand line; the strong blue line is a rough measure of domestic demand for U.S. goods**) leads some to argue that a rising trade deficit is generally a sign of economic strength.

But rising imports aren’t always a sign of strong demand and a booming economy.

Five Points about U.S. Trade Over the Last Thirty Years: Extended Excerpt Image 7


Take the period of after the dot-com crash. The trade deficit rose over this period, even when the United States economy was in the doldrums.

For example, the dollar’s strength from 2000 to 2003 weighed on exports and pulled in imports. In the period immediately after the dot-com crash imports of goods (the redline below) were almost as strong as they were during the dot-com boom even though U.S. goods demand was much weaker. That meant that U.S. production bore the brunt of the fall in demand for goods.

Five Points about U.S. Trade Over the Last Thirty Years: Extended Excerpt Image 8


The rise in the real trade deficit in this period contributed to the jobless recovery. Goods demand rose by an average of a percentage point a year over these four years (4 percentage points cumulatively) and approximately 50 percent of that demand went to imports. That hurt, particularly as the large share of demand flowing to imports came at a time when exports weren’t growing.

Net goods trade subtracted an average of a half a percentage point from U.S. growth between 2001 and 2004—with most of the cumulative two percentage point drag coming in 2002 (the strong dollar effect) and in 2004 (likely the China shock).

In fact, goods trade was a drag on the U.S. economy in two of the last four slowdowns in domestic manufacturing demand. Goods imports didn’t fall that much when demand fell during the dot-com recession and the rise in imports then weighed on the subsequent recovery. Falling exports added to the impact of the oil investment crash in 2014 and 2015 and thus contributed to the mini recession in manufacturing.

4. Those who argue that imports from China simply displaced imports from the rest of Asia haven’t spent enough time playing with the detailed U.S. trade data.

Between the end of 2002 and the end of 2006 (the “China shock” period) imports of all manufactured goods rose by about a percentage point of U.S. GDP.

Five Points about U.S. Trade Over the Last Thirty Years: Extended Excerpt Image 9


The argument that China just displaced goods imports from the rest of Asia rests to a degree on a data trick—comparing imports in 2000 (well before China actually entered in the WTO, and at the peak of the dot-com boom) to imports in 2004. The 2002 to 2006 comparison is I think the much more relevant one

The China shock documented by David Autor and his co-authors was real. It also was about a percentage point of GDP, not more.

Five Points about U.S. Trade Over the Last Thirty Years: Extended Excerpt Image 10


And to be clear, the China shock was much smaller than the shock from the global financial crisis—let alone the current corona virus shock.

5. The big U.S. gains from globalization—setting aside the gains to consumers from lower goods prices, —have gone to those who own intellectual property that can be off-shored to a tax haven.

As I noted at the start, the past twenty-five years haven’t seen any growth in manufactured exports as a share of GDP. The same is broadly true for agricultural exports. The U.S. exports commodity crops like soybeans, wheat and corn. But the U.S. imports a lot of wine and spirits—and a lot of seafood—so overall trade in foods and feeds is pretty balanced. Nor has there been especially strong growth in exports of IP related services.

But there has been rapid growth in the offshore profits of U.S. firms—and the net income (offshore profits from U.S. firms vs. the U.S. profits of foreign firms)—over this period. And a large share of that income is now booked in global centers of corporate tax avoidance. Those who own the income streams from those offshore profits generally have done well (see Herman Mark Schwartz).

Yet the sum of offshore profits and the surplus in IP related services trade still falls short of covering the deficit in manufactures. That is especially the case after the dollar’s 2014-15 rise increased the size of the manufacturing deficit while reducing the dollar value of the profits U.S. firms earn abroad.

Five Points about U.S. Trade Over the Last Thirty Years: Extended Excerpt Image 11


The books balance, basically, because the U.S. exports debt to the world.

That is again clear in the data after the one-off impact of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act has faded (the repatriation of profits held offshore reduced U.S. foreign direct investment abroad and reduced foreign holdings of U.S. debt—this shows up clearly for example if you look at the U.S. balance of payments with Ireland).

Five Points about U.S. Trade Over the Last Thirty Years: Extended Excerpt Image 12


This fit here is remarkable in my view, as I have entirely left out commodities trade from the chart. U.S oil imports and exports now roughly balance, but the excess debt exports from 2005 to 2008 in the chart above were needed to cover the oil import bill at the time.

Assessments of the winners from globalization therefore need to include the owners of offshored intellectual property and the associated profits (easy enough) and those who benefit from large exports of bonds (a harder question).

All of the points above are somewhat controversial, though I believe all are also well grounded in the actual trade and balance of payments data. Persistent trade deficits do have distributional consequences (see Yakov Feygin and Dominik Leusder).

And the persistent deficit in manufacturing trade is to a degree a function of political choices both here and abroad—President Trump isn’t wrong about this, though his efforts to pin the entire deficit on bad trade deals have fallen short of the mark. His trade policy has at best offset the trade impact of his stimulus, and done so—to date—largely by driving down overall U.S. demand for manufactures rather than by raising U.S. production.

What U.S. policy choices then that have had the biggest impact on the trade balance over time? Two stand out in my view.

A de-industrial policy carried out through the tax code, which has long favored offshore manufacturing of high value-added components (especially in the pharmaceutical sector/hence the large goods trade deficit with Ireland). The “Ireland first” provisions of the tax code for example have contributed to the recent large rise in the trade deficit with Europe.

Five Points about U.S. Trade Over the Last Thirty Years: Extended Excerpt Image 13


And failing to take effective action—which would be a policy shift with costs of its own—against large scale currency intervention (see Bayoumi, Gagnon and Saborowski for quantification) and government policies that have pushed the assets of large national pension funds abroad. The United States has in practice adopted a laissez faire approach to currency intervention—the only designation for currency manipulation in the past twenty five years was a politically motivated designation of China at a time when it wasn’t actually behaving badly in the foreign currency market. Most countries have been free to intervene to hold their currencies down without any real countervailing pressure from the United States.

Obviously relative fiscal policy stances also matter—the United States has tended to make up for weakness in private demand with fiscal policy, while Europe, Korea, Taiwan and others have not. But with overall global demand weak, I find it hard to fault the United States for excessive deficits more than the balance of payments surplus countries for running persistent twin surpluses and relying on (weak) global demand to offset their fiscal tightness.

In any case, one central feature of America' experience with globalization over the last twenty five years is that it hasn't delivered, in aggregate, a positive shock to manufactured exports. The big gains haven't gone to workers in those sectors, but rather to the owners of profits that have been shifted to low tax jurisdictions. It is time, in my view, for a debate over the policies that contributed to these outcomes—policies that go well beyond standard trade policy.

* The SITC data is a bit too narrow, but it goes back a long ways. The NAICs data is better and more detailed, but my data series only starts in 2002. The NAICs data matches the definition of manufacturing used in the monthly trade release. I did not attempt to adjust for reexports though. And the NAICS definition of manufacturing actually captures a decent amount of agricultural exports, as, for example, most pork will be exported after slaughter and show up as a pork product (processing into chops and bacon is a substantial transformation) and exports of spirits are considered a manufactured good. I did adjust for refined petrol. These differences account for the differences in levels in the charts.

** I used the NIPA contributions series for real goods trade and real demand for goods. Drawing on the insight in Bussière, Callegari, Ghironi, Sestieri, and Yamano, I added business fixed investment to goods consumption to roughly approximate domestic demand for goods

"Globalization hasn’t meant increased demand for U.S. exports of manufactures over time…U.S. exports of IP related services haven’t grown all that fast since the 1990s... (I used a broad definition of IP related services as well, one that includes business services to capture R&D exports)….This stylized fact also surprised me to be honest. Following the money led me into the world of corporate tax avoidance. $30 billion a year in software exports does seem to be too low, but that is what is in the reported trade data. And yes, a quarter of those exports do go to Ireland. Go figure. I wish a tax knock-down of Apple (showing the huge share of the profit that ends up in Ireland) was as widely known as the supply chain knock down that purports to show that only a small fraction of the manufactured value-add in an iPhone comes from China (that study is out of date by the way even if the fact checkers at large newspaper haven't noticed—China now accounts for about a quarter of the manufacturing value add)….The dollar’s strength from 2000 to 2003 really hurt the U.S. economy—having a currency that rallies in a recession isn’t necessarily a good thing....Those who argue that imports from China simply displaced imports from the rest of Asia haven’t spent enough time playing with the detailed U.S. trade data....The big U.S. gains from globalization—setting aside the gains to consumers from lower goods prices, —have gone to those who own intellectual property that can be off-shored to a tax haven…”

+ what I found to be surprising fact that exports of IP related services haven’t really grown since the 1990s:

Great charts from Brad as he argues that too many of the gains to the US from globalization have turned up as offshore profits from us firms, and not from rising exports of technologically sophisticated goods.

Ed Comment:A couple thoughts 1) He’s not integrating the demand for dollar denominated debt enough into his analysis/narrative. So he says, The dollar’s strength from 2000 to 2003 really hurt the U.S. economy. But the dollar’s strength was surely a symptom of something left unsaid in his narrative, namely the demand for dollar denominated assets, namely debt. Similarly he is “amazed” by the fit between the manufacturing deficit and the export of debt, when the demand for dollar denominated assets is primary driver (the primary drive is probably the demand for domestic employment that fall short of full potential because of a surplus of savings, which is solved by exporting savings and employment. 2) this shortfall in his narrative shows up in his 4thpoint. The demand for dollar denominated assets comes primarily from China. So of course, if china’s trade surplus with the US declines, it won’t necessarily be picked up by the rest of Asia, who have a different demand for dollar denominated assets. But I don’t understand his graph. Similarly, he says: The rise in the real trade deficit in this period (early 2000s) contributed to the jobless recovery. Because our demand for savings wasn’t pulling in offshore saving, it took time for the US economy to figure out how to deploy the offshore savings, which were eventually recycled via subprime consumption. Offshore demand for dollar denominated assets and not trade on its own drove these dynamics. 3) I don’t think he fully understands offshore IP. It (partially) “returns” to the US as appreciated stock prices, (some of which ends up as appreciated real estate prices) which causes people to behave differently (e.g. take more risk). Economists just don’t seem able to wrap their heads around this other than to say there are wealth effects.

Brad Comment:“…right -- I took total exports and import (for manufactures) and then subtracted out canada and Mexico so the bottomlines basically showing balanced trade in manufacturing inside N America(US imports manufactures on net from mexico but exports on net to Canada)…”

Steve Comment:Re: “U.S. Manufacturing Trade as a Share of U.S. GDP?” I didn’t understand that either and pinged him, he had mislabeled the lines, the bottom two lines are “manufactured imports and exports for the NAFTA countries”

Ed Comment:Add that to the note. What I didn’t understand was how the graph after his 4thpoint made his 4thpoint: that the rest of Asia doesn’t fully substitute for Chinese exports to the US when China slows exports. You would think he would show a graph of Chinese exports to the US compared to not-Chinese exports to the US. Or even better. Chinese surplus exports vs not-Chinese surplus exports. Or even better, Chinese surplus exports vs not-Chinese other Asian surplus exports. What he does show on two different graphs with 2 different scales and two slightly different time lines is that Chinese exports to the US started declining in early 2019 from 2.5% of US GDP to 2% and, if you squint and look at a different graph, that US imports decline from 7.5 to 7%. attached. include this verbiage and graph in the entry.

AI Summary. The authors estimate that about 75% of the rise in earnings inequality between firms comes from widening inequality across detailed industries, driven mainly by earnings differences between industries rather than shifts in where people work. Occupation effects account for nearly all of that widening, with managerial, professional, and technical roles showing the sharpest increases.

John Haltiwanger Institute of Labor Economics
Date Posted:
Is Database:
Database

75% of rising btw-firm inequality is from rising inequality at industry level, primarily driven by inter-industry earnings differentials.

What drives most of the rise in between-firm earnings inequality?

Core argument: About 75% of the rise in between-firm earnings inequality is attributed to rising inequality across detailed 4-digit NAICS industries, driven primarily by inter-industry earnings differentials rather than shifts in employment distribution across industries.

Approximately 75% of the increase in between-firm inequality is attributed to rising inequality across detailed 4-digit NAICS [North American Industry Classification System] industries, primarily driven by inter-industry earnings differentials rather than shifts in employment distribution. Occupation effects account for nearly all of the rise in these differentials, with 66% due to changing occupation mix across industries and 27% due to existing occupation mix differentials. Managerial, professional, and technical roles have seen the sharpest rise in earnings differentials, while production and sales lag behind. The task-based framework highlights how technology and globalization impact firms differently, with a dominant effect at the industry level. This underscores the need for further research into the evolving role of occupations across industries.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. About 75% of the rise in between-firm earnings inequality is attributed to rising inequality across detailed 4-digit NAICS industries, driven primarily by inter-industry earnings differentials rather than shifts in employment distribution across industries.
  2. Occupation effects account for nearly all of the rise in inter-industry earnings differentials, with 66% due to changing occupation mix across industries and 27% due to existing occupation mix differentials.
  3. Managerial, professional, and technical roles show the sharpest rise in earnings differentials, while production and sales roles lag, under a task-based framework in which technology and globalization affect firms differently.

New Haltiwanger finds structural changes at industry level help explain rising earnings inequality:

“….We provide evidence thatmost (about 75%) of the rising between firm inequality is from rising inequality across detailed 4-digit NAICS industries. Most of this rise in inequality across industries is due to rising inter-industry earnings differentials and not due to changing distribution of employment across industries. We also find that the rising inter-industry earnings differentials are almost completely accounted for by occupation effects. For the raw rise in rising inter-industry earnings differentials, we find that about 92% of the increase is accounted for by occupation effects. About 66% of this is due to changing occupation mix across industries and 27% due to changing occupation mix differentials given the existing differences in the occupation mix across industries…. Consistent with their findings, we find that the occupations with the sharpest rise in earnings differentials that differ by industry are managerial, professional and technical with occupations like production and sales being left far behind.Our contribution is to integrate the changing role of occupations with the rise in between firm and in turn between industry inequality. Our findings show that the changing demand for tasks as evidenced in the changing occupational mix and occupational differentials is closely linked to between firm and between industry inequality....Specifically, we find that the rise in between firm inequality is dominated by a rise in between industry inequality. We find the latter is dominated by rising inter-industry earnings differentials with a more modest role for the changing distribution of employment across industries. In turn, we find that virtually all of the rising inter-industry earnings differentials is accounted for by occupation effects. This includes both changing mix of occupations within and across industries and rising occupation differentials. We find, after controlling for the mix of workers in terms of age, gender, and education (as well as other controls), that the occupations with especially sharp increases in earnings differentials that differ across industries are managerial, business and financial, sciences, legal, and healthcare, with occupations like protective services, sales, and construction being left behind. The increase in the management occupation differential across industries is especially striking…. Put differently, this task based framework helps motivate why changes in inequality associated with the changing role of occupations is linked to the changing role of firms in inequality. Driving forces such as technology and globalization that induce changing demand for occupations impact firms differentially. In principle, this differential impact could be between firms or between industries. Our findings suggest there is a dominant role for the between industry impact. An important direction for future research is to explore the changing role of occupations across industries...."

Between Firm Changes in Earnings Inequality: The Dominant Role of Industry Effects: Extended Excerpt Image 1


John Haltiwanger and James Spletzer, "Between Firm Changes in Earnings Inequality: The Dominant Role of Industry Effects," Institute of Labor Economics, February 2020, https://www.iza.org/publications/dp/12990/between-firm-changes-in-earnings-inequality-the-dominant-role-of-industry-effects

Wednesday, May 13, 2020

AI Summary. Sticker tuition at public universities has more than doubled since the mid-1990s, but financial aid rose almost as much, leaving average net tuition for low- and middle-income students up by less than $600 over two decades. The analysis attributes affordability pressures to living expenses that aid has not fully covered.

Jason Delisle American Enterprise Institute
Date Posted:
Is Database:
Database

Financial aid has largely offset the rise in sticker prices of colleges, but hasn’t kept pace with the rise in non-tuition costs. @JasonDelisle

Has financial aid offset rising public university tuition for lower-income students?

Core argument: Average net tuition prices for low- and middle-income students at public universities rose by less than $600 between 1995–96 and 2015–16, as increases in financial aid nearly offset sticker prices that more than doubled since the mid-1990s.

Analysis reveals that claims of sharply rising tuition prices at public universities are exaggerated. While sticker prices have more than doubled since the mid-1990s, financial aid has increased almost as much, nearly offsetting these rises. For low- and middle-income students, average net tuition prices rose by less than $600 between 1995-96 and 2015-16. The real affordability issue stems from rising living expenses, which financial aid has not fully covered. Despite this, financial aid has kept net tuition prices nearly constant for targeted students. The cost of providing education is rising faster than inflation, with federal and state governments bearing these costs rather than students.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. Average net tuition prices for low- and middle-income students at public universities rose by less than $600 between 1995–96 and 2015–16, as increases in financial aid nearly offset sticker prices that more than doubled since the mid-1990s.
  2. The analysis attributes the affordability problem at public universities to rising living expenses that financial aid has not fully covered, rather than to tuition prices, which aid has held nearly constant for targeted students.
  3. The cost of providing higher education is rising faster than inflation, with federal and state governments rather than students bearing those costs, according to the analysis.

AEI finds the college cost shift to students isn't found in the data. IE that after student aide there hasn't been that much of an increase in the tuition prices that student pay to attend public universities (See Figure 1 and 2) There has been an increase in other living expenses (See Figure 5 and 6) This analysis is limited to low and middle income students

“…The findings in this report show that popular claims about sharply rising tuition prices at public universities are greatly exaggerated. While sticker prices have indeed increased markedly since the mid-1990s (they have more than doubled),financial aid has increased by almost as much—enough to nearly offset the rise in sticker prices.And net tuition prices at these institutions are a fraction of the $10,000 sticker prices prominent free-college advocates frequently cite.....Among low- and middle-income students, average net tuition prices increased less than $600 between the 1995-96 and 2015-16 academic years....The findings also suggest that rising living expenses, not tuition prices, are to blame for major changes in affordability at public universities, a topic that deserves more attention in debates about college affordability.... Financial aid has also increased to cover more of these students’ living expenses, but not enough to fully offset rapidly rising non-tuition costs…Existing financial aid policies have successfully held average net tuition prices at public universities nearly constant between the 1995-96 and 2015-16 academic years for the students whom free-college policies typically target. The increase in financial aid has even been enough to cover more of a student’s living expenses than during the mid-1990s. These findings do not, however, contradict other concerns about the cost of a four-year degree at public universities. The data confirm that the cost of providing these educations are rising at rates that greatly exceed inflation, assuming that sticker prices generally reflect the educational costs that universities incur. While students have not had to pay these rising costs, other entities have, mainly the federal government and state governments to a lesser extent….”

Evidence Against the Free-College Agenda: An Analysis of Prices, Financial Aid, and Affordability at Public Universities: Extended Excerpt Image 1


Jason Delisle, "Evidence Against the Free-College Agenda: An Analysis of Prices, Financial Aid, and Affordability at Public Universities," American Enterprise Institute, May 2020, https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Evidence-Against-the-Free-College-Agenda.pdf

(Steve Comment: I suspect most of the debate about college affordability is driven by household with income >125,000 smart kids chasing elite schools who this doesn’t cover) And as the report points out other entities are covering those financial aid costs.