Monday, August 29, 2011

Former Bank of America employee sentenced in mortgage fraud scheme

BirotteLATalseib 
A North Hollywood man has been sentenced to 15 months in federal prison for his role in a scheme that used stolen identities to “purchase” homes that were not for sale, according to the U.S. attorney's office in L.A.

Federal authorities said Venedie Roberto Valencia, 27, worked at Bank of America at the time of the offense. In a guilty plea, Valencia admitted that he forged a document related to nonexistent bank accounts, prosecutors said.

In addition to the prison sentence, U.S. District Judge Dale S. Fischer in Los Angeles ordered Valencia to pay $51,688 in restitution, said a statement issued by Thom Mrozek, a spokesman for the U.S attorney's office in Los Angeles.

Two co-conspirators were previously convicted, the statement said. Felix Pichardo, 29, a licensed real estate agent from Lancaster, was sentenced to eight years in federal prison in 2009. Latrice Shaunte Borders, 31, of Long Beach, was sentenced to two years in federal prison in 2010.

According to court documents, Pichardo used false identities on loan applications to obtain mortgages on real estate that was not for sale.

RELATED:

California creating mortgage fraud task force

An old mortgage scam aims to hijack a payment or two

U.S. sues Deutsche Bank over mortgage fraud

-- E. Scott Reckard

Photo: U.S. Atty. André Birotte Jr. of Los Angeles. Credit: Los Angeles Times / Al Seib

 

Pending home sales fall in July

PreviouslyOwnedHomes

The number of purchase contracts signed on previously owned houses declined in July, according to industry data, the latest sign the nation's housing market remains troubled.

The National Assn. of Realtors’ pending home sales index fell to 89.7 last month. That was a 1.3% decline from June, but 14.4% above the July 2010 level.

Contracts are a leading indicator for home sales and most deals close within months of a contract being signed. A level of 100 on the home sale index is equal to the average monthly activity during 2001, which the real estate group considers a historically healthy level.

The nation's housing market has been weak since the expiration of tax credits for buyers in April 2010. This year has been marked by a renewed housing decline with potential buyers concerned over the future of the economy.

Even with the sluggish contract number, the industry group warned that actual sales might even be lower. In particular, short sales -- in which a bank allows a borrower to sell a home for less than what is owed on the property -– take much longer than regular sales and often fall apart easily.

The group blamed the home sale sluggishness partly on the difficulties that less-than-stellar borrowers have getting mortgages.

RELATED ITEMS:

A silent spring for housing

Historic day for interest rates: 10-year Treasury yield falls below 2%

Mortgage rates fall to lowest level in Freddie Mac survey's history

-- Alejandro Lazo

Twitter: @AlejandroLazo

Photo: Tract homes in Corona. Credit: Konrad Fiedler / Bloomberg

Does fantasy football affect workplace productivity?

New Orleans Saints Football teams are gearing up for the start of the season, as are more than 21 million U.S. workers in fantasy sports leagues. But bosses shouldn’t be alarmed, according to one employment consultancy.

Employees may spend as much as nine hours a week perfecting their fantasy drafts before the National Football League kickoff on Sept. 8, said Challenger, Gray & Christmas Inc. The impact on workplace productivity, however, will be minimal, the firm said.

Challenger actually suggests that employers encourage company leagues to boost morale and output, claiming that “in the long run, this may lead to increased employee retention.” Other research has found that fantasy sports boost camaraderie among employees and networking.

More than 70 million free and paid leagues operate in the U.S. and Canada, with the average player belonging to more than two, according to the Fantasy Sports Trade Assn. Membership has spiked 60% in the past four years to 32 million players – with 80% of them involved in football.

And of all full-time workers in the U.S., 19% are fantasy sports players.

A Challenger survey last year found that most fantasy participants didn’t find playing in a league to be very distracting. On a scale of one to 10, where one represented no influence on productivity, nearly 70% of players chose four or below.

RELATED:

Best study ever: Wasting time online boosts worker productivity

Is meanness a moneymaker? Nice guys are paid less, study finds

-- Tiffany Hsu

Photo: New Orleans Saints running back Mark Ingram (28) is tripped up by Oakland Raiders cornerback Walter McFadden (22). The Saints will play the Green Bay Packers during the regular season kickoff on Sept. 8. Credit: Cary Edmondson / US Presswire

Immigrant women share family recipes at cooking school start-up

Spring There’s no shortage of cooking schools in California, but there aren’t many like Silicon Valley-based Culture Kitchen, which is focused solely on ethnic food and taught by immigrant women.

The Mountain View culinary start-up, which claims to “use food as a means for cultural exchange,” was founded by Stanford graduate design students Abby Sturges and Jennifer Lopez. The women were inspired by their research trips abroad to Myanmar and Kenya, according to Fast Company.

Courses, taught at venues such as Whole Foods, cost between $40 and $60 and involve recipes passed down through generations.

An upcoming class offers a gastronomic tour of Vietnam, involving rice crepes from the northern part of the country, coconut and turmeric pancakes from the central area and spring rolls from the southern portion. The instructor, Linh, hails from Saigon and is a pastry chef by day and credits an “army of aunts” for her cooking skills.

Other chefs were born in Colombia, Mexico, Thailand, Nicaragua and the Ukraine.

RELATED:

Biden's 'noodle diplomacy' a boon for Beijing restaurant

Mayan group's logo too much like Toucan Sam, Kellogg's squawks

Owner of Daikokuya ramen restaurant pays $145,000 in overtime back wages

-- Tiffany Hsu

Photo:  Vietnamese wraps are the sort of foods taught by Culture Kitchen. Credit: Los Angeles Times.

Stocks rally as consumers spend freely

  NYSE3-AP

 

 

 

 

 

 

The stock market is rallying today thanks to U.S. consumers.

The Dow Jones industrial average rose more than 200 points as better-than-expected consumer spending raised hopes that the U.S. economy isn’t about to slide into a new recession.

The market also got an unintended boost as Hurricane Irene proved less damaging that initially feared, pushing up the stocks of insurance companies that will have to foot part of the bill for cleanup and rebuilding. Hartford Financial Services Group Inc. jumped 12.2% and Genworth Financial Inc. rose 7.2%

Investors were buoyed by Commerce Department data showing consumer spending rising 0.8% in July, the biggest jump since February. With personal income increasing 0.3%, the data indicated that consumers cut into their savings to fund their purchases.

Overseas stocks rallied as the announced merger of two Greek banks raised prospects that consolidation can help the country’s battered financial system weather the European debt crisis.

As of 11:59 a.m. PST, the Dow was up 227.69 points, or 2%, to 11,512.23.

The gain helped bring the Dow within 1% of break-even for the year. The Standard & Poor’s 500 index and the Nasdaq composite index each are down about 4% for the year.

But trading volume is very light today. Some people on the East Coast had difficulty getting to work, and activity normally is thin the week before Labor Day.

RELATED:

Autos, electricity push consumer spending to 5-month high in July

Stock markets expect to open on time Monday

Corporate profits increase as GDP remains sluggish

-- Walter Hamilton

Photo credit: Associated Press

How big is your bank? Chase, Bank of America duel for No. 1 slot

DimonbustourAug2011GaryFriedman 
SNL Financial has compiled a list of the 50 biggest U.S. banks at the end of the second quarter, which shows Bank of America Corp. barely edging out JPMorgan Chase & Co. as the No. 1 U.S. financial institution as measured by assets.

Assets are the loans, securities and other holdings that are supposed to make money for banks -- a category that unfortunately for the banks and the economy has included an awful lot of toxic money-losers these past few years.

As of June 30, BofA had a little more than $2.25 trillion in assets and Chase just under $2.25 trillion, SNL Financial said in a news release Monday. Citigroup Inc. was third with $1.96 trillion. Wells Fargo & Co., the only California-based company near the top, was in fourth with $1.26 trillion.

Chase led in deposits, however, with $1.05 trillion to BofA's $1.04 trillion.

Other California banks on the list included UnionBanCal Corp., a subsidiary of Japan's Mitsubushi UFJ Financial Group Inc., in 22nd place with $80.1 billion in assets; and BancWest Corp., owned by France's BNP Paribas, in 24th place with $74.3 billion in assets. Like Wells, the parents of Union Bank and Bank of the West are based in San Francisco.

Southern California institutions, well down in not-too-big-to-fail territory, include No. 38 OneWest Bank (Pasadena, $26.4 billion in assets); No. 43 City National Corp. (Los Angeles, $22.5 billion in assets); and No. 45 East West Bancorp (Pasadena, $21.9 billion in assets).

Northern California's First Republic Bank (No. 42, $23.8 billion in assets) and Silicon Valley Bank parent SVB Financial Group (No. 50, $19.4 billion in assets) popped up on the list as well.

RELATED

Chase exec tours with pep rally to dispel financial fears

Bank chiefs seek to reassure investors

Federal Reserve aided all types of California banks during financial crisis

--E. Scott Reckard

Photo: JPMorgan Chase Chairman Jamie Dimon, right, during recent West Coast bus tour, presides over a bank that is No. 1 in deposits and No. 2 in assets. Credit: Los Angeles Times / Gary Friedman

 

BofA to cut stake in Chinese bank to raise capital

Bank of America in Shanghai
 
Pushing ahead with its plan to raise capital, Bank of America Corp. has agreed to sell half of its investment in a Chinese bank for $8.3 billion in cash.

The sale of 13.1 billion shares to a group of private investors would cut Bank of America's stake in China Construction Bank to 5% from 10% and raise $3.3 billion after taxes, the bank said Monday. Despite the sale, BofA Chief Executive Brian Moynihan said the companies are discussing an expansion of their "mutually beneficial" strategic ties.

New U.S. and international regulations are pressuring banks to increase their capital cushions against losses. Critics contend that Bank of America needs more than other big banks because its exposure to mortgage losses is so high as a result of its purchase of high-risk lender Countrywide Financial Corp. in 2008. 

Moynihan has maintained that the bank can cover its needs by selling non-core assets, cutting costs and retaining earnings. Finance Chief Bruce Thompson said Monday that BofA raised about $5.8 billion in August.

Despite the assurances, Wall Street had been hammering Bank of America until investor Warren Buffett came to the rescue. BofA, a $50 stock for much of 2007, had tumbled to $6.30 last week before Buffett announced that his Berkshire Hathaway would invest $5 billion in the bank.

Bank of America stock closed last week at $7.76 a share, and rose another 47 cents, or 6%, to $8.23 in Monday afternoon trading in New York.

RELATED:

Moynihan: Bank of America turning corner on Countrywide woes

Doubts drag down Bank of America's stock

Warren Buffett tosses Bank of America a $5-billion lifeline

-- E. Scott Reckard

Photo: A Bank of America branch in Shanghai, China. Credit: Aly Song / Reuters

 

Do fantasy sports affect workplace productivity?

New Orleans Saints Football teams are gearing up for the start of the season, as are more than 21 million U.S. workers in fantasy sports leagues. But bosses shouldn’t be alarmed, according to one employment consultancy.

Employees may spend as much as nine hours a week perfecting their fantasy drafts before the National Football League kickoff on Sept. 8, said Challenger, Gray & Christmas Inc. The impact on workplace productivity, however, will be minimal, the firm said.

Challenger actually suggests that employers encourage company leagues to boost morale and output, claiming that “in the long run, this may lead to increased employee retention.” Other research has found that fantasy sports boost camaraderie among employees and networking.

More than 70 million free and paid leagues operate in the U.S. and Canada, with the average player belonging to more than two, according to the Fantasy Sports Trade Assn. Membership has spiked 60% in the past four years to 32 million players – with 80% of them involved in football.

And of all full-time workers in the U.S., 19% are fantasy sports players.

A Challenger survey last year found that most fantasy participants didn’t find playing in a league to be very distracting. On a scale of one to 10, where one represented no influence on productivity, nearly 70% of players chose four or below.

RELATED:

Best study ever: Wasting time online boosts worker productivity

Is meanness a moneymaker? Nice guys are paid less, study finds

-- Tiffany Hsu

Photo: New Orleans Saints running back Mark Ingram (28) is tripped up by Oakland Raiders cornerback Walter McFadden (22). The Saints will play the Green Bay Packers during the regular season kickoff on Sept. 8. Credit: Cary Edmondson / US Presswire

Fewer Southern Californians will travel for Labor Day

Laborday

About 2.32 million Southern Californians will travel for the Labor Day weekend, a 2.6% drop from last year, according to the latest data from the Auto Club of Southern California.

Vacationers who plan to fly, take a train, a bus, a motor home or a cruise ship will drop the most, while the number of Southern Californians who will drive will increase to 1.89 million compared to1.88 million who traveled by car last year.

Gas prices will be higher this holiday weekend than during any other Labor Day weekend except 2008, when Southland travelers were paying $3.80 to $3.90 a gallon on average. Current gas prices are just a few cents below that record level for Labor Day.

 

 

Nordstrom announces free online shipping and returns

Nordstrom

Nordstrom is giving shoppers something to cheer about: Starting Monday, the upscale department store chain will begin offering free shipping and returns for all purchases made online.

Previously, the Seattle company offered free shipping for online purchases of $200 or more, or through promotional offers. The new free shipping policy applies to Nordstrom.com orders shipped within the U.S.

"Free shipping is reflective of how customers increasingly want to shop online and we hope this change makes it easier and more convenient to shop with us," said Jamie Nordstrom, president of Nordstrom Direct.

Like many retailers, Nordstrom has been improving its online experience as more consumers turn to their computers and smartphones to shop. Other improvements the chain has made recently include an enhanced mobile website launched in June; a "search by store" function on Nordstrom.com to allow customers to view available merchandise at nearby Nordstrom stores in real time; and shared inventory between the company's stores and its website.

The cost of shipping is seen by many shoppers and retail analysts as one of the biggest drawbacks of shopping online (along with not being able to see the product in person and having to wait a few days for your purchase to arrive). Just a handful of big-name retailers offer no-strings-attached free shipping, including online shoe website Zappos.com; online giant Amazon.com offers free shipping on orders of $25 or more. 

RELATED:

Amazon gathering anti-tax-law signatures outside retail stores

Retail chains are embracing their online stores

-- Andrea Chang

Photo: Nordstrom at Westfield Topanga in Canoga Park. Credit: Associated Press

Consumer Confidential: Spending, Banana Republic, Apple TV

Gap Inc. store
Here's your hey-Mickey Monday roundup of consumer news from around the Web:

--We're shopping. Maybe not a whole lot, but we are shopping. Consumer spending rebounded in July as people bought more cars and other long-lasting items. Spending was up 0.8% over the month, the strongest increase in five months, following a revised 0.1% fall in June, according to the Commerce Department. July's boost was stronger than the 0.5% rise economists had expected. Adjusted for inflation, spending rose 0.5%. Consumption is a critical driver of U.S. economic growth, accounting for about two-thirds of gross domestic product, so July's rebound strikes a positive note for the beleaguered recovery -- that is, if we keep shopping through the second half of the year.

--How do you say "Banana Republic" in French? Gap Inc. plans to open its first Banana Republic store in France in early December. The clothing company, whose other brands include Old Navy and its namesake, says the store will be in Paris on the chic Avenue des Champs Elysees. Gap says the store is part of its international growth strategy. "With loyal customers across Europe, both in our stores and online, we are confident that Banana Republic's proposition of affordable luxury will resonate well with Parisian customers," said Stephen Sunnucks, president of Gap's international division. Last week, Gap also announced that it plans to open stores in Vietnam and Guam. Do they wear khakis in Guam?

--Is there an Apple TV in your future? The website VentureBeat reports that "Apple is almost certainly working on a digital television based on its iOS operating system, according to multiple sources in Silicon Valley." An Apple TV would allow people to do many things with their televisions they can't do now. The most important of these would probably be the ability to run Apple apps. This would permit consumers to download applications from Apple's store, which has hundreds of thousands of products. The Apple TV would allow people to switch from Facebook to Google to their calendars all on one device in the living room. The big question for me: Will you have to touch the screen to change channels?

-- David Lazarus

Photo: Gap Inc. says it will open a Banana Republic store in Paris. Credit: Jae C. Hong / Associated Press

No, Mme Lagarde – forced recapitalisation would be exactly the wrong policy


Christine Lagarde (Photo: Reuters)

Christine Lagarde (Photo: Reuters)


IMF chief Christine Lagarde has said that many European banks need “urgent recapitalisation” and a “mandatory substantial recapitalisation” would be the “most efficient solution”. This is wrong.


Banks are subject to regulatory capital requirements. That is to say, they are required to hold a certain amount of capital as a buffer so they can absorb losses if there are bad debts. There are three kinds of reasons for this.


The best reason is that, under some circumstances intrinsic to the nature of banking, a bank may face temporary liquidity problems and need to borrow money from the central bank (e.g. the ECB) on a “lender-of-last-resort” basis. The central bank will only want to provide such liquidity if the bank is a worthy recipient. Part of being a worthy recipient is that the bank concerned will be able to pay back the money. So the central bank should oversee the banks that it might provide last resort lending to ensure that they hold adequate capital.


The second reason is that individual depositors and shareholders in banks may be small, and not well-placed to monitor and discipline the activities of a large bank. Instead, they have incentives to free-ride on the monitoring of others. To get around this, the regulator acts as a “representative” of the depositors and small shareholders, monitoring the bank on their collective behalf, trying to ensure it has adequate capital (inter alia).


The third, and much weaker, reason for capital requirements is to try to avoid a financial crisis when a bank goes bust, which could lead to spillover effects on other financial institutions and perhaps the wider economy. There is thus perceived as being a social interest in capital being adequate that goes beyond the banks’ own interests – so banks may be required to hold more capital than they would, left to themselves, choose to do.


Let us consider Mme Lagarde’s proposal in the light of these three criteria. First, we should observe that capital requirements are determined at levels that reflect a current state of the market (number of players, size, etc) and aim to avoid a crisis arising. Once we are actually in a crisis they don’t apply in the same way. For example, once we are actually in a crisis the optimal future shape of the sector (number of players, size, etc) is likely to be different. Insisting on capital requirements that reflect the old shape is an exercise in denial. If a number of firms were to go bust, for example, then the share prices of the survivors would rise (as they would face less competition). So firms that would survive do not, themselves, need additional capital – imposing increased capital requirements on them will make them distressed artificially, through regulatory fiat. And firms that should not survive don’t need it either – they need to go bust and be taken over or restructured.


Next we should understand that if banks are value-destroying enterprises (as a number of European banks surely are) their solvency problem is not simply one of past losses. Their problem is a lack of future profitability – their businesses are not viable and need to be restructured or shut down. Recapitalisation in such circumstances is simply a matter of throwing good money after bad and of retarding the process of restructuring.


Third, we should understand the broader macroeconomic impact of demanding additional capital. Banks deliver this in two ways: first, they shrink their existing balance sheets (i.e. they make less loans, less risky loans and call in loans they have made); then, once they have de-risked, they raise extra money. Increasing capital requirements will tend to lead banks to draw in their claws further, shrinking the money stock and worsening the recession. Doing this now would very probably induce a catastrophe.


Banks do not need increased capital requirements. Instead, they need proper resolution mechanisms, whereby they can be allowed to go bust, safely, with losses for lenders instead of taxpayers and the wider macroeconomy.



Debt crisis: Is the Great Reckoning upon us?


Gordon Brown (Photo: AFP/Getty)

Gordon Brown: one of the chief architects (Photo: AFP/Getty)


In response to the crisis of 2008, UK policy-makers did five key things:


1. They bailed out a number of banks that had inadequate capital.

2. They insisted that banks that were not bailed out had to raise additional capital privately.

3. They raised spending, by around £110 billion (mainly by continuing with previously-scheduled large. spending rises even though the situation had changed).

4. They enacted a temporary tax cut (around £12.5 billion).

5. They printed money (around £200 billion).


Of these policies, the first three were serious errors. The last (money-printing) was done well, and was the key reason for the growth from mid-2009 to mid-2010. The temporary tax cut was in principle a good idea, though it would have been better to have cut income tax than VAT. And if we had not done the ill-conceived spending rises, we could have made the temporary tax cut at least three times (perhaps six times) as big. Extensive academic studies have demonstrated that temporary tax cuts provide much more effective stimulus than spending rises (indeed, since spending rises may be believed to be permanent – as they often are – they can make households and businesses believe that the medium-term growth outlook is worse (as it would be if the public spending stayed up) and thus actually damage growth even in the short term.


However, although raising spending was an error, much the worst error was bailing out the banks. As of 2008, the situations in the UK, Spain and Ireland were all fairly similar: each had had a serious housing bubble; each had banking sectors of above 400 per cent of GDP; none of them had particular high government debt; all had government deficits headed towards 10 per cent of GDP. There was no intrinsic way for us to know that Ireland would be very rapidly ruined by its decision to bail out the banks, whilst in Britain it would be more drawn out, and in Spain matters would be somewhere in between. Irish nominal GDP shrank by around 20 per cent in 2008/9. (The worst recession of the past century in Britain was that of the early 1920s, when nominal GDP shrank by around 28 per cent.)


Bailing out the banks meant that the governments of Britain, Ireland, Spain and elsewhere took onto the public balance sheet the liabilities of the banking sector. (I occasionally read articles suggesting that this is true in a metaphorical sense, because of the large deficits run. No. It is true in a literal sense. According to National Statistics, the liabilities of RBS and Lloyds are UK government liabilities.) This overstretch in the government balance sheet is a key reason the government needs to cut the deficit as quickly as it does – without the commitments to the banks, we would have been able to run larger deficits for longer (especially if those deficits were the result of temporary tax cuts).


I would have opposed bailing out the banks even if I had been certain it would “work” in its own terms. It is immoral to tax poor people to keep rich people rich, despite their bad investment choices, and it destroys the functioning of capitalism. But there was always the danger that – as in Ireland – they wouldn’t work in any sense, but would simply bankrupt the governments involved. The crisis of 2008/9 was not simply a liquidity crisis. It was not the result of market irrationality. It was not even simply a matter of insolvency arising from past losses. In a number of cases the business models of financial institutions were no longer going concerns – they were value-destroying enterprises, not value-creating ones. This was not simply a matter of gambles with fancy financial derivatives. Even before the bonds market madness of 2005-7, around 30 per cent of the gross income of European retail banking came from mortgages. But mortgage volumes remain way down on their mid-2000s levels, and even when they come back the value of transactions will be much lower. The only way a number of these business could continue without significant restructuring of the sort that would occur under administration is for governments to provide an ongoing stream of subsidies.


Recent developments in financial markets suggest that we may soon face a Great Reckoning for the policy errors of 2008/9. Some bank shares are now worth less than before nationalisation; the cost of insuring the debts of some banks has recently been higher than the 2008 peaks. Governments have been arrogant in assuming themselves capable of bailing out some of these monster banks, when they had made such bad losses. They have been deluded in assuming that significant structural change was not required in the banking sector. There is now a significant risk that, around Europe in particular, many state-owned banks will go bust, despite government backing. If it happens, this is likely to bring down governments – indeed, may even lead to constitutional overthrows in two or three countries. The consequence could be another recession as bad to twice as bad as that of 2008/9.


In countries such as Britain and Ireland and Spain, that ought to have been OK. Public debt – setting aside banking sector liabilities – is not at critical levels even now. We ought to be able to cut taxes temporarily, increase deficits, and see ourselves through in the normal way. Unfortunately, because of government over-commitments in the banking sector, we will struggle to maintain solvency even by cutting spending as aggressively as is politically deliverable.


A further phase of recession (indeed, even simply tepid growth) will necessitate further spending cuts. The UK political debate is still stuck in an absurd situation in which a supposedly-serious political party, egged on by quite a section of the press, still wants to pretend that the alternative to the Coalition’s programme would be to cut spending less and cut slower. The truth is that we are likely to have to cut spending more and faster. Indeed, there is a chance that we shall yet be forced to cut spending much faster – including on sacred cows like health – because a further phase of recession could well lead financial markets to lose confidence in our government’s bonds, as they have lost confidence in the bonds of other governments.


Much of this was avoidable. We did not need to bail out the banks, bankrupting multiple governments in the process. There were alternatives, such as imposing debt-equity swaps. We did not need to whack up spending, undermining long-term growth rates. We could have kept spending under control and instead cut taxes.


Four years after the financial crisis began, in the summer of 2007, we still send tens of billions more, every few months, to bail out the banks – though these days we have rebranded our banking sector bailouts “sovereign debt bailouts”. The patience of taxpayers with such nonsense is an affront to democracy – No. More than that: democracy has failed, and in a number of European states political upheaval may (justly) be part of a Great Reckoning.


Perhaps we shall muddle through, for a little while yet, with policy errors simply leading to hidden damage and injustice – as usual. But if, despite the trillions poured into them, large government-backed banks now go bust, dragging down their states’ solvency in the process, the bailouts of 2008/9 will go down as the greatest economic folly in history. And I shall be bitter and ungracious enough to say: I told you so.



Time, Money and Unemployment

Nancy Folbre is an economics professor at the University of Massachusetts Amherst.

What do people do after they lose their jobs, other than look for a new one? The unemployed put more time into unpaid household work, including child care, according to an important new study by Mark Aguiar, Erik Hurst and Loukas Karabarbounis. Their findings dramatize the limitations of conventional measures of economic well-being based entirely on market income.

Today’s Economist

Perspectives from expert contributors.

When Benjamin Franklin advised us that “time is money,” he was living a world in which many individuals were self-employed and could at least grow their own food. In our world, it’s hard to convert time into money if you can’t find a paying job.

Perspectives from expert contributors.

Still, Americans 15 or older (including students and retirees) devote, on average, almost as much time to unpaid work as they do to paid work (about 23 hours a week on household activities, purchasing goods and services, caring for and helping others, and volunteering, compared with about 25 hours a week on paid work and related activities, according to data from the 2010 American Time Use Survey).

Time applied to unpaid work can provide a partial substitute for consumer expenditures. Individuals can cut down on restaurant spending by preparing their own meals, care for family members rather paying for day care or elder care, clean the house instead of hiring a maid or fix their own roof instead of hiring a roofer.

Shopping may be fun sometimes, but it’s also foraging work in which increased time and effort can save money. In previous research, Professors Aguiar and Hurst have shown that households that shop twice as frequently as others pay prices that are 7 to 10 percent lower.

Retired people seem particularly adept at stretching their budgets. In addition to shopping more carefully, they typically reduce spending on food – a pattern that once led many economists to assume that they had not saved enough for retirement. But Professors Aguiar and Hurst have shown that retirees’ actual food consumption does not decline. Rather, they increase the time devoted to food preparation, cooking more (and presumably better) meals for themselves.

Previous studies of the impact of unemployment on time allocation showed little effect, generating at least one news article about the unemployed “frittering their time away.” Professors Aguiar, Hurst and Karabarbounis provide a very different picture in their recently released paper for the National Bureau of Economic Research, “Time Use During Recessions.”

In a sophisticated econometric analysis of data from the American Time Use Survey, they controlled for underlying trends and also compare differences in time-use across states with differing levels of unemployment. (See this blog post for more details).

They found that about 30 percent of the forgone market work hours during the recession were reallocated to housework and about 5 percent to child care. An additional 10 percent were reallocated to education, health care and civic activities. Time devoted to job searches increased, but remained relatively small, perhaps because there’s not that much people can do when jobs aren’t available.

Most of the remaining time went to increased sleep time and leisure, including more television viewing. Not surprisingly, women were more likely than men to reallocate time to housework. They were also more likely to increase their sleep time.

The overall increase in non-market work implies that household consumption among the unemployed fell less than market income, but it’s hard to put a dollar value on the unpaid work. When people make a voluntary decision to substitute time for money, we can infer something about the relative value they place on it.

But most unemployment is involuntary, and some unpaid work probably represents an effort to stay busy more than a significant contribution to household living standards.

The authors emphasize the relatively large impact of unemployment on unpaid work, in part because this is a new finding, and in part because it counters the wrong impression that, as Professor Hurst put it, the Great Recession was a Great Vacation.

But it is also important to note that most of the unemployed can’t allocate more of the free time they gain to productive uses, even if they want to. They lack the capital, land, tools and skills needed to flexibly shift from wage employment to production for their own use. Even when they can make a partial shift, their productivity is likely to be lower in unpaid work than paid work.

That’s why involuntary unemployment represents such a waste of human capabilities and loss of productive output for the economy as a whole.

And that’s why Benjamin Franklin, were he alive today, would be wagging his finger at policy makers who don’t consider unemployment our most urgent economic problem.

Comment

Comment