DoD may be sick with Baumol's Cost Disease

I've had this post written as a draft for some time, but given the sad news that William Baumol has passed away, I thought it would be appropriate to post it today.

Baumol's cost disease occurs when sectors with low productivity are forced to raise wages. The Economist succinctly explains the repercussions:

Employers in such sectors face a problem: they also need to increase their wages so workers don’t defect. The result is that, although output per worker rises only slowly or not at all, wages go up as fast as they do in the rest of the economy. As the costs of production in stagnant sectors rise, firms are forced to raise prices. These increases are faster than those in sectors where productivity is improving, and faster than inflation (which blends together all the prices in the economy). So prices of goods from stagnant sectors must rise in real terms. Hence “cost disease”.

The Wall St. Journal had an article arguing that gains in productivity are more difficult in the services sector. This makes services more prone to cost disease. How susceptible is the military to this concern?

The Defense Department faces pressure to keep military salaries, which are based on experience and rank rather than achievement, comparable to civilian wages. And, while factors influencing military productivity have been studied in the past, more research is necessary to fully understand whether overall productivity is increasing in line with other sectors.

Some military innovations have led to increases in productivity. Examples include precision weapons, GPS, remotely piloted aircraft, operational support contracting, and online services. These savings are partially reflected in the decline in military endstrength. Nevertheless, the military is heavily reliant on manpower -- boots on the ground is a common measure of engagement -- to provide national security. And, the services are requesting increases in personnel to support perceived mission requirements.

Given that the cost of military personnel consumes over a third of the defense budget and that the department spends over $10 billion annually on recruiting and initial training, DoD should be aware of the impact that cost disease has on wages and attempt to link salaries to productivity to a greater extent by defining and measuring worker output.

Air Force's Fundamental Problem

As Gen (ret.) Larry Spencer writes in a recent Op-Ed, the Air Force faces the fundamental problem of economics: scarcity (PDF link). He asks:

How does the nation exploit the Air Force’s wide array of options, and satisfy the unlimited demands for Air Force capabilities with increasingly scarce resources that are allocated to the Air Force?

He contends the solution is to convince elected leaders to provide more resources. As it turns out, all of government faces the fundamental problem and, next year, a continuing resolution is likely. So, a more tenable approach is for the Air Force to optimize under its current budget constraint. This involves making informed decisions. The service should invest in clearly understanding marginal costs and benefits across its portfolio.

Bob Hale: Tortoise and Hare

Bob Hale says the tortoise is winning:

The tortoise represents a persistent Obama Administration that has pushed for changes that can become law, freeing up billions a year to improve military capabilities. The tortoise also represents a Congress that, while sometimes reluctant, has approved many of the Obama Administration changes and, in a few cases, has gone beyond them.

Defense Reform Consensus

Yesterday, the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) hosted a forum to discuss the letter issued by a consortium of think tanks encouraging defense reform. Many speakers mentioned the need for data. It is time for Defense to have a Chief Data Officer and Chief Economist. In addition, DoD needs to remove many of the IT bottlenecks that prevent information gathering and sharing.

Bipartisan Budget Plan Erodes Military Pension

The recently announced Bipartisan Budget Plan will cut military pensions by reducing annual Cost of Living Adjustments (COLA) by 1 percentage point. Presently, military pensions are adjusted for inflation so that servicemembers maintain purchasing power throughout their retirement. The new proposal will allow inflation to slowly reduce the value of a military retirement.

For example, an E-7 who retires at 20 years of service receives $2,148.40 in retired pay. Under the Bipartisan Budget Plan, by the time this member reaches the age of 62, the effective retirement pay will be $1,761.65 -- $386.75 less per month. Over the course of 20 years, the retired servicemember will lose close to $50,000 in retired pay.

Untitled-2.png


Furthermore, these cuts will affect all servicemembers -- those who are retired and those who are currently serving. This is a significant change to the military retirement system. As the Department of Defense reconfigures to save money, it is important to clearly recognize where the savings are coming from.