Latest news with #FederalReserveBankofPhiladelphia
Yahoo
21-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Opinion - Looking back at election forecasts
Predicting future events is difficult. The Babylonians discovered this nearly 2,700 years ago, when they began trying to predict the weather. We have been working to improve those forecasts ever since. Lives, crops and more depended on them. It took until 1859 for a country (Britain) to offer its first official weather forecast (for shipping, the lifeblood of the maritime empire). After millennia of refinement, just how accurate are weather forecasts? The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration tells us that five-day forecasts are accurate nearly 90 percent of the time. Ten-day forecasts and longer are only correct about half the time. When it comes to where hurricanes will make landfall, even a 48-hour forecast has a margin of error around 50 nautical miles. Humans can be even less predictable than weather patterns. Yet here, too, the stakes can be sky-high. Billions, if not trillions, of dollars are at stake in economic forecasts. Corporations, stock market investors and even the Federal Reserve rely on them to make consequential decisions. Two Berkeley business school researchers analyzed responses to the Survey of Professional Forecasters, conducted by the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia since 1968. They found forecasters were correct a mere 23 percent of the time. To take just one recent example, economists predicted U.S. gross domestic product would grow by 1.3 percent in 2024. In fact, the growth rate was more than twice the forecast. A dear friend who spent a few years working at a prominent econometric forecasting firm decades ago, reported their staff motto was 'we predicted 10 of the last three recessions.' Election forecasting has a shorter history. It is both more difficult and less consequential, since the forecasts have no effect on the real world. But it has grown into a cottage industry. Given the difficulties, it is surprising just how accurate these forecasts have proven to be, especially when they employ data collected many months prior to the event itself. The American Political Science Association recently published a journal with a dozen forecasts all completed well before the election, each of which used somewhat different data and varying methodologies. Most of them foresaw the close popular vote finish. The high-end prediction for then-Vice President Kamala Harris's share of the popular vote was 54.5 percent and the low-end was 45 percent — the first based on online betting data, the second on the expectations of ordinary people, techniques that I would caution against. Still, most of the predictions clustered within a few points of the actual results. Of the 11 entrants who forecast the popular vote, five foresaw victory for President Trump and six a win for Harris. Five predicted an Electoral College victory for Trump, whereas three wrongly anticipated that Harris would win the electoral vote. As regular readers would expect, the predictions based on fundamentals (the economy, partisanship, presidential approval) tended to be the most accurate. As I have described before, Ray Fair's model, the longest running such forecast (but not included in the American Political Science Association collection), and based largely on hard economic indicators, was within a quarter point of the actual result. Charles Tien and Michael Lewis-Beck added presidential approval to a smaller array of economic variables, producing a forecast also less than a point off the mark. Models employing poll data tended to be slightly farther off. I have previously quoted statistician George Box saying that 'all models are wrong. Some are useful.' Models are (over-) simplifications of the world. To be wholly right, they'd have to be as rich, complex, and confusing as the world itself. But these simplifications can tell us something about the 'whys' of this and other presidential elections. For example, despite the conventional wisdom asserting elections are about the future, most of the accurate models use retrospective information about the past, not data about future expectations. None of these models use information about the candidates' personalities, abilities or issue positions. Which is to say, the 2024 election was destined to be close, but any Democrat would have had a difficult time winning it. The situational deck was stacked against us, and neither candidate had a secret formula for greatly exceeding expectations. An exceptional candidate backed by an exceptional campaign may have been able to overcome the odds, but that's exactly what would have been required — beating the odds. Would a different candidate, or one who had faced a primary, have done better? We have no way of knowing, but there is no evidence or suggestion Harris blew a race that was hers to lose. Would former President Biden have done better or worse? Again, we cannot know, though one of the American Political Science Association modelers claims evidence that Biden himself would have done slightly worse than Harris did. It is no longer fashionable to quote Karl Marx, but he was right in saying that individual people 'make history, but not in circumstances of their own choosing.' Psychology teaches us that humans put too much weight on personal factors while underrating the power of circumstances and situations in shaping behavior. These models remind us that circumstances count for a lot and that the new science of presidential election forecasting stacks up pretty well, as predictions go. Mark Mellman is president of The Mellman Group a consultancy that has helped elect 30 U.S. senators, 12 governors and dozens of House members. He served as pollster to Senate Democratic leaders for over 30 years and is a member of the American Association of Political Consultants' Hall of Fame. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
21-05-2025
- Business
- The Hill
Looking back at election forecasts
Predicting future events is difficult. The Babylonians discovered this nearly 2,700 years ago, when they began trying to predict the weather. We have been working to improve those forecasts ever since. Lives, crops and more depended on them. It took until 1859 for a country (Britian) to offer its first official weather forecast (for shipping, the lifeblood of the maritime empire). After millennia of refinement, just how accurate are weather forecasts? The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration tells us that five-day forecasts are accurate nearly 90 percent of the time. Ten-day forecasts and longer are only correct about half the time. When it comes to where hurricanes will make landfall, even a 48-hour forecast has a margin of error around 50 nautical miles. Humans can be even less predictable than weather patterns. Yet here, too, the stakes can be sky-high. Billions, if not trillions, of dollars are at stake in economic forecasts. Corporations, stock market investors and even the Federal Reserve rely on them to make consequential decisions. Two Berkeley business school researchers analyzed responses to the Survey of Professional Forecasters, conducted by the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia since 1968. They found forecasters were correct a mere 23 percent of the time. To take just one recent example, economists predicted U.S. gross domestic product would grow by 1.3 percent in 2024. In fact, the growth rate was more than twice the forecast. A dear friend who spent a few years working at a prominent econometric forecasting firm decades ago, reported their staff motto was 'we predicted 10 of the last three recessions.' Election forecasting has a shorter history. It is both more difficult and less consequential, since the forecasts have no effect on the real world. But it has grown into a cottage industry. Given the difficulties, it is surprising just how accurate these forecasts have proven to be, especially when they employ data collected many months prior to the event itself. The American Political Science Association recently published a journal with a dozen forecasts all completed well before the election, each of which used somewhat different data and varying methodologies. Most of them foresaw the close popular vote finish. The high-end prediction for Harris's share of the popular vote was 54.5 percent and the low-end was 45 percent — the first based on online betting data, the second on the expectations of ordinary people, techniques that I would caution against. Still, most of the predictions clustered within a few points of the actual results. Of the 11 entrants who forecast the popular vote, five foresaw victory for President Trump and six a win for Kamala Harris. Five predicted an Electoral College victory for Trump, whereas three wrongly anticipated that Harris would win the electoral vote. As regular readers would expect, the predictions based on fundamentals (the economy, partisanship, presidential approval) tended to be the most accurate. As I have described before, Ray Fair's model, the longest running such forecast (but not included in the American Political Science Association collection), and based largely on hard economic indicators, was within a quarter point of the actual result. Charles Tien and Michael Lewis-Beck added presidential approval to a smaller array of economic variables, producing a forecast also less than a point off the mark. Models employing poll data tended to be slightly farther off. I have previously quoted statistician George Box saying that 'all models are wrong. Some are useful.' Models are (over-) simplifications of the world. To be wholly right, they'd have to be as rich, complex, and confusing as the world itself. But these simplifications can tell us something about the 'whys' of this and other presidential elections. For example, despite the conventional wisdom asserting elections are about the future, most of the accurate models use retrospective information about the past, not data about future expectations. None of these models use information about the candidates' personalities, abilities or issue positions. Which is to say, the 2024 election was destined to be close, but any Democrat would have had a difficult time winning it. The situational deck was stacked against us, and neither candidate had a secret formula for greatly exceeding expectations. An exceptional candidate backed by an exceptional campaign may have been able to overcome the odds, but that's exactly what would have been required — beating the odds. Would a different candidate, or one who had faced a primary, have done better? We have no way of knowing, but there is no evidence or suggestion Vice President Kamala Harris blew a race that was hers to lose. Would former President Joe Biden have done better or worse? Again, we cannot know, though one of the American Political Science Association modelers claims evidence that Biden himself would have done slightly worse than Harris did. It is no longer fashionable to quote Karl Marx, but he was right in saying that individual people 'make history, but not in circumstances of their own choosing.' Psychology teaches us that humans put too much weight on personal factors while underrating the power of circumstances and situations in shaping behavior. These models remind us that circumstances count for a lot and that the new science of presidential election forecasting stacks up pretty well, as predictions go. Mark Mellman is president of The Mellman Group a consultancy that has helped elect 30 U.S. senators, 12 governors and dozens of House members. He served as pollster to Senate Democratic leaders for over 30 years and is a member of the American Association of Political Consultants' Hall of Fame.
Yahoo
12-05-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
As Republicans Eye Sweeping Medicaid Cuts, Missouri Offers a Preview
The prospect of sweeping federal cuts to Medicaid is alarming — especially to some Missourians who remember the last time the public medical insurance program for those with low incomes or disabilities was pressed for cash in the state. In 2005, Missouri adopted some of the strictest eligibility standards in the nation, reduced benefits, and increased patients' copayments for the joint federal-state program due to state budget shortfalls totaling about $2.4 billion over several prior years. More than 100,000 Missourians lost coverage as a result, and the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia reported that the changes led to increases in credit card borrowing and debt in third-party collections. A woman told NPR that year that her $6.70-an-hour McDonald's job put her over the new income limits and rendered her ineligible, even though she was supporting three children on about $300 a week. A woman receiving $865 a month in disability payments worried at a town hall meeting about not being able to raise her orphaned granddaughter as the state asked her to pay $167 a month to keep her health coverage. Now, Missouri could lose an estimated $2 billion a year in federal funding as congressional Republicans look to cut at least $880 billion over a decade from a pool of funding that includes Medicaid programs nationwide. Medicaid and the closely related Children's Health Insurance Program together insure roughly 79 million people — about 1 in 5 Americans. 'We're looking at a much more significant impact with the loss of federal funds even than what 2005 was,' said Amy Blouin, president of the progressive Missouri Budget Project think tank. 'We're not going to be able to protect kids. We're not going to be able to protect people with disabilities from some sort of impact.' At today's spending levels, a cut of $880 billion to Medicaid could lead to states' losing federal funding ranging from $78 million a year in Wyoming to $13 billion a year in California, according to an analysis from KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes KFF Health News. State lawmakers nationwide would then be left to address the shortfalls, likely through some combination of slashing benefits or eligibility, raising taxes, or finding a different large budget item to cut, such as education spending. Republican lawmakers are floating various proposals to cut Medicaid, including one to reduce the money the federal government sends to states to help cover adults who gained access to the program under the Affordable Care Act's provision known as Medicaid expansion. The 2010 health care law allowed states to expand Medicaid eligibility to cover more adults with low incomes. The federal government is picking up 90% of the tab for that group. About 20 million people nationwide are now covered through that expansion. Missouri expanded Medicaid in 2021. That has meant that a single working-age adult in Missouri can now earn up to $21,597 a year and qualify for coverage, whereas before, nondisabled adults without children couldn't get Medicaid coverage. That portion of the program now covers over 329,000 Missourians, more than a quarter of the state's Medicaid recipients. For every percentage point that the federal portion of the funding for that group decreases, Missouri's Medicaid director estimated, the state could lose $30 million to $35 million a year. But the equation is even more complicated given that Missouri expanded access via a constitutional amendment. Voters approved the expansion in 2020 after the state's Republican leadership resisted doing so for a decade. That means changes to Medicaid expansion in Missouri would require voters to amend the state constitution again. The same is true in South Dakota and Oklahoma. So even if Congress attempted to narrowly target cuts to the nation's Medicaid expansion population, Washington University in St. Louis health economist Timothy McBride said, Missouri's expansion program would likely stay in place. 'Then you would just have to find the money elsewhere, which would be brutal in Missouri,' McBride said. In Crestwood, a suburb of St. Louis, Sandra Smith worries her daughter's in-home nursing care would be on the chopping block. Nearly all in-home services are an optional part of Medicaid that states are not required to include in their programs. But the services have been critical for Sandra and her 24-year-old daughter, Sarah. Sarah Smith has been disabled for most of her life due to seizures from a rare genetic disorder called Dravet syndrome. She has been covered by Medicaid in various ways since she was 3. She needs intensive, 24-hour care, and Medicaid pays for a nurse to come to their home 13 hours a day. Her mother serves as the overnight caregiver and covers when the nurses are sick — work Sandra Smith is not allowed to be compensated for and that doesn't count toward the 63-year-old's Social Security. Having nursing help allows Sandra Smith to work as an independent podcast producer and gives her a break from being the go-to-person for providing care 24 hours a day, day after day, year after year. 'I really and truly don't know what I would do if we lost the Medicaid home care. I have no plan whatsoever,' Sandra Smith said. 'It is not sustainable for anyone to do infinite, 24-hour care without dire physical health, mental health, and financial consequences, especially as we parents get into our elder years.' Elias Tsapelas, director of fiscal policy at the conservative Show-Me Institute, said potential changes to Medicaid programs depend on the extent of any budget cuts that Congress ultimately passes and how much time states have to respond. A large cut implemented immediately, for example, would require state legislators to look for parts of the budget they have the discretion to cut quickly. But if states have time to absorb funding changes, he said, they would have more flexibility. 'I'm not ready to think that Congress is going to willingly put us on the path of making every state go cut their benefits for the most vulnerable,' Tsapelas said. Missouri's congressional delegation split along party lines over the recent budget resolution calling for deep spending cuts, with the Republicans who control six of the eight House seats and both Senate seats all voting for it. But 76% of the public, including 55% of Republicans, say they oppose major federal funding cuts to Medicaid, according to a national KFF poll conducted April 8-15. And Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley, a Republican, has said that he does not support cutting Medicaid and posted on the social platform X that he was told by President Donald Trump that the House and Senate would not cut Medicaid benefits and that Trump won't sign any benefit cuts. 'I hope congressional leadership will get the message,' Hawley posted. He declined to comment for this article. U.S. House Republicans are aiming to pass a budget by Memorial Day, after many state legislatures, including Missouri's, will have adjourned for the year. Meanwhile, Missouri lawmakers are poised to pass a tax cut that is estimated to reduce state revenue by about $240 million in the first year. KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF — an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF. The post As Republicans Eye Sweeping Medicaid Cuts, Missouri Offers a Preview appeared first on Katie Couric Media.
Miami Herald
12-05-2025
- Health
- Miami Herald
As Republicans eye sweeping Medicaid cuts, Missouri offers a preview
CRESTWOOD, Mo. - The prospect of sweeping federal cuts to Medicaid is alarming to some Missourians who remember the last time the public medical insurance program for those with low incomes or disabilities was pressed for cash in the state. In 2005, Missouri adopted some of the strictest eligibility standards in the nation, reduced benefits, and increased patients' copayments for the joint federal-state program due to state budget shortfalls totaling about $2.4 billion over several prior years. More than 100,000 Missourians lost coverage as a result, and the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia reported that the changes led to increases in credit card borrowing and debt in third-party collections. A woman told NPR that year that her $6.70-an-hour McDonald's job put her over the new income limits and rendered her ineligible, even though she was supporting three children on about $300 a week. A woman receiving $865 a month in disability payments worried at a town hall meeting about not being able to raise her orphaned granddaughter as the state asked her to pay $167 a month to keep her health coverage. Now, Missouri could lose an estimated $2 billion a year in federal funding as congressional Republicans look to cut at least $880 billion over a decade from a pool of funding that includes Medicaid programs nationwide. Medicaid and the closely related Children's Health Insurance Program together insure roughly 79 million people- about 1 in 5 Americans. "We're looking at a much more significant impact with the loss of federal funds even than what 2005 was," said Amy Blouin, president of the progressive Missouri Budget Project think tank. "We're not going to be able to protect kids. We're not going to be able to protect people with disabilities from some sort of impact." At today's spending levels, a cut of $880 billion to Medicaid could lead to states' losing federal funding ranging from $78 million a year in Wyoming to $13 billion a year in California, according to an analysis from KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes KFF Health News. State lawmakers nationwide would then be left to address the shortfalls, likely through some combination of slashing benefits or eligibility, raising taxes, or finding a different large budget item to cut, such as education spending. Republican lawmakers are floating various proposals to cut Medicaid, including one to reduce the money the federal government sends to states to help cover adults who gained access to the program under the Affordable Care Act's provision known as Medicaid expansion. The 2010 health care law allowed states to expand Medicaid eligibility to cover more adults with low incomes. The federal government is picking up 90% of the tab for that group. About 20 million people nationwide are now covered through that expansion. Missouri expanded Medicaid in 2021. That has meant that a single working-age adult in Missouri can now earn up to $21,597 a year and qualify for coverage, whereas before, nondisabled adults without children couldn't get Medicaid coverage. That portion of the program now covers over 329,000 Missourians, more than a quarter of the state's Medicaid recipients. For every percentage point that the federal portion of the funding for that group decreases, Missouri's Medicaid director estimated, the state could lose$30 million to $35 million a year. But the equation is even more complicated given that Missouri expanded access via a constitutional amendment. Voters approved the expansion in 2020 after the state's Republican leadership resisted doing so for a decade. That means changes to Medicaid expansion in Missouri would require voters to amend the state constitution again. The same is true in South Dakota and Oklahoma. So even if Congress attempted to narrowly target cuts to the nation's Medicaid expansion population, Washington University in St. Louis health economist Timothy McBride said, Missouri's expansion program would likely stay in place. "Then you would just have to find the money elsewhere, which would be brutal in Missouri," McBride said. In Crestwood, a suburb of St. Louis, Sandra Smith worries her daughter's in-home nursing care would be on the chopping block. Nearly all in-home services are an optional part of Medicaid that states are not required to include in their programs. But the services have been critical for Sandra and her 24-year-old daughter, Sarah. Sarah Smith has been disabled for most of her life due to seizures from a rare genetic disorder called Dravet syndrome. She has been covered by Medicaid in various ways since she was 3. She needs intensive, 24-hour care, and Medicaid pays for a nurse to come to their home 13 hours a day. Her mother serves as the overnight caregiver and covers when the nurses are sick - work Sandra Smith is not allowed to be compensated for and that doesn't count toward the 63-year-old's Social Security. Having nursing help allows Sandra Smith to work as an independent podcast producer and gives her a break from being the go-to-person for providing care 24 hours a day, day after day, year after year. "I really and truly don't know what I would do if we lost the Medicaid home care. I have no plan whatsoever," Sandra Smith said. "It is not sustainable for anyone to do infinite, 24-hour care without dire physical health, mental health, and financial consequences, especially as we parents get into our elder years." Elias Tsapelas, director of fiscal policy at the conservative Show-Me Institute, said potential changes to Medicaid programs depend on the extent of any budget cuts that Congress ultimately passes and how much time states have to respond. A large cut implemented immediately, for example, would require state legislators to look for parts of the budget they have the discretion to cut quickly. But if states have time to absorb funding changes, he said, they would have more flexibility. "I'm not ready to think that Congress is going to willingly put us on the path of making every state go cut their benefits for the most vulnerable," Tsapelas said. Missouri's congressional delegation split along party lines over the recent budget resolution calling for deep spending cuts, with the Republicans who control six of the eight House seats and both Senate seats all voting for it. But 76% of the public, including 55% of Republicans, say they oppose major federal funding cuts to Medicaid, according to a national KFF poll conducted April 8-15. And Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley, a Republican, has said that he does not support cutting Medicaid and posted on the social platform X that he was told by President Donald Trump that the House and Senate would not cut Medicaid benefits and that Trump won't sign any benefit cuts. "I hope congressional leadership will get the message," Hawley posted. He declined to comment for this article. U.S. House Republicans are aiming to pass a budget by Memorial Day, after many state legislatures, including Missouri's, will have adjourned for the year. Meanwhile, Missouri lawmakers are poised to pass a tax cut that is estimated to reduce state revenue by about $240 million in the first year. ____ Copyright (C) 2025, Tribune Content Agency, LLC. Portions copyrighted by the respective providers.
Technical.ly
09-05-2025
- Business
- Technical.ly
Companies helping workers build wealth find strategic benefits along the way
From matching 401(k)s to building college pipelines, business leaders say doing good by employees can be good for business, too. Economic mobility demands that companies go beyond wages and benefits to support long-term employee success, with transparency, intention and equity, panelists said at the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia's Economic Mobility Summit earlier this month. Structure varies from company to company, but shares a common goal of promoting equity and stability through workplace investment. In short: Mobility isn't just a policy issue — it's a leadership one, according to the panelists. 'When you succeed, you have a responsibility to help the community,' said William Polacek, CEO of manufacturing firm JWF Industries. 'And when you help the community, you get a return as well.' Polacek spoke from personal experience. His company has long prioritized workforce development, partnering with local high schools to create early job pipelines and matching up to 10% of employees' 401(k)s. At Crayola, however, it's about culture and connection. President and CEO Peter Ruggiero said Crayola works with United Way of the Lehigh Valley and Lafayette College to help children see what's possible, from literacy programs to a chance to visit a college campus. Crayola's challenge, Ruggiero said, is attracting and retaining workers. Most hires start as temps and grow into full-time roles, supported by tuition assistance for college or graduate degrees. Incentives are tied to clear, achievable goals. 'Imagine their loyalty to the brand and the company,' he said. 'Imagine their knowledge of how we manufacture, our culture and how we operate.' Economic mobility support at every level Other businesses, like Amalgamated Bank, take a structural approach to address all levels of the economic mobility pipeline, according to Priscilla Sims Brown, the bank's president and CEO. The company's commitment to economic mobility starts with its own employees. For example, implementing a $15 minimum wage in 2015, with continued increases since. Stock options and benefit plans round out the package. The institution partners with organizations aligned with its values that also recognize the intersectionality of the wealth gap and wealth building, Brown said. 'If you're thinking about [the wealth gap], you can't think about it in a vacuum,' she said. 'There's health disparities which contribute to the wealth gap. There's educational barriers that contribute to the wealth gap.' Incentivising companies to do good For Damien Dwin, founder and CEO of private investment firm Lafayette Square, providing economic incentives to companies is key. Companies that provide services to employees, such as healthcare and retirement benefits, will get an interest rate step down, for example. Access to company data, like how much money employees make and how many are enrolled in benefits, can help Dwin come up with a personalized strategy to help companies reduce turnover, he said. 'If we can get turnover down, if we can get healthcare and retirement benefits up, workers will not only be more productive,' Dwin said. 'Society will be better off, and to us, that is the essence of economic mobility.' Efforts to keep employees engaged require consistent attention, but being transparent about the goals of the company can help, Ruggiero said. 'Transparency about what the objectives are for the organization,' he said. 'To set targets against that, and to incentivize all of your employees to chase that.' Sarah Huffman is a 2022-2024 corps member for Report for America, an initiative of The Groundtruth Project that pairs young journalists with local newsrooms. This position is supported by the Lenfest Institute for Journalism.
