On the Pulpit, Rabbis Earn More Than Christian Clergy

Normally, Corrections avoids old articles.  However, Jewish Daily Forward article "On the Pulpit, Rabbis Earn More Than Christian Clergy" (September 15th, 2010) wonders aloud why rabbis are paid, on average, more than christian clergy. It comes to no firm conclusions. Indeed, Corrections spent some time thinking on the curious problem: Catholics and Protestants appear to be paid between $25,000 and $40,000, while Reform and Conservative Rabbis appear to be paid between $137,000 and $147,000. A rather large gap.

Corrections came to the weak conclusion that the story was about opportunity cost and relative wealth status. However, the same publication came out, two weeks later, with the article "Rabbi Searches Are Tough, but Are They Illegal?" (September 29th, 2010). This article mentions nothing about pay, and merely describes the theological implications of a cartel of Rabbis:

The RA requires synagogues to enroll exclusively in its search process, filters the selection of candidates the congregations may interview, and prohibits candidates and congregations from finding each other directly. Any Conservative rabbi who seeks a pulpit outside the RA’s centralized process, and any congregation that interviews candidates from other movements, will be penalized.

It bespeaks either a deep ignorance of economics or a willing deception of their readers that the Forward did not connect the two. To note that Rabbis have a firm cartel with punitive powers on the one hand, then wonder why Rabbis are paid so much on the other is ludicrous.

Cartels artificially limit supply to raise prices. It utterly clear to Corrections that the Rabbinical Assembly is a cartel of Rabbis that artificially constricts supply and raises wages. The Rabbinical Assembly's cartel also possibly increases quality above what the market would demand to further drive up price, though there is no evidence for this either way (merely a likely possibility). A depiction of what the Rabbinical Assembly is practicing may be found graphically below (click to enlarge).

Who Should Provide Anesthesia Care?

New York Times article "Who Should Provide Anesthesia Care?" (September 6th, 2010) discusses the ability of a nurse to deliver anesthesia without supervision. It brings in the American Society of Anesthesiologists without properly discussing their stake in government regulation requiring anesthesiologists to supervise nurses.

The two studies — hotly disputed by the American Society of Anesthesiologists — essentially concluded that there is no significant difference in the quality of care when the anesthetic is delivered by a certified registered nurse anesthetist or by an anesthesiologist. The studies were paid for by the professional association for the nurses, a potential conflict of interest, but were conducted by researchers at respected organizations.

The Times notes the conflict of interest of nurses, but not of anesthesiologists.  As Corrections sees it, anesthesiologists have a readily identifiable conflict of interest, while it isn't immediately clear that nurses do, upon further inspection.

The American Society of Anesthesiologists has motivation to artificially constrict supply of anesthesiologists to raise their own wages.  It may do so by raising the quality of new anesthesiologists (more than patients would prefer), reducing the number of residents trained in anesthesiology, or encouraging a general suppression in the number of doctors through the American Medical Association. Their strategy is depicted graphically below (click to enlarge).  They price as monopolists, reducing quantity and increasing price.

One might say nurses have a similar motivation--if nurses can do more, demand for nurses rises, and nurses are paid more.  However, Corrections posits that unlike doctors, there is a vast reservoir of possible nurses; nurses are elastically supplied.  If their wage increased, new nurses would train and bring their wage back down.  Corrections depicts this possibility graphically below (click to enlarge).

Economic grounding gives Corrections reason to believe that while anesthesiologists have a conflict of interest influencing their argument, nurses do not.  This grounding offers a re-statement of a rule of thumb: when an organized group is pushing for governmental regulation, they're likely to be "pulling one over" on consumers.  

Some interesting economic side notes are that it would be possible for anesthesiologists wages to increase because of this (for the same reason that if a law that requiring them to build their own cars, or walk to work, was abolished, they'd have more free time to do the things they are paid a large amount for).  This counterintuitive result, that anesthesiologist wages could increase, while the wages of nurses would not is an interesting curiosity, but not likely given opposition by the American Society of Anesthesiologists.

Second, we note that either way, consumers should be better off (even were nurses and anesthesiologists were worse off).  The reason behind this is that they may prefer a different cost-quality combination for anesthesiology than they can get being constrained by government regulation--unconstrained maximization is always greater than or equal to constrained maximization.  

Growers Feel the Squeeze To Sell a Pinch of Saffron

New York Times article, "Growers Feel the Squeeze To Sell a Pinch of Saffron" (May 12th, 2010) describes worries of decline that saffron growers experience. These growers are given a special license by the Italian government:

The famed New York chef Mario Batali, , calls L’Aquila’s saffron “the best saffron in Italy.” In 2005, saffron grown here was awarded Italy’s “protected product” status, like Parmagiano Reggiano and prosciutto di Parma, acknowledging its extraordinary culinary standing.

Unfortunately, the youth don't seem interested in growing saffron, and the cooperative worries that they will not sustain membership for long. The article concludes,

Yet Ms. Sarra, who has been harvesting saffron since she was 3, is optimistic. In addition to the 97 members of the cooperative who can use the special product designation now, there are 10 applications pending. “We need to see they are good people, will respect the rules and take our strict rules seriously,” she said.

This collusive business, in which licensing restricts the number of people growing saffron in the cartel, will unlikely remain able to sustain higher than market prices. The article notes that for two weeks of work per year, these Italian farmers are able to earn $5,000 to $10,000 a year. If children of the farmers are not interested in cultivating saffron, someone, perhaps in a neighboring town with no special certification, will be. Perhaps even without this certification, the saffron grown outside of L'Aquila will taste just as good (maybe they'll earn $3,000 for the same two weeks of work).  Eventually people will notice that the "L'Aquila" stamp does not justify its price, and will turn to saffron grown elsewhere. Rather than discuss the dissolution of this cartel, however, the article mourns its loss, not even acknowledging the possibility that consumers are harmed by this town's actions.