Minimum Wage Laws and Entry Level Jobs

It is interesting to compare Bob Herbert's article in the NY Times yesterday about unemployment among recent college graduates with a Wall Street Journal op-ed from earlier this month about the effect of the recent minimum wage hike.

Here's Herbert from October 30, 2009:

As jobs become increasingly scarce, more and more college graduates are working for free, at internships, which is great for employers but something of a handicap for a young man or woman who has to pay for food or a place to live.

"The whole idea of apprenticeships is coming back into vogue, as it was 100 years ago," said John Noble, director of the Office of Career Counseling at Williams College. "Certain industries, such as the media, TV, radio and so on, have always exploited recent graduates, giving them a chance to get into a very competitive field in exchange for making them work for no — or low — pay. But now this is spreading to many other industries."

Lonnie Dunlap, who heads the career services program at Northwestern University and has been advising young people on careers since the mid-70s, said today’s graduates are experiencing the worst employment market she’s ever seen.

...

Like Mr. Noble, she mentioned the growing use of interns versus paid employees and said she can see the value of such unpaid work for some recent graduates, "though, of course, not everyone can afford to do that."

Herbert concludes:

If we’re having trouble finding employment for even these kids, then we’re doing something profoundly wrong.

Ahh, but what could we be doing wrong?

From the WSJ article on October 3, 2009, aptly subtitled “The minimum wage hike has driven the wages of teen employees down to $0.00”:

Yesterday's September labor market report was lousy by any measure, with 263,000 lost jobs and the jobless rate climbing to 9.8%. But for one group of Americans it was especially awful: the least skilled, especially young workers. Washington will deny the reality, and the media won't make the connection, but one reason for these job losses is the rising minimum wage.

Earlier this year, economist David Neumark of the University of California, Irvine, wrote on these pages that the 70-cent-an-hour increase in the minimum wage would cost some 300,000 jobs. Sure enough, the mandated increase to $7.25 took effect in July, and right on cue the August and September jobless numbers confirm the rapid disappearance of jobs for teenagers.

The September teen unemployment rate hit 25.9%, the highest rate since World War II and up from 23.8% in July. Some 330,000 teen jobs have vanished in two months. Hardest hit of all: black male teens, whose unemployment rate shot up to a catastrophic 50.4%. It was merely a terrible 39.2% in July.

...

As the minimum wage has risen, the gap between the overall unemployment rate and the teen rate has widened, as it did again last month. (See nearby chart.) The current Congress has spent billions of dollars—including $1.5 billion in the stimulus bill—on summer youth employment programs and job training. Yet the jobless numbers suggest that the minimum wage destroyed far more jobs than the government programs helped to create.

Now, I don’t want to mislead you; Herbert is writing specifically about college graduates, and the numbers from the WSJ article are for teenagers. However, there is obviously a strong correlation. Recent college graduates are usually unskilled and trying to land their first real jobs, just like teenagers. And employers are not currently willing to pay $7.25/hour (plus the 7.65% employer portion of FICA taxes) for an on-the-job trainee of limited productivity.

The fact that zero wage internships are widely available means that the need for young, unskilled workers is there (after all, taking on interns is not exactly free – interns do require some supervision from paid employees), but that given the choice between paying zero (which is legal) and minimum wage, employers choose zero because the minimum wage does not make economic sense.

It is highly likely that there is some hourly wage between zero and $7.25/hour that could better clear the market for entry level labor and could match hundreds of thousands of additional entry level workers with entry level jobs. But the federal government, in its unbounded wisdom, has made that wage illegal.

I recently remarked to an economist friend of mine that economics must be a depressing field in which to be a researcher. In the hard sciences, new research is often translated into practical applications which benefit society. In economics, however, ideas that were worked out and widely accepted by practitioners centuries ago are not only not implemented, but are contradicted and disparaged by those who wield the most power over our society.

I suppose that we should feel fortunate that lawmakers don't try to repeal the law of gravity, even as they try again and again to repeal the law of supply and demand.

The Nobel Peace Prize and the Cause of World Peace

Although this post does not pertain to economics directly, I think there are general economic principles at work in every aspect of human life. As such, no topic is off-topic for this blog (isn't that convenient?).

Most observers are stunned by the announcement today that President Obama is the winner of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize. I have to confess (brag really) that it was not so much a surprise to me. Before I was even out of bed this morning my wife turned on her laptop to check the news and immediately gasped and said "Guess who won the Peace Prize." I immediately said "Don't tell me it was Obama."

The Peace Prize, as well as the Literature Prize, are quite different from the science Nobel Prizes in that they are essentially political in nature. Although there are sometimes controversies about how important Nobel Prize winning scientific research is or whether the particular people who were awarded the prize actually deserved it more than others, there is rarely controversy about the work itself. The prize winning work is almost always already accepted as correct and already considered a significant contribution to human knowledge (although there was at least one prize given for erroneous research). Not so for the Peace and Literature Prizes.

I note in passing only that a Peace Prize, but not a scientific prize, has been awarded for global warming research.

The Peace Prize is unique in that the prize committee sees it as a vehicle for promoting world peace, rather than just recognizing important and completed work. And the committee clearly believes that it can promote world peace by enhancing the stature of the recipient and encouraging him to keep doing what he's doing.

Choosing Obama is logical in the sense that the committee wishes to encourage his recent overtures to the world, his professed commitment to peaceful diplomacy, and his apparent desire to reduce the military capacity of the United States. I think the timing in particular proved irresistible to the committee because the award could possibly influence Obama's pending decisions on escalating the war in Afghanistan and taking more aggressive measures against Iran.

But the choice is overtly political because it is not at all clear that Obama's professed peace-making strategy is correct. There are reasonable people (and I count myself as one of them) who believe that the current strategy is one of appeasement which actually does great harm to the cause of world peace.

The simple truth is that there are a lot of evil people in the world, and many of them accumulate vast powers through the apparatus of a state. I've seen references to medical studies which estimate that roughly 1% of humans are literally psychopaths. Probably a reasonable percentage of psychopaths are clever enough that they can play by society's rules in order to survive into adulthood unscathed and unjailed.

It is probably also true that a much larger percentage of people are capable of being trained to become psychopaths in practice. That is, they have moral consciences but can be indoctrinated to suppress them in order to achieve a greater good for their people, their cause, their country, or their religion.

Many of these psychopaths end up in control of states. In fact, in undemocratic states, there is probably a selection bias in favor of leaders who are violent psychopaths (whereas in democratic states there appears to be a selection bias in favor of narcissists).

Whatever the root cause, history is replete with examples of countries that start wars for no good reason except to accumulate power and wealth and to subjugate other people.

George Bush was widely derided for his Manichean world view -- which is that there are good people and bad people, and that the good people have to stand up to the bad people. But Winston Churchill had the same view, and he is generally recognized as an inspiring and brilliant leader. The main difference is that Winston Churchill was a lot better at speaking off the cuff (and was much more of a warmonger).

I'm beating around the bush (no pun intended), but my central point is one that Winston Churchill believed in and one that Ronald Reagan made into a campaign slogan -- that peace comes through military strength.

The US spends more than 4% of its GDP on defense. It is roughly equal to the total military spending of the rest of the world combined. Is this necessary? Is it overkill? I'm not sure of what the right number is, but the size and strength of the US military should be above the level at which other countries don't even think about challenging us.

You don't want a potential adversary to get even a glimmer of an idea that it is possible to initimidate the US militarily. Because if an adversary doesn't even think to try, we will have real and stable peace.

In financial terms, one might describe this idea thusly: the convenience yield of having a huge military capacity is equal to the potential cost of the devastating wars that such a capacity allows us to avoid. Given the shockingly high cost of war between modern countries in terms of human suffering and economic loss, that convenience yield may well be far in excess of 4% of GDP.

Now that might not be so comforting to a left-wing politician in Oslo who thinks that the United States is just as susceptible to being taken over by a psychopath as any other (especially since, in his view, it was ruled by a psychopath for the last eight years).

But the truth is the system of government we have in the US makes immoral military aggression extremely difficult and unlikely. Bush-haters hyperventiliate a lot about Iraq, but whether you think the Iraq war was smart or dumb, farsighted or rash, justified or not, it is necessary to ignore completely the prior 15 years of Iraq's history to judge the motivations for the Iraq war as immoral. According to any reasonable moral calculus, the 10 years of economic sanctions which preceded the Iraq war were far less moral than the war itself.

And given the surprising, suicidal hatred shown by some of our enemies on 9/11, it was not unreasonable to use our power to preempt a latent, albeit uncertain, threat. That this threat was hyped as more short-term than it really was (although perhaps not more than it was genuinely perceived to be) doesn't change the fact that it was a rational decision and not a psychopathic one.

Anyway, I think that what has kept the reasonably stable peace during the two decades since the end of the Cold War has been the United States' dominant military power, and the willingness to use it to maintain the peace on land and on the high seas.

The Nobel Peace Prize Committee disagrees and wishes to use the selection of Obama to promote its idea that global peace is attained by holding hands and singing kumbaya around campfires. Ten thousand years of human history says that the committee is wrong. Let's hope that Obama will come to see that before real damage is done.

What is a Waste of Resources?

Obama promises to cut $500B of waste, fraud, and abuse out of Medicare and Medicaid over 10 years. To say that this claim has been met with skepticism would be an understatement.

I am not nearly so skeptical because what Obama and the left wing are really demanding from Congress is more power to ration government provided health care, as well as to pay drug companies, medical equipment companies, doctors, and hospitals less for their products and services (which will of course lead to more rationing).

I think the savings in terms of money could easily materialize. The problem I have is that saving the government little green pieces of paper is not a worthy goal in and of itself. After all, the government can create little green pieces of paper almost for free.

If the government were to save $50B/yr in Medicare costs by cutting Medicare reimbursement rates and by raising the eligibility age from 65 to 67 years, would anybody think that is real savings? How about if the government mandated that no doctor be allowed to make more than $100K per year? Or that all drugs currently on the market are deemed no longer on patent? All of these changes would dramatically lower the cost of government provided health care, but would they actually prevent the waste of or increase the supply of health care resources?

Resources are tangible things -- valuable services, goods, products, information, trained people -- and not little green pieces of paper. Tackling waste means freeing up or increasing the amount, quality, and availability of resources. Paying people less doesn't do that.

Consider the following paired examples:

1.
(A) A drug company wins a patent extension which allows it to keep charging high prices for a successful and effective cancer drug;

(B) A drug company realizes that its new cancer drug provides essentially no benefit over existing ones, but decides to spend $1B developing and promoting it anyway because it calculates that it can capture a significant share of the market and generate a net profit;

2.
(A) a health insurance company CEO is granted a bonus that exceeds the industry average by $10MM even though by most measures he is doing a mediocre job;

(B) a health insurance company with an antiquated billing and reimbursement system spends $10MM more than it should this year on administration costs;


3.
(A) a doctor submits fraudulent claims to Medicare for services he never performed;

(B) a doctor orders unnecessary MRI tests for most of his patients because he has an equity interest in the MRI facility;

4.
(A) a doctor has to pay $150K/yr in malpractice insurance;

(B) a doctor orders a wide range of unnecessary tests for a patient, in order to protect himself from a potential malpractice suit in case of an adverse outcome;


I believe that to first order the (A) examples are merely (possibly unfair) transfers of money from one entity to another, but not a waste of resources.

The (B) examples represent true waste. Real (mostly human) resources are being used which could have been deployed better elsewhere.

It is not surprising that the focus of politicans is on the (A) examples. Perceived unfair transfers of money get people riled up, and being natural demogogues, our politicans cater to that anger.

Ironically, putting in place policies that curtail the (A) examples will, if anything, decrease the supply of health care resources (which is not necessarily a bad thing - see further down).

Reducing the amount of money transferred to the health care industry in the aggegate (even including outrageous examples of overpayment, abuse, and fraud) will not encourage an increase in supply.

When Obama and his speechwriters make the mistake of lumping corporate profits in with overhead (as they do repeatedly), it is clear that they don't understand any of this at all.

Now I am not claiming that we should tolerate overpayment and fraud. Far from it. A distortion in favor of the health care industry is just as bad as a distortion against it. As only one part of a complex economy, the health care industry should have no stronger claim on aggregate resources than any other area. Too many people becoming doctors, for instance, is as bad as too few. [How we could know how many is the right number is something that the free market is best at determining, by the way.]


Finally, here's a trio of hypothetical examples. Which of these represent a waste of resources?

5.
(A) a drug company spends $100MM on a public and doctor-focused advertising campaign to introduce its new product;

(B) a drug company spends $100MM in litigation defending itself against claims that its product causes serious problems in approximately 1% of patients;

(C) a drug company spends $2B developing a new cancer drug that gives terminal patients a 25% probability of living an extra 2 months;


I am inclined to believe that (A) and (B) are wasteful, but (C) is not.

Advertising is a complex subject. Some economists consider marketing expense a dead weight loss to the economy. I have always felt that it has some informational value for consumers, but it also appears to be necessary for free market competition.

The competition hypothesis seems less convincing in the case of drug companies, however, since they only compete directly in those rare instances when they have identical drugs on the market.

The benefits of litigation are difficult to quantify as well. Obviously, one way that the sanctity of contracts is upheld and consumers are protected is through litigation. But our system has gone awry, and you probably couldn't find one serious economist today who didn't think that the US is an overly litigious society and that the costs of litigation are excessive.

As for example 5.(C), the drug company would be wasting resources only if its prospects for making a profit depended upon the market price for the drug being anomalously high. It is in the nature of our 3rd party payer system for medical care to create such inefficiencies. Since consumers don't see the true cost, they make inefficient cost benefit decisions.

Still, my sense is that the medical community has generally made sound choices when it comes to approving expensive new drugs. My evidence is that hundreds of miraculous drugs have been invented over the last 30 years, and yet drug companies account for only about 1.5% of world GDP (in the US, it's about 2%). I would be willing to spend that fraction of my income on Claritin. Fortunately, it's much cheaper than that.

Health Care Rationing

There will be rationing under a government health insurance system. That is just simple economics. If you give away a valuable thing for free, then demand will exceed available supply. The government will have to allocate health care resources according to some formula, and I guarantee you, this will be extremely controversial and morally agonizing.

Proponents of a government health plan point out that in a free market rationing is also done, but it is done by price rather than by bureaucrats and lawmakers. The price rises until demand and supply are matched, and those unwilling or unable to pay that market clearing price will receive less health care.

This is certainly true, but rationing by price is more efficient and morally sound. Those that value health care a lot will be more likely to obtain it than those who don't value it very much. It is important to remember that health is not something everybody values equally. And pretty much everybody makes tradeoffs between health and money. That is why some people are willing to be coal miners or firefighters or football players, or are willing to work overtime with little vacation or even rest. It is also why some people don't eat healthy foods or exercise or stop smoking.

Some people care a lot about having (painful) surgery so they can continue to play tennis. Others not so much.

When you have rigid rules divvying up resources, you inevitably wind up giving something the government bureaucrats say is worth X to somebody who values it at X/10. Meanwhile, a person who values that thing at 10X must go without.

Perhaps most important of all, rationing by price will lead to more production of the health care services that are the highest price and therefore in the most demand versus available resources. In the long term, a market-based system will produce vastly more health care resources for everybody.

It's amazing that some people (read Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and other Democratic leaders) so easily forget the lessons of the Soviet Union and Communist China. Government control of the market stifles economic growth. It has been shown empirically that government bureaucrats simply can't do as good a job as the free market at pricing goods and services, providing incentives, and stimulating increases in productivity.

Some people want to believe health care is or should be exempt from market forces, but it isn’t, and it shouldn’t be.

Health Care Fundamentals

Health care is fundamentally no different from any other area of the economy. We live in a world of limited resources. Therefore, we need a mechanism to allocate those resources efficiently and fairly. Every individual decision about allocating a resource comes with a cost and a benefit, and neither benefits nor costs are the same across all individuals. As with every other area of the economy, a free market, in which individual consumers can make their cost-benefit decisions freely, and individual employees, employers, and companies can make their cost-benefit decisions freely, will provide a more efficient allocation of resources than a government controlled market. But perhaps not a fairer allocation.

Liberals are being disingenuous when they claim that giving the government more control will make the system more efficient. It will not. It cannot. I will get into the weeds on this later, but for now I think that most liberals want more government control over health care for one reason and one reason alone -- "fairness."

They have accepted to a certain degree that free markets lead to unequal outcomes in general consumption, in housing, in leisure time, and even in education. But they think that health care should not be treated as just another commodity. Poor people should not get worse health care than rich people. A person should not have to die early because he is poor. A corollary of course is that a rich person should not get better health care than a poor person, and a rich person should not be allowed to live longer because he is rich.

I have brought up the point about "fairness" and redistribution of wealth/income/consumption before, and I have basically accepted that there is no right answer. I have put "fairness" in quotes because there are many people who don't believe that unequal outcomes are necessarily unfair. Be that as it may, people value equality of outcomes differently, with liberals tending to value equality of outcomes higher than conservatives. I lean towards the conservative side. I believe there should be a safety net providing a floor on poverty, but I certainly don't believe in taking more than we are currently taking from the rich to provide for it. I cannot say that I am right, and those who are more liberal are wrong (and vice versa). We are just starting from different axioms.

The two claims I can make with confidence, however, are these:

1) treating consumption of health care as fundamentally different from other types of consumption is simplistic and wrong; and

2) a free market in health care in the US will lead to unequal outcomes but will make far more health care resources available for consumption by all (including the rest of the world, not just Americans).
　
To back up my claim in (1), I'll make two points. First, being poor is bad for health, regardless of the level of health care received. Poor people eat less nutritious food, they live in unhealthier places, they are exposed to more violence in their neighborhoods, they drive less safe cars, and they have more stress due to lack of money. There is a recent UK study that showed that low job status, which presumably leads to more stress, was a significant contributor to poor health. So to consider health care as having special moral implications is naive.

Second, we live in a world where many hard-working, smart people go into fields other than medicine. When somebody decides to become a financial analyst rather than a doctor, that decision reduces our aggregate health care resources, and therefore has consequences (probably negative) for the health of other people in the future. To the extent that such a career decision is largely an economic one, and it usually is, there is an entanglement between the economics of health care and the economics of all other fields, so that it is kind of meaningless to treat health care as an isolated area of the economy where the free market should not apply.
　
I will have more to say about (2) in later posts.

Cash for Clunkers -- The Final Phase

I've been obsessed with this topic because it is perhaps the most obviously and perfectly stupid government program I have ever seen. It's not all that important because it represents only a few billion dollars (as of this moment, $3B in total) of government waste and distortion in a $13T economy, but it does serve as a reminder that government can enact incredibly bad policy in a very short time. The forces of rationality and prudence take time to gather and gain critical mass, but by then it is often too late. Something to ponder as the Democrats try to ram health care reform through Congress without meaningful analysis and debate.

I predict that by the end of the year, you will see stories appear in the media which are highly critical of the results of the Cash for Clunkers program.

To wit:

1) the boost in GDP for the 3rd quarter was temporary -- this will be exacerbated by the way GDP is calculated; inventory drawdowns count towards GDP, but inventory builds do not [Update: Oops, I got this exactly backwards. Inventory builds count towards GDP and drawdowns do not. What I described would be correct for what is called the Final Sales number];

2) the boost to the auto industry was temporary; although domestic car sales had until recently been running at an unsustainably low level (9MM/yr, although there are over 200MM cars in the US), the Cash for Clunkers boost is unsustainable as well and has cannibalized future sales; in addition, Cash for Clunkers has induced many people to buy new cars who probably shouldn't have bought them, and those people will either be dumping them soon or going a good long time before buying another new car;

3) a detailed analysis shows the environmental/energy savings of the program (in terms of carbon emission or imported oil -- both questionable metrics in any case) was nil or negative because the mileage improvement was offset by the energy used to make new cars and destroy old ones, and the old cars weren't driven nearly as much on average as the new cars;

4) used car market prices rose making it harder for poor people to afford a car;

5) engine parts for older cars became scarce making it difficult for owners of clunkers to keep them running at an affordable price;

6) the lion's share of the government largesse actually went to car dealers rather than clunker owners because dealers raised prices on eligible new cars in the face of very high demand;

7) many clunker trade-in buyers ended up with buyer's remorse as they realized they traded in a $2,000 car for a $4,500 rebate but actually paid $2,500 more for a new car than they would have had to if the government hadn't distorted the market;

8) many clunker trade-in buyers were tricked into spending more than they could afford for a new car that they didn't really need or want;

9) new car buyers who didn't have a clunker to trade in had to pay far more than they would have had to just a couple of months before;

10) Cash for Clunkers was effectively a huge subsidy for car dealers as the program provided them with free cash, free advertising, and a huge distortion in customer preferences towards consuming new cars;

Keep in mind points (7) and (9) above as you read stories about auto inventories becoming depleted in the face of huge Cash for Clunkers demand. I suspect that clunker owners are getting no advantage out of the program at this point relative to the deals that existed in June. And yet they will keep buying anyway because human beings are susceptible to marketing schemes that make it look like a special deal is to be had. On top of that, they will be buying "eligible" new cars from depleted inventory, which means that they probably won't even be buying their first choice car (e.g. model, options, color).

Clunker trade-in buyers, regular car buyers, and taxpayers have become dupes of the auto industry.

More Cash for Clunkers

I admit it. I have a bug up my butt about this Cash For Clunkers program. I have a bug up my butt about health care reform too (at least all of the proposals currently on the table), but health care reform is ridiculously complex, and I don't feel I have my act together enough to opine (yet). Cash For Clunkers, however, is straightforward enough that it can perhaps be a teachable moment, as certain moral preeners like to say.

Positive news stories about Cash for Clunkers have dominated media coverage in the last week as the Senate ponders whether to join the House in adding $2B to the program. I see web video interviews with happy car buyers who just traded in their 15 year-old pickup truck to buy a hybrid SUV. I see Wall Street research papers about the positive effect on GDP -- upwards of 0.40% boost this quarter, and I see administration flacks talking up how good the program is for the economy and the environment. Most people believe that this government program is a smashing success (no pun intended).

I was gratified therefore to see Jonah Goldberg's article today. Jonah gets to the nub of the issue, which is Frederic Bastiat's main theme in his 1850 essay That Which is Seen and That Which is Unseen.

In this case, the government is managing to juice GDP this quarter by encouraging new car sales, but it will come at the expense of GDP in future quarters. What is unseen here is that many people made the decision to buy a new car only because the government was essentially giving them several thousand dollars off of the dealer price. Those who were planning to buy a new car anyway have done so earlier than they were planning but won't need another for quite a while. Those who weren't planning on buying a new car now have a lot less spending power to use for a new refrigerator or a new computer or for remodeling a bathroom. That is an unseen loss to GDP.

Then there is the unseen effect of removing cheap cars from the market. Perhaps a landscaper was getting ready to start a business, but he can only afford to purchase a clunker pickup for $3,000 to get started. Alas, they are not available anymore. The lowest price he can pay now is $5,000 because of the diminished supply.

The simplest analysis though focuses on what was destroyed. The government is paying people to destroy something of economic value. That something could have been used for recreation, or it could have been used to contribute to GDP. To make matters worse, resources were used to destroy those things (the car demolition and towing operators' resources), and even more resources (the car manufacturers' resources) were used to create expensive replacements for the things that were destroyed.

I hope Jonah's article is the beginning of some pushback from people who actually understand economics.

There is one other idiocy in the program. As my friend DJ pointed out with respect to the (admittedly stupid) CAFE standards, the government at least gets the math correct for CAFE by calculating the arithmetic average of the gallons per mile that cars get rather than miles per gallon. The reason is that all other things being equal, a 10mpg car uses twice as much gas as a 20mpg car, but a 20mpg car only uses 50% more gas than a 30mpg car.

The Cash for Clunkers program, of course, only looks to the arithmetic improvement (in the case of a new SUV/minivan/pickup truck, 2mpg-4mpg for the $3,500 rebate and 5+mpg for the $4,500 rebate). The improvement is 50% when you go from a 10 mpg SUV to a 15mpg SUV, but it is half as much in going from an 18mpg SUV to a 23mpg SUV. True to form, the government has a floor mpg on new SUVs of 18mpg, thereby ensuring that you are in the un-sweet part of the non-linear gas mileage improvement curve.

This brings me to yet another point in my rambling screed. The theory behind laws based on gas mileage (like CAFE and CARS) is that gas mileage is a good measure of how efficient a vehicle is. But it really isn't because gas mileage scales inversely with the weight and size of a car. Extra size and weight usually means extra passenger safety and extra carrying capacity. I have seen plenty of discussion about the tradeoff between passenger safety and higher CAFE standards, but I haven't seen much about the tradeoff between carrying capacity and higher CAFE standards.

The government obviously recognizes this tradeoff to some extent because it exempts larger trucks and buses from the CAFE standards, but I wonder why it doesn't distinguish between an 8-passenger minivan and a 4-passenger Ford Focus. A family with 3 kids in car seats isn't going to fit into most sedans, yet it fits comfortably into any minivan, with plenty of room for storage. Would the government rather the family drive two "fuel efficient" cars to its holiday destination or one gas-guzzling minivan?