National Center for Policy Analysis

MONTH IN REVIEW

Economy & Income
August, 1996

BENEFITS OF A WAGE GAP

In all the hand-wringing over the income gap between rich and poor, scant attention is paid to the fact that the disparity of income is often due to the decisions of individuals and their adaptability to change.

"What's happening," according to Sen. Connie Mack (R-FL), chairman of the Joint Economic Committee, "is that the country, in essence, is rewarding knowledge and education and the ability to communicate, and those fundamentals are being demanded more and more each day."

Americans seem to be responding to market rewards by boosting the supply of potential employees with a college education.

The share of 18-to 24-year-olds enrolled in college grew from 26 percent to 35 percent between 1980 and 1994, according to the 1996 Economic Report of the President.
Even though the population of college-age youth dropped by 15 percent between 1980 and 1993, the numbers of associate, bachelor's and doctoral degrees awarded grew by 28, 25 and 29 percent respectively.

One recent study by economists John E. Dinardo and Jorn-Steffan Pischke of labor data from Germany compared wages on the basis of workplace tools used.

Workers who used a calculator on their job earned 9 percent to 13 percent more than those who did not.
Those who used a telephone each day earned 12 percent to 14 percent more.
Just being in a job that involved sitting rather than standing for much of the day yielded 10 percent better pay.

The message is that being educated, literate, numerate and highly skilled will help people close the "income gap."

Source: Perspective, "In Praise of the Wage Gap," Investor's Business Daily, August 2, 1996.

DON'T WAVE GOOD-BYE TO BIG GOVERNMENT YET

President Clinton says the era of big government is over. But most political and economic observers say that if it perished, they missed that main event.

Since Clinton took office, actual federal tax revenues rose $322 billion to $1.4 trillion -- a 29 percent increase.
lIn dollar terms, that was the biggest tax increase for a comparable period in the nation's history.
Federal tax collections were $5,365 per person in the year ended June 1996 -- up 25 percent from the average of $4,293 in 1992.
During the same period, compensation per worker rose only about 10 percent.

Unless tough spending curbs are put in place, the river of red ink flowing out of the Treasury will swell around the year 2010, experts warn. The exploding burden of entitlements as the baby boom generation reaches retirement will do the trick.

By 2030, the annual federal deficit could exceed $4 trillion -- 10 percent of GDP.
This would push the ratio of outstanding federal debt to GDP to 316 percent -- six times the present debt burden and three times the previous peak during world War II.

Source: H. Erich Heinemann (Heinemann Economic Research), "Ongoing Era of Big Government," Washington Times, August 4, 1996.

LENGTHENING UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE

A study by Oren M. Levin-Waldman, published by the Jerome Levy Economics Institute of Bard College, argues that with the shift from an industrial to an information economy, workers' skills become outdated and the proportion of workers who are without a job for more than six months has jumped. Those without work for more than a year now comprise 17.3 percent of the unemployed.

Levin-Waldman suggests doubling unemployment insurance benefits from 26 to 52 weeks. After 26 weeks, the unemployed would be required to enroll in a job training program in order for benefits to continue.

Critics, however, take issue with the proposal on a number of grounds.

Set up in the midst of the Great Depression, unemployment insurance was supposed only to smooth over rough spots in the business cycle -- not cushion structural shifts.
Doubling the amount of time that the jobless get benefits will only lengthen unemployment.
Most people find jobs within the first 26 weeks -- with only 20.2 percent taking longer.
Some research shows that firms are more likely to lay workers off because they know they can rely on unemployment -- recalling them when benefits begin to run out.

One answer to this problem, suggests Levin-Waldman, is to lower unemployment insurance payroll contributions for firms that rarely lay off workers, and raise them for those that do so often.

Source: Perspective, "Staying Idle," Investor's Business Daily, August 7, 1996.

PRO-GROWTH ECONOMIC AGENDA

Raising the long-term growth rate by just one percentage point, from 2 percent to 3 percent, could produce a massive payoff in wages, living standards and economic security by increasing savings and investment.

Net national savings, the funds available for new investment, average less than 5 percent of the nation's gross domestic product.
In the 1960s, the savings rate averaged 11 percent, and the economy grew an average of 4 percent a year.
Today, despite spending on new technology, business investment barely outpaces depreciation on existing plant and equipment, meaning net business investment is a low 2 percent of GDP.

Real growth averaging 3 percent or more would in 10 years add $3,000 in goods and services per person. In 30 years, faster growth would add 35 percent to output.

Suggestions for such pro-growth policies include:

Balancing the federal budget by reducing the rate of spending growth, which would lower long-term interest rates by almost two percentage points.
Cutting individual income tax rates enough to reduce the top rate from almost 40 percent today to 28 percent (the top tax rate in 1986) or less.
Converting Social Security to a fully funded private pension system with individual savings accounts -- increasing plant and equipment by an estimated 25 percent by 2020.

Source: Mike McNamee and Paul Magnusson, "Let's Get Growing," Business Week, July 8, 1996.

For more information on Economic Growth & Taxes go to http://www.public-policy.org/~ncpa/studies/s188/s188.html

U.S. DOLLARS SLOSHING AROUND THE WORLD

Since 1990, the U.S. has printed billions of dollars, putting a huge amount of money in circulation and raising among some economists the specter of inflation. There is roughly $375 billion of cash in circulation -- equivalent to $1,400 for every man, woman and child in the country.

Since few keep that much ready cash on hand, where is it? Much of it is abroad, according to a new report by Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland economists John B. Carlson and Benjamin D. Keen.

Currently, somewhere between 50 percent and 70 percent of all U.S. currency is held by foreigners, according to the report.
Since 1980, about 80 percent of all the currency printed has gone overseas.
Foreigners want dollars because they are a relatively stable source of purchasing power, widely accepted and reasonably secure from counterfeiting.
They are particularly attractive to people living in politically and financially unstable countries.

The dollar's popularity varies from region to region.

Liberia and Panama use the dollar as their official currencies.
It is said to be enormously popular in Russia and other former Soviet countries, where it's a bulwark against inflation and instability.
In Central and South America, the dollar is used to buy and sell goods.
In Argentina, its even used for real estate transactions and to buy cars.

The sudden increase in demand for U.S. currency from 1990 on was largely a result of the break-up of the Soviet Union, as citizens there sought financial stability.

While such a strong demand for dollars might have sent up inflationary warning flags in the past, this situation had nothing to do with inflation. And now that currency demand is slowing, there is similarly no cause for alarm, the study concludes. A number of countries are not so threatened by economic chaos as they once feared.

Source: Perspective, "Foreigners' Love of Dollars," Investor's Business Daily, August 8, 1996.

CHANGING THE MIX OF LEADING ECONOMIC INDICATORS

The Conference Board is considering dropping two of the 11 economic measures that make up the index of leading economic indicators and adding one new component. The Conference Board, a New York-based non-profit group consisting of 2,700 corporate and other members, took over the index from the U.S. Department of Commerce in December and still calculates it each month from fresh government data.

While no final decisions have been made, the Board's economists are recommending that changes in unfilled orders for the durable goods industries, and changes in sensitive-materials prices be dropped -- since the predictive powers of these components are said to have been poor over the past decade.
Added would be the U.S. Treasury yield curve -- the difference between the interest rate on 10-year Treasury notes and short term bills -- which is said to be a particularly promising predictor of recessions and recoveries.
Economists say the index has done a reliable job of forecasting the last six economic downturns from eight to 18 months in advance, but has also sounded a few false alarms -- predicting an extra recession almost every other cycle.

Source: Michael M. Phillips, "Makeup of Leading Indicators May Shift," Wall Street Journal, August 12, 1996.

SUPPLY-SIDE PROOFS

Some liberal economists profess to be aghast at Bob Dole's bold plan to cut tax rates 15 percent. Other economists are applauding, comparing the economy's superior performance after the Reagan tax cuts with economic conditions after Clinton's tax increase.

The real economic growth rate during the 1980s was 3.2 percent per year, compared to 1.8 percent so far in the 1990s.
lReal median family incomes rose $4,000 in the Reagan years, but have fallen $2,100 since the 1990 and 1993 tax increases.
The poorest fifth of Americans experienced a 6 percent gain in real income in the 1980s, but have suffered a 7 percent loss in the 1990s.
Federal revenues grew by 24 percent from 1982 to 1989, but will only increase by 20 percent over a comparable seven-year period from 1990 to 1997.

Some economic analysts conclude that any way one slices it, tax cuts have proven to be people- and voter-friendly.

Source: Stephen Moore (Cato Institute), "The True Reagan Record: One Last Time," Investor's Business Daily, August 13, 1996.

A LITTLE INFLATION IS GOOD, STUDY CLAIMS

A Brookings Institution study that contends a little bit of inflation may be good for the ecomomy is raising eyebrows at the Federal Reserve. The study contends that:

The economy won't function efficiently at zero inflation and the economic and social costs of getting there would be far higher than most economists believe.
Zero inflation would permanently add at least one percentage point to the unemployment rate and could cut annual growth by a similar amount.

The Brookings paper challenges mainstream economic assumptions about wages and inflation, including recent staff research by the Fed. It also makes a case against pending legislation that would force the Fed to pursue price stability as its only goal. the bill -- introduced by Sen. Connie Mack (R-FL) and endorsed by most key Republicans, including Bob Dole -- would amend the Humphrey-Hawkins Act, a law requiring the Federal Reserve to pursue both stable prices and high employment.

Source: John R. Wilke, "A Little Inflation Greases Economy, Says Study Creating a Buzz at the Fed," Wall Street Journal, August 13, 1996.

THE GOP APPEAL TO BLACKS

Some black Americans find that the Republican party holds more allure for them than the Democratic party -- the usual recipient of their votes. They point to the progress they enjoyed under the Reagan administration.

Black median family income -- while fell 13.6 percent from 1975 to 1982 --rose 15.7 percent during the Reagan boom years of 1982 to 1989 compared to a 13.8 percent rise for whites.
From 1982 to 1989, black unemployment fell 9 percent.
According to the Census Bureau, between 1982 and 1987 the number of black-owned businesses increased from 308,000 to 424,000 -- a 38 percent rise.
During the same period, receipts by black-owned firms more than doubled -- from $9.6 billion to $19.8 billion.

Blacks urging a second look at the Republican party also cite the fact that the liberal Democratic agenda has brought ruin to inner cities, out of control black-on-black crime, and drugs sold in plain view of women and children. They charge that the welfare state has caused the breakdown of black families, accelerated the illegitimacy rate among black teens and created generations of welfare-dependent black families.

Source: Armstrong Williams, "Why Blacks Should Vote Republican in '96," USA Today, August 13, 1996.

GLOBALIZATION NOT AS WIDESPREAD AS OFTEN THOUGHT

Despite the tremendous growth in international trade, the proportion of firms that produce goods outside their home borders is not as great as often perceived, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research. Mostly it is a myth.

Output by multinationals outside their home countries has grown slightly since the 1970s, but amounted to only 7 percent of world output by 1990.
Foreign operations owned by American firms contributed about 3 percent of global economic output at their peak in 1977 -- but declined to 2 percent by 1993.
The U.S., Japan, Sweden and Germany account for more than 50 percent of all international investment.
The share of international production has increased for the latter three since the 1970s, but decreased for the U.S.

Relative to manufacturing, the service sector has grown more rapidly in recent years. Given the fact that service companies are much less likely than manufacturers to produce overseas, this has tempered the trend to move abroad.

Source: Perspective, "Globalization or Globaloney," Investor's Business Daily, August 16, 1996.

"DOWNSIZING:" A MANUFACTURED CRISIS

While the word "downsizing" may initially strike dread in the hearts of corporate employees, it is actually a natural and economically beneficial process, economists explain. They say that policymakers want to turn employees' anxieties into a national crisis, in order to extend government control over the economy.

Perhaps the first sector of the American economy to experience heavy-duty downsizing was agriculture -- which employed 95 percent of the population at the time of the nation's birth and employs only 2 percent today.
In the heavy construction industry, one man pushing a few buttons and pulling a few levers on giant equipment can today produce what it took hundreds of laborers to do a century ago.

Since labor tends to be the costliest production input, downsizing means finding cheaper, labor-saving methods of production. This frees up workers to provide the manpower for expanding industries engaged in developing new products and processes. So as some jobs are eliminated, others are born.

While AT&T and IBM and others were downsizing, Wal-Mart increased its staff by 41,000, 5,000 employees were added at Motorola and 10,000 were hired at Intel.

Economists caution against policies that would cripple the economy and stifle innovation to benefit a tiny percentage of the workers who are temporarily unemployed as a result of natural changes in labor use.

Source: Walter Williams (George Mason University), "Talking Up a Crisis Over Downsizing," Washington Times, August 16, 1996.

JUGGLING UNEMPLOYMENT AND INTEREST RATES

Not too long ago, many economists agreed that an unemployment rate of less than 6 percent would set off wage and price inflation. A lower unemployment rate would signal the Federal Reserve to raise interest rates in order to dampen economic growth. But, according to economists, that consensus is no more.

The rate that policy makers ultimately agree on as an appropriate unemployment-interest rate trigger is important to business, investors and people looking for work.

After the unemployment rate fell below 6 percent in mid-1987, labor costs began accelerating significantly in 1988.
That experience more or less determined Fed policy until recently.
But joblessness has been well below 6 percent for nearly two years now and labor costs have remained quiescent.

So what is the new trigger rate? Some economists are looking at data from the midwestern states.

During the last two years, in the 12 states from North Dakota to Ohio, and from Wisconsin to Missouri, unemployment has averaged 4.5 percent.
Yet growth in regional labor costs -- the biggest single warning sign of inflation -- has been contained.

Some see this as evidence for the need to shift thinking about the unemployment-inflation relationship.

Business leaders have often argued that changing conditions -- including downsizing and globalization of the economy -- have altered inflation dynamics, making the economy capable of faster growth and lower unemployment.
But many economists and policy makers are skeptical, reluctant to assign such changing conditions an important role in recent economic trends.
Still other economists argue that labor cost inefficiencies of the 1970s and 1980s are being ironed out and that labor costs are being pushed closer to market realities.
They argue that companies are giving fewer non-wage benefits, automatic raises, salary increases and cost-of-living adjustments, and replacing them with performance-based awards.

This would suggest, they say, that the higher economic efficiency is, the lower unemployment can be without triggering wage and price inflation. By allowing the market to reorder its own activities -- without imposing roadblocks, such as anti-downsizing laws -- the foundation can be laid for sustained economic growth. With growth would come strong profits, low inflation, modest unemployment, rising financial-asset prices, rapid investment, robust productivity gains and a resumption in the growth of real wages and higher living standards.

Source: James Annable (First Chicago NBD Bank), "No Need to Fear Lower Unemployment," Wall Street Journal, August 21, 1996.

"INCOME GAP" TRACED TO TWO-EARNER FAMILIES

By and large, families that get rich together, work together -- according to recent research. And the increase in two-earner families may help explain the so-called "income gap."

According to a Labor Department report last year:

About 30 percent of two-earner households were in the top fifth of America's income distribution in 1993 -- while only 14 percent made it to the top among households in which only the husband worked.
Some 15 percent of households headed by a single, working man made it to the top quintile compared to 6 percent of households headed by a single, working woman.
Families headed by married couples have seen bigger wage gains than single-headed families in recent decades -- due in great part, economists say, to the growth of unmarried mothers on welfare.
The average person living in a two-income household saw his or her income increase 44 percent between 1969 and 1993 -- to $40,213.

By contrast, most households headed by a single parent saw a drop in income. The steepest drop came in households headed by a woman who was not working, where income dropped 11 percent to $9,290 in 1993.

According to a study from the National Bureau of Economic Research, from 1969 to 1989 the time worked by married males declined slightly and earnings increased slightly. But the time worked by wives increased from 39 percent to 66 percent of the year and their earnings more than doubled.

Source: Laura M. Litvan, "How Families With Two Incomes Are Changing the U.S. Economy," Investor's Business Daily, August 22, 1996.

MEASURING MISERY AND ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE

Robert Barro of Harvard University has rated the performance of the economy during the terms of post-World War II presidents. He started with the "misery index" first used by Ronald Reagan -- the inflation rate plus the unemployment rate -- and added the change in long-term interest rates and economic growth relative to its long-term average of 3.1 percent.

Thus, decreases in Barro's index indicate an improvement in economic conditions and increases represent a deterioration.

Reagan's first term was by far the best of the postwar era (reducing the misery index by 4.3 percent), and his second term was a close second (with misery falling by 3.7 percent).
The third-best presidential term was the Kennedy-Johnson term, 1961 to 1964, when the index fell 2.6 percent.
The fourth-best was Truman's second term (2.4 percent) -- with improvement, as in Kennedy-Johnson's term, attributable mainly to above-average growth.
In fifth place is Clinton's first term through the first quarter of 1996, during which inflation, interest rates and unemployment decline, but were offset by slower-than-average economic growth.

Thus the Kennedy and Reagan tax cuts gave use the three best presidential terms in the post-war era, concludes Barro.

Source: Bruce Bartlett, "Matching Miseries and Presidencies," Washington Times, August 26, 1996.

CLINTON'S ECONOMY

A number of economists challenge President Clinton's takeing credit for the nation's economic trends since he took office. They say that the recovery that began under President Bush has only crept forward under Clinton's administration and call it the worst economic recovery since before World War II.

Heritage Foundation economist William W. Beach studied recent trends in gross domestic product, focusing on an eight-quarter moving average.

He found a downward trend in the rate of GDP growth since 1994.
Spikes seen in the second quarter of this year and the third quarter of last year do not, he says, make up for dismal rates of growth in last year's first, second and last quarters.

The White House has tried to take credit for the declining federal budget deficit. But a number of fiscal policy experts say House and Senate Republicans deserve a considerable amount of the credit.

The Republicans actually cut $94 billion of this year's budget, points out economist Stephen Moore of the Cato Institute.
GOP leaders trimmed more than $1 trillion off spending plans for the next seven years in place as of January 1, 1995.
Since the Reagan administration put an end to the Cold War, the Pentagon's budget has fallen by nearly $110 billion in real terms -- precisely the amount the budget deficit has fallen over that period.

Christopher Frenze, chief economist to the Joint Economic Committee, notes that $100 billion of the $126 billion decline in the deficit between 1992 and 1995 can be traced to continuation of the business cycle, winding down of the savings and loan industry bailout and proceeds from auctioning off the TV spectrum.

Source: Editorial, "Whose Lower Deficit?" Investor's Business Daily, August 23, 1996.

For an analysis of the current recovery, read "Taxes and Recovery" at http://www.public-policy.org/~ncpa/ea/eaja96/eaja96f.html

COMPARING DOLE, CLINTON ECONOMIC PLANS

Leaving aside political rhetoric -- of which there is much these days -- here is a short comparison of the economic programs being advanced by GOP presidential candidate Bob Dole and President Bill Clinton covering fiscal years 1997-2002.

The administration's budget plan would lead to a $61 billion surplus by the end of 2002, according to the Office of Management and Budget, but only $1 billion based on the more conservative Congressional Budget Office calculations.
The Dole plan also projects a $1 billion surplus by the end of the six-year period, but borrows $50 billion less than the Clinton plan ($505 billion vs. $535 billion).
Both the administration budget and the one adopted by Congress in June -- which would be the initial departure point for a Dole presidency -- differ by less than 1.5 percent in total spending projections on nearly $6 trillion in programs.

Dole supporters say he would realize savings of $47 billion through realistic cuts in the budgets of the Commerce and Energy departments. Clinton aims to raise $60 billion in tax revenues by closing "corporate loopholes." This would seem to be in conflict with tax breaks designed to foster growth that Clinton has proposed.

Clinton is proposing $100 billion in "targeted" tax breaks for certain groups.
Dole's agenda calls for $548 billion in tax cuts which would affect almost everyone.

A key assumption underlying the Dole plan is that across-the-board tax cuts and reduction in capital gains tax rates would stimulate the economy sufficiently to raise revenues, which would partially offset losses from the cuts.

If the economy were to grow at even modest rates -- starting at 2.5 percent next year and rising incrementally by 0.2 percent each year until it reaches 3.5 percent growth in 2002 -- the additional revenues would exceed current CBO projections by some $200 billion.
That is far in excess of the $147 billion income growth effect presumed in the Dole plan.

In addition to the tax cuts, Dole's plan calls for $271 billion in deficit reduction to achieve a balanced budget in 2002.

Dole advisers say his plan would result in total savings of $610 billion and $227 billion in additional revenue -- equaling $837 billion. This, they say, is more than enough to pay for the tax cuts and still balance the budget in 2002.

Source: Judy Shelton (Empower America and a Dole adviser), "Why the Dole Plan Adds Up," Wall Street Journal, August 27, 1996.

REAL WAGES DOWN FOR SOME WORKERS

For many American workers, the answer to the question "Are you better off today than four years ago?" is "no."

Non-college educated workers' real wages fell 5 percent over the past six years, according to a study by the Economic Policy Institute.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that those with only a high school diploma earned only $274 per week last year -- in constant 1982 dollars -- down from $282 in 1991.
Workers with one to three years of higher education earned an inflation-adjusted $322 last year -- compared to $334 in 1992.
For those with college degrees, wages rose only modestly -- $431 a week in 1991 versus an inflation-adjusted $434 in 1995.

There is a potential for political fallout. This group -- up to 70 percent of the electorate -- is volatile. They shifted from George Bush by 21 percent in 1992 and to the Republicans in 1994. The winner this year could be the party that promises higher living standards. Hudson Institute economist Alan Reynolds offers this prescription for raising the living standards: cut taxes, expand Individual Retirement Accounts and boost the rate of economic growth.

According to a CNN-USA Today-Gallup poll, most workers point to high taxes as the reason their living standards are becoming substandard.

Source: Adrienne Fox, "It's Higher Living Standards, Stupid," Investor's Business Daily, August 29, 1996.

THE DEFICIT-INTEREST RATE LINK QUESTIONED

It is taken as gospel by many citizens and politicians that higher federal deficits prompt higher interest rates. Critics, however, point to some historical data which argue against a direct link between the two.

Between 1981 and 1989, yields on 30-year Treasury bonds dropped from 13.5 percent to 8.5 percent.
At the same time, the federal debt was tripling from $995 billion to $2.9 trillion.
By 1992, the Treasury long bond rate had declined to 7.7 percent, while the federal budget deficit had swollen to $290 billion.
Recently, the federal budget deficit has fallen to $117 billion; but interest rates are only slightly lower than when Clinton assumed office.

University of Rochester economist Steven Landsburg is one who disputes a link between budget deficits and interest rates, no matter how "indelibly ingrained in the American psyche." He says the assumption that government borrowing crowds out private borrowing is false since money borrowed by government is spent on goods and services in the private sector. The proceeds are redeposited in banks by private contractors and are then available for lending.

Source: Paul Sperry, "The Deficit-Interest Rate Myth," Investor's Business Daily, August 28, 1996.

ECONOMIST BELIEVES DOLE'S ECONOMIC PLAN CAN WORK

Economist Gary S. Becker, 1992 Nobel laureate, believes that if Bob Dole's economic plan were enacted, the U.S. economy would achieve the goal of 3.5 percent annual economic growth.

The economy is currently growing at about 2.2 percent a year, but according to Becker, high taxes, excessive regulations and the failure of the educational system keep the economy from reaching its potential.

In addition to the 15 percent across-the-board cut in income tax rates, the full Dole plan includes a simpler and flatter tax structure, a balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution and a requirement for a super-majority in Congress to raise income-tax rates.

The tax cuts and other incentives in Dole's program would reduce federal revenues by about $550 billion over six years.
The plan conservatively assumes that faster economic growth and more taxable income would recover about 27 percent, or $150 billion, of the revenue lost.
Martin S. Feldstein of Harvard University, a Dole adviser, estimates that Ronald Reagan's tax cuts yielded a 40 percent feedback.
If the Dole package raised growth by only 0.2 percentage points each year for six years, more than $200 billion would be recovered in the six years.

Dole's program includes using scholarships to give students from middle-class and poor families a choice of public or private schools, including parochial schools; and it would allow families to contribute $500 a year to an education account for each child, similar to an individual retirement account.

The plan would also reverse the rapid growth in regulation:

Even the Clinton administration estimates that the cost of complying with federal regulations in 1995 was almost 10 percent of gross domestic product.
Dole would require benefit-cost analysis to justify new regulations and would reevaluate all existing regulations.

Becker concludes that improving business opportunities and encouraging greater investments in human and physical capital will create economic vitality.

Source: Gary S. Becker (Hoover Institution and University of Chicago), "Why the Dole Plan Will Work," Business Week, August 26, 1996.

For more information on Taxes and Growth, visit NCPA's tax page at http://www.public-policy.org/~ncpa/taxes/taxes2.html