Should-Read: Mike Males: The Truth About Teen Suicide

Should-Read: Regionally-concentrated deaths of despair: Mike Males: The Truth About Teen Suicide: “Trend[s] in suicide rates among teens… track… trend among… adults…

…And what jumps out from the data is not technology use, but geography. Rising suicide is overwhelmingly a feature of rural America, where teenagers have less access to smartphones and use Facebook less than urban teens do….Girls are branded as particularly depressed and suicidal due to modern social-media trends. Yet girls’ suicide remains rare, especially in urban areas, and while it has become more common over the past two decades, its increase closely parallels the increase among women of their parents’ age….

One unexplored factor may be the influence of immigration and racial diversity (more than half of Los Angeles and New York youth have at least one immigrant parent). Asians and Latinos who make up the bulk of immigrants have distinctly lower suicide rates than native-born populations. Emerging analyses show rapidly rising suicide, firearms, and addiction-related “deaths of despair” afflict whites the most in rural and suburban areas where white populations are most concentrated. There are many more suicides among the seven million white rural 35-64 year-old men than among all 40 million American teenagers…

Should-Read: David Glasner: Noah Smith on Bitcoins: A Failure with a Golden Future

Should-Read: I agree with David here: BitCoin will have long run value only if some organization decides that it wants BitCoin to have long-run value, in which case it is no longer a decentralized emergent phenomenon, but rather a managed one—managed in the interest of the stabilizing entity, not of BitCoin holders: David Glasner: Noah Smith on Bitcoins: A Failure with a Golden Future : “Noah Smith and I agree that… Bitcoins have no chance of becoming a successful money…

…However, I think that Bitcoins must sooner or later become worthless, while Noah thinks that Bitcoins, like gold, can be a worthwhile investment for those who think that it is fiat money that is going to become worthless. Here’s how Noah puts it….

Why has gold increased in price? One reason is that it’s not quite useless—people use gold for jewelry and some industrial applications, so the metal slowly goes out of circulation, increasing its scarcity. And another reason is that central banks now own more than 17% of all the gold in the world…. But another reason is that people simply believe in gold. In the end, the price of an asset is what people believe it’s worth…

Yes, but it sure does help when there are large central banks out there buying unwanted gold, and piling it up in vaults where no one else can do anything with it…. The problem with cryptocurrencies is that there is no reason to think that central banks will start amassing huge stockpiles of cryptocurrencies, thereby ensuring that the demand for cryptocurrencies will always be sufficient to keep their value at or above whatever level the central banks are comfortable with. It just seems odd to me that some people want to invest in Bitcoins, which provide no present or future real services, and almost no present or future monetary services, in the belief that it is fiat money, which clearly does provide present and future monetary services, and provides the non-trivial additional benefit of enabling one to discharge tax liabilities to the government, is going to become worthless sometime in the future. If your bet that Bitcoins are going to become valuable depends on the forecast that dollars will become worthless, you probably need to rethink your investment strategy.

Should-Read: Andrew Wachtel: Universities in the Age of AI

Should-Read: That the truly valuable skills will lie in understanding what are robots and software ‘bots can and cannot do—how they think, and how their thinking is different from ours—so that we can use them for good rather than evil seems a good bet: Andrew Wachtel: Universities in the Age of AI: “Over the next 50 years or so, as AI and machine learning become more powerful, human labor will be cannibalized by technologies that outperform people in nearly every job function…

…How should higher education prepare students?… Educators must consider what skills graduates will need when humans can no longer compete with robots…. Tomorrow’s leaders will need an intimate familiarity with computers…. But graduates will also need experience in psychology, if only to grasp how a computer’s “brain” differs from their own…. Business majors should study economic and political history to avoid becoming blind determinists. Economists must learn from engineering students, as it will be engineers building the future workforce. And law students should… gain the insight that will be needed to defend people from forces that may seek to turn individuals into disposable parts. Even students studying creative and leisure disciplines must learn differently. For one thing, in an AI-dominated world, people will need help managing their extra time…. Today… [the] future looks to be dominated by machines. To succeed, educators–and the universities we inhabit–must evolve.

Must-Read: Paul Krugman: The Gang That Couldn’t Think Straight

Must-Read: Yes, Trump appointments are doing substantial damage to the competence of the government. Why do you ask?: Paul Krugman: The Gang That Couldn’t Think Straight: “Puerto Rico[’s]… residents, almost a third of whom are still without power…

…four months after the storm…. FEMA officials told NPR that the disaster agency was ending its work on the island. FEMA later said that this was a miscommunication. But at the very least it suggests a complete lack of focus….

Trump… declared… that he is “committed” to taking action on the opioid epidemic. But… what he did do was appoint a 24-year-old former campaign worker, with no relevant experience before joining the administration—who appears to have lied on his résumé…. The Trump-appointed director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention resigned after Politico reported that she had purchased tobacco-industry stocks after taking office…. These aren’t isolated examples…. The Trump administration is a graveyard for reputations: Everyone who goes in comes out soiled and diminished. Only fools, or those with no reputation to lose, even want the positions on offer. And in any case, Trump, who values personal loyalty above professionalism, probably distrusts anyone whose credentials might give some sense of independence….

America is a very big country with a lot of strengths, and it can run on momentum for a long time even if none of the people in charge know what they’re doing. Sooner or later, however, stuff happens—and then incompetence becomes a very big deal, as it already has in Puerto Rico. What kind of stuff may happen? The scariest scenarios involve national security. But we can’t count on smooth sailing for the economy….

Lower-level Fed appointments are becoming cause for concern…. Marvin Goodfriend, whom Trump has nominated for the Fed’s Board of Governors. Democrats pointed out that Goodfriend was wrong, again and again, about monetary policy during the crisis, repeatedly predicting inflation that didn’t happen. Now, everyone makes bad predictions now and then; God knows I have. But you’re supposed to face up to your mistakes, figure out what went wrong and adapt your views. Goodfriend refused to do any of that. And why should he? His errors were politically correct; they reinforced Republican orthodoxy. From the G.O.P.’s point of view, having been completely wrong about monetary policy isn’t a defect, it’s practically a badge of honor.

The point is that even at the Fed, which is partly insulated from the Trumpian reign of error, U.S. policymaking is being denuded of expertise. And the whole nation will eventually pay the price.

Should-Read: Chris Hanretty: LRT: study in most recent APSR

Should-Read: There is a deep problem with simulations as teaching tools, nailed by the international treasure Dan Davies here on Twitter: Chris Hanretty: LRT: study in most recent APSR suggests getting people to take perspective of marginalised group…

…through a choose-your-own-adventure game reduces hostility to group by 0.2-0.3 standard deviations. This confirms my belief that choose your own adventure games are awesome.

Dan Davies: The trouble is they’re too powerful. Anthony Stafford Beer gave up on simulation exercises in management training because he wasn’t happy with the idea of million pound decisions being made on the basis of what worked in a game he dreamt up in an afternoon.

Chris Hanratty: I’m happy with forms of communication which, in moderation, give power to creative imaginative people capable of writing narratives!

Yorkshire Ranter: I’m fairly sure you could construct one to have the opposite effect.

Dave Andress: More time on the Kobayashi Maru?

Celestial M. Weasel: With our simulation software we would certainly have senior people come into the room look at the coloured boxes moving round the screen (as was the fashion at the time ((c) Abe Simpson)) and say ‘yes, I knew that was the problem’ and go off to make decisions…

Should-Read: Simon Wren-Lewis, Tony Yates, and Dan Davies: “Journalists need a place they can go

Should-Read: A good Twitter debate—yes, I know that is a near-oxymoron—about macroeconomics in the public sphere: Simon Wren-Lewis, Tony Yates, and Dan Davies: “Journalists need a place they can go to get an idea of what the balance of opinion is on any issue, and why economists think that way…

Tony Yates: ‘Professor for the Public Understanding of Economics’ akin to similar roles that exist for science and statistics. Needs a department brave enough to fund it, ie not spend money on generating REFable research output.

Dan Davies: At this stage in the development of economics as a science, the last thing we need is public understanding of how bad things are. They’d murder us.

Simon Wren-Lewis: I think they have already with Brexit. The status quo where politicians make stuff up about economics and find economists who are in an extreme minority to support that position means economics is currently worthless as a public policy tool.

Dan Davies: It also has to be faced up to that brexit gave the mainstream of economists a chance to make a big high profile prediction and we massively swung and missed.

Simon Wren-Lewis: But why was that. Plenty of economists I know worked very hard to get the message across. So where did we go wrong—what was missing?

Dan Davies: Any single prominent figure prepared to talk authoritatively because the profession had spent a decade saying “macro forecasting is for charlatans and true economics is quirky datasets”. The main message of the economics profession between 2008 and 2015 was “you can’t blame us, economics isn’t the sort of thing that lets you

Simon Wren-Lewis: Again, this confuses conditional (Brexit) and unconditional (there will be a banking crisis in 2007/8) forecasting. I didn’t hear any serious economist say we were right not to pay attention to the financial sector.

Dan Davies: I heard dozens of serious economists saying we were in a Great Moderation and could expect stable growth. It’s just not tenable to claim that failure to understand what was happening in the 00s shouldn’t affect our credibility. The 07/08 crisis demonstrated that the majority of economists didn’t understand what was happening in the actual economy for a decade. Then we popped up in 2016 saying “well, we understand this and what will happen here”.

Simon Wren-Lewis: And what, exactly, has a failure to understand the importance of finance and the possibility of crisis got to do with gravity equations. It is like saying doctors cannot cure your cold so I’m going to ignore what they say about cancer.

Dan Davies: Yes! It’s like saying “blood-letting doesn’t cure tuberculosis, so I’m not going to take mercury as a treatment for syphilis”. For the majority of the history of medicine, it was correct to assume that doctors were working on a totally mistaken understanding. Economics is not in the position of modern medical science. It would be flattering to say we were near the position of medical science shortly be before Pasteur. We make lots of mistakes, and we make them because our understanding of the economy is very bad. In the case of brexit it might be one of the areas we understand better, but it’s wholly reasonable for the public not to give us the benefit of the doubt.

Simon Wren-Lewis: So once the GFC hit, economists should have said we know nothing, so we will not advise you to cut interest rates, or bail out banks, or undertake fiscal stimulus. Yes, maybe QE will cause hyperinflation, and yes maybe all this debt will send rates through the roof.

Dan Davies: A very large proportion of the economics profession should have said “our models are clearly inadequate so we will work hard on improving our understanding, in the meantime please listen to this small subset of us who appear to have been right”. But really after a mistake that big there is no way at all that the economics profession could have expected to be listened to for a long time, and this is not really the public’s fault or the fault of politicians.

Simon Wren-Lewis: You could say exactly the same about US medics and the opioid crisis in the US, and it would be equally stupid. You cannot just ignore economics when you take economic decisions all the time.

Tony Yates: It’s explicable that we struggle to get a hearing; but not right. I personally failed to see the crisis coming, or some of the defects in our institutions that made dealing with it difficult, but I think I understand more deeply than non economists [that’s all politicians and a lot of journalists] what went wrong and what to do about it. That is not a very strong claim either as the bar is quite low…

Weekend reading: “The stock market is not the economy” edition

This is a weekly post we publish on Fridays with links to articles that touch on economic inequality and growth. The first section is a round-up of what Equitable Growth published this week and the second is the work we’re highlighting from elsewhere. We won’t be the first to share these articles, but we hope that by taking a look back at the whole week, we can put them in context.

Equitable Growth round-up

Equitable Growth released a working paper looking at why displaced workers experience long-term earnings losses. Equitable Growth grantees Marta Lachowska and Stephen Woodbury, along with Alexandre Mas find that unemployed workers who find new jobs experience reduced earnings in the short term—explained almost entirely by lost work hours—and also over the long term even as they work more hours because they do not regain their prior wage levels.

Nisha Chikale digs into the key findings of Lachowska, Mas, and Woodbury—that hours and wages both contribute to earnings declines for displaced workers, but the types of firms where they eventually found jobs matters as well.

The U.S. stock market is on a roll, but what does this mean for the broader U.S. economy? Nick Bunker explains why, absent reforms to broaden stock ownership and to help reconnect business investment and profit growth, policymakers shouldn’t get overly excited about a booming stock market.

The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics released its latest U.S. labor market report for January this morning. Check out five key graphs from the new data compiled by Equitable Growth staff.

Links from around the web

One of the major mysteries of the post-Great Recession economic recovery has been the lack of wage growth even amid declining unemployment. Ben Casselman explores economic trends such as declining unionization, restraints on competition, and a lagging minimum wage that may be suppressing wages. [the new york times]

For many struggling communities across the country, Amazon.com Inc. coming to town seems like a “rare and wonderful” opportunity. Cities and states have offered up huge tax breaks and other development incentives to woo the company’s second headquarters to their neighborhoods. But, as Alana Semuels writes, San Bernardino, which opened a massive Amazon distribution center in 2012, learned the hard way that “Amazon can exacerbate the economic problems that city leaders had hoped it would solve.” [the atlantic]

The U.S. Department of Labor announced this week that pay in the private sector is up 2.8 percent, the  largest increase since 2015. As the labor market tightens, economists expects wages to continue rising. Yet due to increasing industry consolidation and market concentration, Kimberly Adams explains that “even a worker shortage may not be enough to push wages up quickly.” [marketplace]

The U.S. retail industry overall is floundering as bricks-and-mortar stores all across the United States have been forced to close their doors. Over the past five years, however, discount retail outlets have opened a new store every four-and-a-half hours, and now boast a collective  market value of $28 billion. “Dollar General thrives where low-income families struggle,” explains the company’s chief executive, adding that “the economy is continuing to create more of our core customers.’” [the economist]

A former staple among South Florida retirees may be on its way out. Jaya Saxena explains that amid a declining U.S. middle class and rising inequality, early bird value meal specials may be headed for extinction. [eater]

Friday figure

Equitable Growth’s Jobs Day Graphs: January 2018 Report Edition

Earlier this morning, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics released new data on the U.S. labor market during the month of January. Below are five graphs compiled by Equitable Growth staff highlighting important trends in the data.

1.

Prime employment has leveled off at about 79%, a high for the recovery but lower than rates before the recession.

a

2.

After falling to an all-time low in December, African-American unemployment ticked up sharply in January.

3.

Nominal wage growth ticked up in January while inflation fell slightly in December.

4.

Employment was up sharply in the Education, Leisure and Hospitality, and Construction industries.

5.

After reaching highs for the recovery late last year, fewer workers are now entering employment from outside the labor force.

Firms matter: Where you work is important to what you earn

The Department of Labor building in Washington, DC. New research reviews unemployment data from Washington state to show that where you work is important to what you earn.

Decades of research show that workers who involuntarily lose their jobs suffer long and enduring reduced earnings. Recent evidence on the effects of job loss in the aftermath of recessions in the United States illustrates the persistence of these earnings losses: Workers who are laid off or displaced from their jobs during economic downturns have persistently lower earnings than their peers long after they’ve found new jobs.

Why do these displaced workers earn less in the long term? Is it because they work fewer hours, find new jobs with lower hourly wages, or get new jobs at a lower paying firm? New research by Marta Lachowska of the W.E. Upjohn Institute, Alexandre Mas of Princeton University, and Stephen Woodbury of Michigan State University uses Washington state unemployment insurance records coming out of the Great Recession and the subsequent economic recovery through 2014 to find out. The short answer is that yes, hours and wages both contribute to earnings declines for displaced workers, but the types of firms where they eventually found jobs matters as well.

Unlike other state’s records for unemployment insurance, Washington’s includes data not only on hourly wages but also on hours worked. The Employment Security Department of Washington state collects data on the hours, earnings, industries, and employers of all insured workers in order to determine eligibility and replacement wages if one becomes unemployed. This unique dataset enables the three authors of the new report to decompose total earnings losses over time in order to assess how much of that loss is due to changes in hours versus changes in wage rates versus changes in employer-specific wage premiums. These wage premiums-also known as rents-represent a measure of the advantage attained by working for a specific firm.

The authors find that long-term earnings losses for displaced workers are initially explained by both fewer hours and lower hourly wages when these workers rejoin the labor market. They also find that hours worked recover faster than higher wages earned for these newly employed workers. So, while a displaced worker’s earnings penalty is initially explained mainly by fewer work hours, five years after the initial involuntary job loss, displaced workers’ lower wages explain more of the gap between their current and prior earnings levels.

Why, then, are these displaced workers experiencing lower wage levels? The analysis finds that individual firms’ characteristics are an important explanation for the gap in hourly wages between displaced workers and comparable workers who were not affected by layoffs. Simply put, even after holding a host of job- and skill-related worker characteristics constant, the three researchers find that displaced workers are more likely to find new work in firms that simply pay less well or are a less favorable match for their skills than their former employer.

Their research shows that approximately 25 percent of the reduction in hourly wages, on average, can be attributed to working at a lower-paying firm. The researchers find that workers whose former employers paid wage premiums in the top 20 percent can attribute about 83 percent of their lower hourly wages to lost premiums from their previously high-paying employers.

The difference in pay between comparable workers at two different firms, referred to as employer-specific rents, depends on how the two companies decide to share their respective profits with their workers. These rents that workers receive when working for a high-paying firm (and lose after being displaced and re-employed at a lower paying firm) provide some explanation for lower earnings. In short, firms matter.

Lachowska, Mas, and Woodbury’s work supports the notion that for displaced workers “where you work” is important to “what you earn.” Other recent research on “interfirm inequality” shows that even for workers who were not laid off, differences in average wages across firms can help explain why similar workers may earn such different salaries. Firms also influence workers’ future earnings potential and their likelihood of ascending the job ladder.

Researchers are increasingly recognizing the important explanatory role that firms play in the evolution of wage inequality and in the changing landscape of the U.S. labor market. Wages are no longer simply a function of education or skill level. What U.S. workers earn is in part dependent on the kind of firm for which they work. These findings point policymakers to important considerations when contemplating new approaches for helping workers recover from bouts of unemployment or transition from one employer to another amid a rapidly changing labor market.

Sources of displaced workers’ long-term earnings losses

Authors:

Marta Lachowska, Senior Economist, W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research
Alexandre Mas, Professor of Economics and Public Affairs, Princeton University
Stephen A. Woodbury, Professor of Economics, Michigan State University


Abstract:

We estimate the magnitudes of lost earnings, reduced work hours, and lower wage rates of workers displaced during the Great Recession using linked employer-employee panel data. We find that displaced workers’ substantial earnings losses occur mainly because hourly wage rates drop at the time of displacement and recover sluggishly at best. Further, lost employer-specific premiums play a minor role in explaining displaced workers’ losses, accounting for 11 percent of average earnings losses and 25 percent of lower hourly wages. The estimates point to lost specific skills or lost favorable employer-employee matches as principal sources of displaced workers’ earnings losses.

This paper was published in the American Economic Review in October 2020.