A snapshot of the long-term impacts of universal pre-k in Texas

If the United States were to invest in a public, voluntary, high-quality universal prekindergarten program starting in 2016 and fully phased in by 2017, what would the long-term impacts be for ? Our study looks to quantify the long-term benefits and costs of investing in a high-quality universal prekindergarten program available to all 3- and 4-year-olds across the United States. Use the data and interactives below to explore how a universal prekindergarten program would affect .

Who would participate?

Currently, in , percent of 3- and 4-year-olds ( children) participate in state-sponsored prekindergarten. Unfortunately, the quality of these programs varies significantly, which means that preschoolers do not always experience the same benefits or long-term effects. If a universal prekindergarten program were enacted in 2016 and fully phased in by 2017, percent of 3- and 4-year-olds ( children) would be enrolled in public prekindergarten, benefiting from a high-quality early childhood education.

What are the benefits of a universal prekindergarten program?

High-quality prekindergarten education can generate significant long-run benefits for participating children, their families, and even other non-participants. Longitudinal studies have shown, for example, that aside from improved educational achievement, children who have attended a prekindergarten program have spent less time in special education and had lower grade retention rates. These children also experience less child maltreatment and reduced crime, smoking, and depression rates over the course of their lives. In addition, both participating children and their parents have higher projected earnings, which subsequently increases government tax revenue.

If a universal prekindergarten program were to start in the United States in 2016, would see more than $ million in total benefits in 2050, amounting to savings of $ per capita that year. Here’s how these total benefits break down:

  • $ per person is attributed to savings to government.
  • $ per person comes from increased compensation.
  • The remaining $ per person is accounted for by savings to each individual from better health and less crime.

What are the costs?

Currently, spends $ per capita per year on preschool programs, special education services, and Head Start. In 2017, when a universal prekindergarten program is fully phased in, it would take an investment of $ more per capita per year to maintain a high-quality prekindergarten program.

There are three main costs associated with a high-quality universal prekindergarten program: the cost of the program, increased high school attendance, and increased college attendance. The program itself is based on Chicago’s comprehensive high-quality Child-Parent Center half-day program, so the costs take into account the multitude of services that are provided at the Child-Parent Center offset by the current spending on similar early childhood education programs as to not double-count expenditures. Because studies have shown that students who attend prekindergarten have higher high school completion rates and are more likely to attend college, these usage costs are also factored into the total cost of a universal prekindergarten program.

In 2050, these costs add up to an additional $ million, or $ per capita in . $ per capita is attributed to program costs, $ comes from increased high school usage per person, and the remaining $ per person is accounted for by increased college attendance.

How do the benefits compare to the costs?

If a high-quality universal prekindergarten program were to start in the United States in 2016 and be fully phased in by the end of 2017, the program would require a total of $ million in taxpayer dollars. Over time, the cost would eventually grow to include the cost of additional high school and college attendance. And by 2050, there would be more than $ million in total benefits compared to merely $ million in total costs, yielding net benefits of $ million. By 2050, for every dollar invested in a universal program, there would be $ in returns.

To see the national numbers, return to the full report.

A snapshot of the long-term impacts of universal pre-k in Wyoming

If the United States were to invest in a public, voluntary, high-quality universal prekindergarten program starting in 2016 and fully phased in by 2017, what would the long-term impacts be for ? Our study looks to quantify the long-term benefits and costs of investing in a high-quality universal prekindergarten program available to all 3- and 4-year-olds across the United States. Use the data and interactives below to explore how a universal prekindergarten program would affect .

Who would participate?

Currently, in , percent of 3- and 4-year-olds ( children) participate in state-sponsored prekindergarten. Unfortunately, the quality of these programs varies significantly, which means that preschoolers do not always experience the same benefits or long-term effects. If a universal prekindergarten program were enacted in 2016 and fully phased in by 2017, percent of 3- and 4-year-olds ( children) would be enrolled in public prekindergarten, benefiting from a high-quality early childhood education.

What are the benefits of a universal prekindergarten program?

High-quality prekindergarten education can generate significant long-run benefits for participating children, their families, and even other non-participants. Longitudinal studies have shown, for example, that aside from improved educational achievement, children who have attended a prekindergarten program have spent less time in special education and had lower grade retention rates. These children also experience less child maltreatment and reduced crime, smoking, and depression rates over the course of their lives. In addition, both participating children and their parents have higher projected earnings, which subsequently increases government tax revenue.

If a universal prekindergarten program were to start in the United States in 2016, would see more than $ million in total benefits in 2050, amounting to savings of $ per capita that year. Here’s how these total benefits break down:

  • $ per person is attributed to savings to government.
  • $ per person comes from increased compensation.
  • The remaining $ per person is accounted for by savings to each individual from better health and less crime.

What are the costs?

Currently, spends $ per capita per year on preschool programs, special education services, and Head Start. In 2017, when a universal prekindergarten program is fully phased in, it would take an investment of $ more per capita per year to maintain a high-quality prekindergarten program.

There are three main costs associated with a high-quality universal prekindergarten program: the cost of the program, increased high school attendance, and increased college attendance. The program itself is based on Chicago’s comprehensive high-quality Child-Parent Center half-day program, so the costs take into account the multitude of services that are provided at the Child-Parent Center offset by the current spending on similar early childhood education programs as to not double-count expenditures. Because studies have shown that students who attend prekindergarten have higher high school completion rates and are more likely to attend college, these usage costs are also factored into the total cost of a universal prekindergarten program.

In 2050, these costs add up to an additional $ million, or $ per capita in . $ per capita is attributed to program costs, $ comes from increased high school usage per person, and the remaining $ per person is accounted for by increased college attendance.

How do the benefits compare to the costs?

If a high-quality universal prekindergarten program were to start in the United States in 2016 and be fully phased in by the end of 2017, the program would require a total of $ million in taxpayer dollars. Over time, the cost would eventually grow to include the cost of additional high school and college attendance. And by 2050, there would be more than $ million in total benefits compared to merely $ million in total costs, yielding net benefits of $ million. By 2050, for every dollar invested in a universal program, there would be $ in returns.

To see the national numbers, return to the full report.

A snapshot of the long-term impacts of universal pre-k in New Jersey

If the United States were to invest in a public, voluntary, high-quality universal prekindergarten program starting in 2016 and fully phased in by 2017, what would the long-term impacts be for ? Our study looks to quantify the long-term benefits and costs of investing in a high-quality universal prekindergarten program available to all 3- and 4-year-olds across the United States. Use the data and interactives below to explore how a universal prekindergarten program would affect .

Who would participate?

Currently, in , percent of 3- and 4-year-olds ( children) participate in state-sponsored prekindergarten. Unfortunately, the quality of these programs varies significantly, which means that preschoolers do not always experience the same benefits or long-term effects. If a universal prekindergarten program were enacted in 2016 and fully phased in by 2017, percent of 3- and 4-year-olds ( children) would be enrolled in public prekindergarten, benefiting from a high-quality early childhood education.

What are the benefits of a universal prekindergarten program?

High-quality prekindergarten education can generate significant long-run benefits for participating children, their families, and even other non-participants. Longitudinal studies have shown, for example, that aside from improved educational achievement, children who have attended a prekindergarten program have spent less time in special education and had lower grade retention rates. These children also experience less child maltreatment and reduced crime, smoking, and depression rates over the course of their lives. In addition, both participating children and their parents have higher projected earnings, which subsequently increases government tax revenue.

If a universal prekindergarten program were to start in the United States in 2016, would see more than $ million in total benefits in 2050, amounting to savings of $ per capita that year. Here’s how these total benefits break down:

  • $ per person is attributed to savings to government.
  • $ per person comes from increased compensation.
  • The remaining $ per person is accounted for by savings to each individual from better health and less crime.

What are the costs?

Currently, spends $ per capita per year on preschool programs, special education services, and Head Start. In 2017, when a universal prekindergarten program is fully phased in, it would take an investment of $ more per capita per year to maintain a high-quality prekindergarten program.

There are three main costs associated with a high-quality universal prekindergarten program: the cost of the program, increased high school attendance, and increased college attendance. The program itself is based on Chicago’s comprehensive high-quality Child-Parent Center half-day program, so the costs take into account the multitude of services that are provided at the Child-Parent Center offset by the current spending on similar early childhood education programs as to not double-count expenditures. Because studies have shown that students who attend prekindergarten have higher high school completion rates and are more likely to attend college, these usage costs are also factored into the total cost of a universal prekindergarten program.

In 2050, these costs add up to an additional $ million, or $ per capita in . $ per capita is attributed to program costs, $ comes from increased high school usage per person, and the remaining $ per person is accounted for by increased college attendance.

How do the benefits compare to the costs?

If a high-quality universal prekindergarten program were to start in the United States in 2016 and be fully phased in by the end of 2017, the program would require a total of $ million in taxpayer dollars. Over time, the cost would eventually grow to include the cost of additional high school and college attendance. And by 2050, there would be more than $ million in total benefits compared to merely $ million in total costs, yielding net benefits of $ million. By 2050, for every dollar invested in a universal program, there would be $ in returns.

To see the national numbers, return to the full report.

A snapshot of the long-term impacts of universal pre-k in North Dakota

If the United States were to invest in a public, voluntary, high-quality universal prekindergarten program starting in 2016 and fully phased in by 2017, what would the long-term impacts be for ? Our study looks to quantify the long-term benefits and costs of investing in a high-quality universal prekindergarten program available to all 3- and 4-year-olds across the United States. Use the data and interactives below to explore how a universal prekindergarten program would affect .

Who would participate?

Currently, in , percent of 3- and 4-year-olds ( children) participate in state-sponsored prekindergarten. Unfortunately, the quality of these programs varies significantly, which means that preschoolers do not always experience the same benefits or long-term effects. If a universal prekindergarten program were enacted in 2016 and fully phased in by 2017, percent of 3- and 4-year-olds ( children) would be enrolled in public prekindergarten, benefiting from a high-quality early childhood education.

What are the benefits of a universal prekindergarten program?

High-quality prekindergarten education can generate significant long-run benefits for participating children, their families, and even other non-participants. Longitudinal studies have shown, for example, that aside from improved educational achievement, children who have attended a prekindergarten program have spent less time in special education and had lower grade retention rates. These children also experience less child maltreatment and reduced crime, smoking, and depression rates over the course of their lives. In addition, both participating children and their parents have higher projected earnings, which subsequently increases government tax revenue.

If a universal prekindergarten program were to start in the United States in 2016, would see more than $ million in total benefits in 2050, amounting to savings of $ per capita that year. Here’s how these total benefits break down:

  • $ per person is attributed to savings to government.
  • $ per person comes from increased compensation.
  • The remaining $ per person is accounted for by savings to each individual from better health and less crime.

What are the costs?

Currently, spends $ per capita per year on preschool programs, special education services, and Head Start. In 2017, when a universal prekindergarten program is fully phased in, it would take an investment of $ more per capita per year to maintain a high-quality prekindergarten program.

There are three main costs associated with a high-quality universal prekindergarten program: the cost of the program, increased high school attendance, and increased college attendance. The program itself is based on Chicago’s comprehensive high-quality Child-Parent Center half-day program, so the costs take into account the multitude of services that are provided at the Child-Parent Center offset by the current spending on similar early childhood education programs as to not double-count expenditures. Because studies have shown that students who attend prekindergarten have higher high school completion rates and are more likely to attend college, these usage costs are also factored into the total cost of a universal prekindergarten program.

In 2050, these costs add up to an additional $ million, or $ per capita in . $ per capita is attributed to program costs, $ comes from increased high school usage per person, and the remaining $ per person is accounted for by increased college attendance.

How do the benefits compare to the costs?

If a high-quality universal prekindergarten program were to start in the United States in 2016 and be fully phased in by the end of 2017, the program would require a total of $ million in taxpayer dollars. Over time, the cost would eventually grow to include the cost of additional high school and college attendance. And by 2050, there would be more than $ million in total benefits compared to merely $ million in total costs, yielding net benefits of $ million. By 2050, for every dollar invested in a universal program, there would be $ in returns.

To see the national numbers, return to the full report.

A snapshot of the long-term impacts of universal pre-k in Ohio

If the United States were to invest in a public, voluntary, high-quality universal prekindergarten program starting in 2016 and fully phased in by 2017, what would the long-term impacts be for ? Our study looks to quantify the long-term benefits and costs of investing in a high-quality universal prekindergarten program available to all 3- and 4-year-olds across the United States. Use the data and interactives below to explore how a universal prekindergarten program would affect .

Who would participate?

Currently, in , percent of 3- and 4-year-olds ( children) participate in state-sponsored prekindergarten. Unfortunately, the quality of these programs varies significantly, which means that preschoolers do not always experience the same benefits or long-term effects. If a universal prekindergarten program were enacted in 2016 and fully phased in by 2017, percent of 3- and 4-year-olds ( children) would be enrolled in public prekindergarten, benefiting from a high-quality early childhood education.

What are the benefits of a universal prekindergarten program?

High-quality prekindergarten education can generate significant long-run benefits for participating children, their families, and even other non-participants. Longitudinal studies have shown, for example, that aside from improved educational achievement, children who have attended a prekindergarten program have spent less time in special education and had lower grade retention rates. These children also experience less child maltreatment and reduced crime, smoking, and depression rates over the course of their lives. In addition, both participating children and their parents have higher projected earnings, which subsequently increases government tax revenue.

If a universal prekindergarten program were to start in the United States in 2016, would see more than $ million in total benefits in 2050, amounting to savings of $ per capita that year. Here’s how these total benefits break down:

  • $ per person is attributed to savings to government.
  • $ per person comes from increased compensation.
  • The remaining $ per person is accounted for by savings to each individual from better health and less crime.

What are the costs?

Currently, spends $ per capita per year on preschool programs, special education services, and Head Start. In 2017, when a universal prekindergarten program is fully phased in, it would take an investment of $ more per capita per year to maintain a high-quality prekindergarten program.

There are three main costs associated with a high-quality universal prekindergarten program: the cost of the program, increased high school attendance, and increased college attendance. The program itself is based on Chicago’s comprehensive high-quality Child-Parent Center half-day program, so the costs take into account the multitude of services that are provided at the Child-Parent Center offset by the current spending on similar early childhood education programs as to not double-count expenditures. Because studies have shown that students who attend prekindergarten have higher high school completion rates and are more likely to attend college, these usage costs are also factored into the total cost of a universal prekindergarten program.

In 2050, these costs add up to an additional $ million, or $ per capita in . $ per capita is attributed to program costs, $ comes from increased high school usage per person, and the remaining $ per person is accounted for by increased college attendance.

How do the benefits compare to the costs?

If a high-quality universal prekindergarten program were to start in the United States in 2016 and be fully phased in by the end of 2017, the program would require a total of $ million in taxpayer dollars. Over time, the cost would eventually grow to include the cost of additional high school and college attendance. And by 2050, there would be more than $ million in total benefits compared to merely $ million in total costs, yielding net benefits of $ million. By 2050, for every dollar invested in a universal program, there would be $ in returns.

To see the national numbers, return to the full report.

An introduction to the geography of student debt

Today, the Washington Center for Equitable Growth, with Generation Progress and Higher Ed, Not Debt, released its interactive, Mapping Student Debt, which compares the geographic distribution of average household student loan balances and average loan delinquency to median income across the United States and within metropolitan areas. The stark patterns of student debt across zip codes enable us to begin to analyze the role that debt plays in people’s lives and the larger economy.

Delinquency and income

One element of the student debt story that has already been explored is that borrowers with the lowest student loan balances are the most likely to default because they are also the ones likely face the worst prospects in the labor market. Our analysis using the data displayed in the interactive map is consistent with these findings.

The geography of student debt is very different than the geography of delinquency. Take the Washington, D.C. metro region. In zip codes with high average loan balances (western and central Washington, D.C.), delinquency rates are lower. Within the District of Columbia, median income is highest in these parts of the city. Similar results–low delinquency rates in high-debt areas–can be seen for Chicago, as well. (See Figure 1.)

Figure 1

For the country as a whole, there’s an inverse relationship between zip code income and delinquency rates. As the median income in a zip code increases, the delinquency rate decreases, corroborating findings that low-income borrowers are the most likely to default on their loan repayments. (See Figure 2.)

Figure 2

What explains this relationship? There appear to be two possible, and mutually consistent, theories. First, although graduate students take out the largest student loans, they are able to carry large debt burdens thanks to their higher salaries post-graduation. One study of student loans by institution type reports a three-year cohort default rate for graduate-only institutions of 2 percent to 3 percent.* Second, the rise in the number of students borrowing relatively small amounts for for-profit colleges has augmented the cumulative debt load, but because these borrowers face poor labor market outcomes and lower earnings upon graduation (if they do in fact graduate), their delinquency rates are much higher. This is further complicated by the fact that these for-profit college attendees generally come from lower-income families who may not be able to help with loan repayments.

The inverse relationship between delinquency and income is not surprising, especially when considering that problems of credit access have disproportionately affected poor and minority populations in the past. In the 1930s, for example, the government-sanctioned Home Owner’s Loan Corporation labeled maps of American cities by each neighborhood’s worthiness for mortgage lending. Neighborhoods outlined in red were considered the least worthy, purposefully coinciding with their black and poor white populations. Banks and insurance agencies also adopted these discriminatory “redlining” practices, further cutting off communities from the essential capital that is needed to develop neighborhoods and invest in sustainable infrastructure. Though redlining was outlawed in the 1960s, its pernicious effects still persist, as seen in Figure 2 as well as in maps of the subprime mortgage crisis that began in 2006.

It might seem counterintuitive that lack of access to credit results in delinquency—seemingly a problem of “too much debt.” But in fact, lack of access to credit and delinquency are two sides of the same coin. Nearly everyone needs access to credit markets to meet basic economic needs, and if they can’t get loans through competitive, transparent financial networks, poor people are more likely to be subjected to exploitative credit arrangements in the form of very high rates and other onerous terms and penalties, including on student loans. That disadvantage interacts with and is magnified by their lack of labor market opportunities. The result is exactly what we see across time and space: high delinquency rates for those with the least access to credit markets.

Student loan balances and debt burdens

When we look at average loan balance and median income, we find a stark positive relationship, at least below a certain income threshold. As median income increases in a zip code, so does the average loan balance, until income reaches approximately $140,000. After that, the relationship becomes flat. (See Figure 3.)

Figure 3

Figure 4 shows the relationship between the “burden” of student loan payments and zip code median income. Using the “average monthly payments on student loans” variable, we calculate that student debt absorbs around 7 percent of gross income in zip codes where median income is $20,000, declining to 2 percent in the highest-income zip code

Figure 4

These graphs show us that the burden of student debt isn’t just shouldered by the young. As borrowers age, servicing their student debt hinders their ability to accumulate wealth. In fact, the Pew Research Center found that college-educated householders with student debt have one-seventh the wealth of people without debt, in part because the wealthiest students don’t need to go into debt to pay for college. Student debt repayment may also delay expenditures that are associated with the traditional economic lifecycle, such as owning a home or a car or even getting married. Altogether, this new expense associated with attaining a middle-class income contributes to the erosion of middle-class wealth across generations.

As cumulative student debt continues to grow and we learn more about its role in the nation’s many economic problems, it is clear that a reconsideration of the policies that treat student debt as “good debt” because it finances valuable human capital is in order, especially in light of the problems that even young college graduates have in the labor market.

Methodology

This geographic analysis uses two primary datasets: credit reporting data on student debt from Experian and income data from the American Community Survey.

The Experian data includes eight key student debt variables (see Figure 5) aggregated from household-level microdata to the zip code level. The underlying household data are a snapshot of the entire U.S. population at a single point in time—in this case, the autumn of 2015.

Figure 5

There are a number of caveats regarding the Experian data file that have guided our methodology for constructing variables and analyzing results:

• The universe of households contains only those with “any type of credit” and which, therefore, have a credit report. Relative to the population as a whole, this likely excludes the poorest households without any official credit access whatsoever.

• It is unclear how Experian constructs “households” since credit reports pertain to an individual’s credit history.

• If the same student loan has more than one signatory, then the loan may be assigned to multiple households and hence to multiple zip codes or even counted more than once within the same household.

• Experian claims that the universe of their geographically-aggregated data is all households with credit, but the levels of the data on loan balance and delinquency are more consistent with the idea that the universe is only households that have student loans. In other words, Experian claims their data include households that have credit but no outstanding student loans, but if that is the case the reported levels for both average loan balance and average delinquency are much higher than other sources would suggest. Average loan balance and average delinquency rates, however, are comparable to reliable outside estimates if interpreted as loan balance and delinquency among only those households with student debt.

For these reasons, we do not report any student loan data in dollar amounts. Instead, we have used two of the Experian variables to construct analogs to relative average household loan balance and relative delinquency.

To create the average household loan balance variable in the interactive map, we calculate an “average of the average” zip code-level student loan balance for the entire country, then code zip codes by percentage above or below that average-of-averages. For delinquency, we calculate a “delinquency rate” for each zip code by dividing the average number of 90-or-more-days-delinquent loans per household by the average number of outstanding loans per household. Then, after winsorizing the top one percent of observations to the 99th percentile value, we project the “delinquency rate” onto a scale that ranges from 0 to 10.

For user-friendliness, we assign each of these student debt scale variables a qualitative category. If average loan balance on the map is “somewhat high,” for example, then it means that a zip code’s average loan balance is between 25 and 35 percent higher than the national average of $24,271. Similarly, if the delinquency reads “very low,” it corresponds to a scale level between 0.067 and 0.091. Figure 6 summarizes the relationship between each of the scale variables’ levels and their qualitative description.

Figure 6

Next, we merge zip code-level median income data from the 2013 American Community Survey with our imputed scaled student debt variables in order to construct choropleth maps.

The actual map uses three different techniques to display the variables on a choropleth scale. For the average loan balance, we artificially set ten cutpoints to enhance the geographic variation in metropolitan areas; to do this, we maximized the breadth of the color categories for values higher than the average-of-averages loan balance. For delinquency, we created ten quantiles (or equal counts) to account for the right-skewed data. Finally, for median income, we used ten jenks (or natural breaks in the data) to assign the color scale. Higher numbers and darker shading correspond to higher household average student loan balances, higher shares of outstanding loans that are 90 or more days delinquent in the previous 24 months, and higher median incomes. We think that the geographic variation in the Experian data (and as seen in the maps) is believable, but not the levels reported by Experian.

Download the “Mapping Student Debt” presentation from the December 1, 2015 release (pdf)

*Correction, December 8, 2015: A previous version of this column cited a Department of Education projected graduate student default rate of 7 percent, but the Department has removed that projection from its website and we now think the 2 percent to 3 percent realized default rate is a better estimate.

Must-Read: Larry Mishel: Uber Is Not the Future of Work

Must-Read: I’m with Larry Mishel here: Why do people think Uber-type companies are an important deal, again? Uber, Airbnb, Craigslist… and what else?

Larry Mishel: Uber Is Not the Future of Work: “The rise of Uber has convinced many… that freelancing via digital platforms is becoming increasingly important…

…[But] a look at Uber’s own data about its drivers’ schedules and pay reveals them to be much less consequential than most people assume… distracts from the central features… that should be prominent in the public discussion: a disappointingly low minimum wage, lax overtime rules, weak collective-bargaining rights, and excessive unemployment, to name a few…. Curiously, the best evidence of Uber’s relatively small impact on the American labor market comes from data released and publicized by the company itself. David Plouffe, an Uber strategist… ‘Here in the U.S., there are more than 400,000 active drivers… half the drivers work less than 10 hours per week… a third of drivers said they used Uber to earn money while looking for a job.’… Driving mostly for supplementary income on a transitory basis conflicts with the notion, promoted by the company, that Uber, and gig work more generally, are a major feature of how people will earn a living in the future…

Must-Read: Noah Smith: Case-Deaton and the Human Capital Debate

Noah Smith: Case-Deaton and the Human Capital Debate: “A tendency toward healthy behavior is a powerful and important form…

…of human capital. It is not at all clear that this kind of human capital can (or will) be created by MOOCs, self-study, or other forms of online learning that are being touted as replacements for college. In fact, right now it looks like the health-related human capital boost from college is all that is holding it together for our upper middle class.

Must-Read: Marshall Steinbaum: Thomas Piketty at the University of Chicago

Must-Read: It is genuinely surprising to me that Kevin Murphy thinks that Katz and Murphy (1992) is still close to the last word on inequality. And it is beyond genuinely surprising that Steve Durlauf thinks that Bill Gates’s wealth was acquired by merit and John D. Rockefeller’s by monopoly when they are both winners in gigantic winner-take-all natural-monopoly markets–a natural-monopoly created by economies of scale in refining and distribution in the case of oil, and by write-once run-everywhere protected by patent and copyright in the case of operating systems:

Marshall Steinbaum: Free-Market Dogmatism Still Going Strong at the University of Chicago: “A discussion between Piketty and… Kevin Murphy and Steven Durlauf…

…with Jim Heckman acting as moderator…. [Murphy] thinks that his 1992 paper with Lawrence Katz, which tried to explain the dynamics of the college wage premium in the 1970s and 1980s with reference to the supply and demand for skilled labor in the form of workers with a college degree, constitutes the final word… [even though] its model fails at explaining… labor market outcomes… since… [and relies on the residual of] skills-biased technical change: the Ghost in the Free Market Economics Machine….

Piketty started things off by claiming that… globalization and skill-biased technical change… don’t explain the phenomena… closed with what I consider a profound restatement of why Capital in the 21st Century is such an important book:

The gap between [the] official discourse and what’s actually going on is enormous. The tendency is for the winner to justify inequality with meritocracy. It’s important to put these claims up for public discussion.

Durlauf… said, quite reasonably, that the key mechanism of inequality is segregation, because it translates individual inequality into entrenched deprivation, and that its policy implications are therefore to foster integration in a variety of contexts….

Murphy’s presentation was where the wheels came off, intellectually speaking. He declared… by regurgitating his 1992 paper… [saying] “that theory has done an amazing job,” including a cryptic statement about how it explains the rise of tail inequality “if you extrapolate,” whatever that means…. Murphy stepped forward once again to declare that the economy’s “natural supply response of supplying capital” will help workers by reducing the capital share and increasing their productivity…. Durlauf asserted in his JPE review of C21 that no one thinks like Clark anymore, with his quasi-moralistic view of the efficient functioning of capital formation and the adjustment of its rate of return. Unfortunately, Durlauf’s empirical prediction was falsified by Murphy right there on that stage…. Murphy added that in the absence of better education, “The march of technology over time means there’s little for someone with no human capital to do.”… Then things got weird. Durlauf… [said] what mattered was [Americans’] perception of [inequality’s] source: whether justified by merit, as in the case of Bill Gates, or extracted through monopolization, as with John D. Rockefeller. At that, Piketty quipped that Bill Gates certainly agrees….

Murphy[‘s]… idea seems to be that the poor, benighted though they are, will adopt the morally correct position of looking out for their own interest by acquiring an education, so long as the incentive to do so is preserved by avoiding progressive taxation. Usually the fallacy in the moral philosophy of economics… is to argue that whatever reality exists is for the best…. In this case, though, the “ought” is a priori: people should be selfish. For that reason, they probably will be, so long as the status quo is maintained as an instructive lesson in the disaster befalling anyone not born rich…. Durlauf made a final, inscrutable point… saying that we should directly address the harms caused by inequality, by which he was referring to capture of the political system by the wealthy…

Must-Read: James J. Heckman: Quality Early Childhood Education: Enduring Benefits

Must-Read: James J. Heckman: Quality Early Childhood Education: Enduring Benefits: “The recent debate around the new Vanderbilt study…

…Opponents and proponents of early childhood education alike are quickly turning third-grade assessments into a lopsided and deterministic milestone instead of an appropriate developmental evaluation in the lifecycle of skills formation. There is a reoccurring trend in some early childhood education studies: disadvantaged children who attend preschool arrive at kindergarten more intellectually and emotionally prepared than peers who have had no preschool. Yet by third grade, their math and literacy scores generally pull into parity. Many critics call this “fadeout” and claim that quality early childhood education has no lasting effect. Not so…. Too often program evaluations are based on standardized achievement tests and IQ measures that do not tell the whole story and poorly predict life outcomes.

The Perry Preschool program did not show any positive IQ effects just a few years following the program. Upon decades of follow-ups, however, we continue to see extremely encouraging results along dimensions such as schooling, earnings, reduced involvement in crime and better health. The truly remarkable impacts of Perry were not seen until much later in the lives of participants. Similarly, the most recent Head Start Impact Study (HSIS)…. The decision to judge programs based on third grade test scores dismisses the full range of skills and capacities developed through early childhood education that strongly contribute to future achievement and life outcomes…. Research clearly shows that we must invest dollars not dimes, implement high quality programs, develop the whole child and nurture the initial investment in early learning with more K-12 education that develops cognition and character. When we do, we get significant returns…. Yes, quality early childhood education is expensive, but we pay a far higher cost in ignoring its value or betting on the cheap.