Should-Read: Pamela Jakiela and Owen Ozier: Gendered Language

Should-Read: Pamela Jakiela and Owen Ozier: Gendered Language: “Gender languages assign many—sometimes all—nouns to distinct sex-based categories, masculine and feminine…

…Drawing on a broad range of historical and linguistic sources, we estimate the proportion of each country’s population whose native language is a gender language. At the cross-country level, we document a robust negative relationship between prevalence of gender languages and women’s labor force participation. We also show that traditional views of gender roles are more commons in countries with more native speakers of gender languages. In African countries where indigenous languages vary in terms of their gender structure, educational attainment and female labor force participation are lower among those whose native languages are gender languages. Cross-country and individual-level differences in labor force participation are large in both absolute and relative terms (when women are compared to men), suggesting that the observed patterns are not driven by development or some unobserved aspect of culture that affects men and women equally. Following the procedures proposed by Altonji, Elder, and Taber (2005) and Oster (forthcoming), we show that the observed correlations are unlikely to be driven by unobservables. Gender languages appear to reduce women’s labor force participation…

Should-Read: Matt Townsend et al.: America’s ‘Retail Apocalypse’ Is Really Just Beginning

Should-Read: Matt Townsend et al.: America’s ‘Retail Apocalypse’ Is Really Just Beginning: “The reason isn’t as simple as Amazon.com Inc. taking market share…

…or twenty-somethings spending more on experiences than things. The root cause is that many of these long-standing chains are overloaded with debt—often from leveraged buyouts led by private equity firms. There are billions in borrowings on the balance sheets of troubled retailers, and sustaining that load is only going to become harder—even for healthy chains. The debt coming due, along with America’s over-stored suburbs and the continued gains of online shopping, has all the makings of a disaster. The spillover will likely flow far and wide across the U.S. economy. There will be displaced low-income workers, shrinking local tax bases and investor losses on stocks, bonds and real estate. If today is considered a retail apocalypse, then what’s coming next could truly be scary. Until this year, struggling retailers have largely been able to avoid bankruptcy by refinancing to buy more time. But the market has shifted, with the negative view on retail pushing investors to reconsider lending to them. Toys “R” Us Inc. served as an early sign of what might lie ahead…

Should-Read: By and large a good statement. However, while free speech extends to statements made with “conscious indifference to their truth content”, I do not believe that academic freedom does. Professors who make and reiterate and decide to die on the hill that is statements made with “conscious indifference to their truth content” are violating the norms of academic responsibility as much as those who commit plagiarism or falsify experimental results. I do not believe that the Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania should continue to employ Professor Wax: Ted Ruger (Dean): Lawyers, Guns & Money: “Dear members of the Penn Law community…

…I write to share with you information about a development of great concern to our intellectual and professional community. In the past two weeks, students and alumni have brought to my attention a number of public claims made last fall by one of our tenured faculty, Amy Wax, during a video interview. Specifically, Professor Wax stated that, “I don’t think I’ve ever seen a black student graduate in the top quarter of the class, and rarely, rarely in the top half.” Moreover, she claimed that the University of Pennsylvania Law Review, a prestigious law journal whose editorial board is composed of Penn Law students, has a racial diversity mandate, suggesting that black students on Law Review had not earned their place. Speaking about black law students at Penn and peer schools, she went on to say that “some of them shouldn’t” even go to college.​

It is imperative for me as dean to state that these claims are false: black students have graduated in the top of the class at Penn Law, and the Law Review does not have a diversity mandate. Rather, its editors are selected based on a competitive process. And contrary to any suggestion otherwise, black students at Penn Law are extremely successful, both inside and outside the classroom, in the job market, and in their careers.

I want to make absolutely clear that Professor Wax, like every member of the faculty and the student body, is protected by Penn’s policies of free and open expression as well as academic freedom, and I will steadfastly defend the rights of Law School community members to openly express their views. This has been the position of the Law School throughout my tenure as dean, and before, and it is the consistent message I have articulated in handling protests involving provocative figures speaking on campus, student-led panels on controversial topics, and other free speech debates including those involving Professor Wax. I will maintain this position moving forward. Professor Wax enjoys the same status as every other tenured colleague here: her job, salary, seniority, and opportunity to teach a full load of courses remains secure. She is scheduled to teach a full course load in the next academic year….

Law schools are not free-standing debating societies or think tanks; we are also demanding professional schools dedicated to training hundreds of students each year…. Professor Wax has chosen to speak publicly, disparagingly, and inaccurately about the performance of these students, some of whom she has taught and graded confidentially at Penn Law. As a scholar she is free to advocate her views, no matter how dramatically those views diverge from our institutional ethos and our considered practices. As a teacher, however, she is not free to transgress the policy that student grades are confidential, or to use her access to those Penn Law students who are required to be in her class to further her scholarly ends without students’ permission. Penn Law does not permit the public disclosure of grades or class rankings, and we do not collect, sort, or publicize grade performance by racial group. The existence of these policies and practices, while constraining this response, is not an invitation to statements made with conscious indifference to their truth content…

Posted in Uncategorized

Should-Read: Iason Gabriel: The case for fairer algorithms

Should-Read: Iason Gabriel: The case for fairer algorithms: “Software used to make decisions and allocate opportunities has often tended to mirror the biases of its creators, extending discrimination into new domains…

…Job search tools have been shown to offer higher paid jobs to men, a programme used for parole decisions mistakenly identified more black defendants as ‘high risk’ than other racial categories, and image recognition software has been shown to work less-well for minorities and disadvantaged groups…. A better understanding is needed of how bias enters algorithmic decisions…. The data used to train machine learning models is often incomplete or skewed…. Data… frequently contains the imprint of historical and structural patterns of discrimination…. Statistically unbiased and properly coded datasets… may still contain correlations between gender and pay, or race and incarceration, which stem from entrenched patterns of historical discrimination… Against this backdrop, it would be a serious mistake to think that technologists are not responsible for algorithmic bias or to conclude that technology itself is neutral….

Even when explicit information about race, gender, age and socioeconomic status is withheld from models, part of the remaining data often continues to correlate with these categories, serving as a proxy for them…. Patterns of discrimination intersect with each other, placing particular burdens on groups such as immigrants or single-parent families who conventionally fall outside the ‘protected category’ framework….

Be transparent about the limitations of datasets…. Conduct research and develop techniques to mitigate bias…. Deploy responsibly…. Increase awareness…. Research will contribute to our understanding of problem and potential solutions, but certain principles are already clear. We need new standards of public accountability…. And we need technologists to take responsibility for the impact of their work…

Weekend Reading, “motherhood wage gap and merger enforcement” 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 by taking a look back at the whole week, we can put them in context.

Equitable Growth round-up

Equitable Growth published a new working paper, “Motherhood Penalties in the U.S., 1986-2014” by Eunjung Jee and Joya Misra of University of Massachusetts, Amherst and Marta Murray Close of the U.S. Census Bureau. Despite women’s increased education and workforce experience, the motherhood wage gap has barely budged over the past 30 years and for some mothers it’s actually gotten worse.

We write a non-technical summary about the research by Jee, Misra, and Close, examining the kind of policies that could reduce the motherhood wage penalty. The work was also covered by media outlets, including CNN Money, the Boston Globe, and Romper.

This week Michael Kades, Equitable Growth’s Director for Markets and Competition Policy, presented to the House Antitrust Caucus on how antitrust enforcers have lacked the resources to adequately promote competition during the current merger wave, which has likely contributed to an increase in monopoly power.

Links from around the web

The personal financial difficulties of U.S. educators have been thrust into the national spotlight as public school teachers from West Virginia to Oklahoma demand higher pay. Annie Lowrey writes about why so many teachers have seen their wages and benefits decline since the Great Recession—in contrast to many private sector jobs that have rebounded—and what it says about public sector jobs in general. [the atlantic]

For two decades, the number of Americans not working because of disability rose steadily—until now. Ernie Tedeschi writes about how more working-age disabled are finding work. As Betsey Stevenson commented, “A tight labor market can heal a lot of problems—including convincing employers that it’s worth hiring people with disabilities. A tight labor market raises the cost of discrimination, which is good for lots of people.” [the upshot]

A major shortage of affordable housing in the United States persists for low-income renters. Sarah Holder unpacks a new report that finds that a shortage of more than 7 million affordable and available homes, driven by low wages and an influx of higher income households into more affordable homes. [city lab]

With the national unemployment rate expected to fall below 4 percent by the summer, Jeanna Smialek and Margaret Newkirk report what it looks like for employers and employees in towns where the joblessness rate is already low—from Marietta, GA (with a 3.7 percent unemployment rate) to Portland, ME (with a 1.8 percent unemployment rate). [bloomberg businessweek]

Adam Looney writes about his new study of ex-prisoners that he did with the Federal Reserve Board’s Nicholas Turner. Looney and Turner finds that about one third of 30-year-old men who are not in the labor force are currently or previously incarcerated. The ex-prisoners that do find work earn less than $10,090 annually.  [brookings up front]

Friday figure

From “Merger enforcement statistics” by Michael Kades.

 

JOLTS Day Graphs: January 2018 Report Edition

Every month the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics releases data on hiring, firing, and other labor market flows from the Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey, better known as JOLTS. Today, the BLS released the latest data for January 2018. This report doesn’t get as much attention as the monthly Employment Situation Report, but it contains useful information about the state of the U.S. labor market. Below are a few key graphs using data from the report.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics revises the JOLTS data every year with the release of the January data. The revised data show that the quits rate was 2.3 percent in December last year, but then fell back to its regular 2.2 percent in January 2018.

The ratio of unemployed workers to job vacancies hit a new all-time low of 1.06 in January.

With the annual revisions to the data, the vacancy yield increasingly looks as though it has leveled off after years of decline.

The job openings rate jumped up to 4.1 percent in January. Together with a 4.1 percent unemployment rate, the latest job openings rate implies that the Beveridge Curve is near its relationship during the 2001-2007 era prior to the Great Recession.

Should-Read: Jonathan Chait: New Trump Economist Kudlow Has Been Wrong About Everything

Should-Read: Jonathan Chait: New Trump Economist Kudlow Has Been Wrong About Everything: “The Republican Party… supply-side economics… not merely a generalized preference for small government with low taxes…

…but a commitment to the cause of low taxes, particularly for high earners, that borders on theological. In the time that has passed since then, that grip has not weakened…. The appointment of Lawrence Kudlow as head of the National Economic Council indicates how firmly supply-siders control Republican economic policy, and how little impact years of failed analysis have had…. They likewise believe tax cuts are the necessary tonic for every economic circumstance. The purest supply-siders, like Kudlow, go further and deeper in their commitment. Kudlow attributes every positive economic indicator to lower taxes, and every piece of negative news to higher taxes. While that sounds absurd, it is the consistent theme he has maintained throughout his career as a prognosticator. It’s not even a complex form of kookery, if you recognize the pattern. It’s a very simple and blunt kind of kookery.

In 1993, when Bill Clinton proposed an increase in the top tax rate from 31 percent to 39.6 percent, Kudlow wrote:

There is no question that President Clinton’s across-the-board tax increases… will throw a wet blanket over the recovery and depress the economy’s long-run potential to grow…

This was wrong. Instead, a boom ensued. Rather than question his analysis, Kudlow switched to crediting the results to the great tax-cutter, Ronald Reagan:

The politician most responsible for laying the groundwork for this prosperous era is not Bill Clinton, but Ronald Reagan…

he argued in February, 2000. By December 2000, the expansion had begun to slow. What had happened? According to Kudlow, it meant Reagan’s tax-cutting genius was no longer responsible for the economy’s performance:

The Clinton policies of rising tax burdens, high interest rates and re-regulation is responsible for the sinking stock market and the slumping economy…

he mourned, though no taxes or re-regulation had taken place since he had credited Reagan for the boom earlier that same year. By the time George W. Bush took office, Kudlow was plumping for his tax-cut plan. Kudlow not only endorsed Bush’s argument that the budget surplus he inherited from Clinton—the one Kudlow and his allies had insisted in 1993 could never happen, because the tax hikes would strangle the economy—would turn out to be even larger than forecast:

Faster economic growth and more profitable productivity returns will generate higher tax revenues at the new lower tax-rate levels. Future budget surpluses will rise, not fall…

This was wrong, too…. Kudlow then began to relentlessly tout Bush’s economic program…. insist that the housing bubble that was forming was a hallucination…. He made this case over and over (“There’s no recession coming. The pessimistas were wrong. It’s not going to happen. At a bare minimum, we are looking at Goldilocks 2.0. (And that’s a minimum). Goldilocks is alive and well. The Bush boom is alive and well.”) and over (“The Media Are Missing the Housing Bottom,” he wrote in July 2008). All of this was wrong. It was historically, massively wrong.

When Obama took office, Kudlow was detecting an “inflationary bubble.” That was wrong. He warned in 2009 that the administration “is waging war on investors. He’s waging war against businesses. He’s waging war against bondholders. These are very bad things.” That was also wrong, and when the recovery proceeded, by 2011, he credited the Bush tax cuts for the recovery. (Kudlow, April 2011: “March unemployment rate drop proof lower taxes work.”) By 2012, Kudlow found new grounds to test out his theories: Kansas, where he advised Republican governor Sam Brownback to implement a sweeping tax-cut plan that would produce faster growth. This was wrong. Alas, Brownback’s program has proven a comprehensive failure, falling short of all its promises and leaving the state in fiscal turmoil…

Presentation: Merger Enforcement Statistics

Slides from a presentation by Michael Kades for the House Antitrust Caucus on January 19, 2018. In the presentation, Kades explains that antitrust enforcers lack the resources to protect consumers and promote competition during the current merger wave, which likely has contributed to increases in concentration and monopoly power.

Download the presentation as a pdf.

Should-Read: Belle Sawhill: Inflation? Bring It On. Workers Could Actually Benefit

Should-Read: Lousy title. Good op-ed: Belle Sawhill: Inflation? Bring It On. Workers Could Actually Benefit: “Even if inflation does creep up above 2 percent, we shouldn’t be too worried…

…Having operated below it for many years, the economy may not be harmed if it runs for a few years above that target…. We are in the midst of a big fiscal and monetary experiment. And as with any experiment, the consequences are unknown. What we do know is that the costs of the Great Recession were enormous—at least $4 trillion in lost income…. The biggest losses were experienced by those in the bottom and middle portions of the income distribution who lost jobs and saw much of the equity in their homes destroyed. They are the ones who stand to gain the most if unemployment continues to fall and wages keep rising. Businesses, desperate for workers, reach deeper into the ranks of those who are still jobless, do more training to get those workers up to speed, and pay higher wages as they compete to hire or retain their work force. Discouraged workers — the millions who’ve left the labor force — might actually re-enter it, and workers could find their shrinking share of national income rise again. Besides, economists are not sure when super-low unemployment will set off inflation…. A stronger economy might help the left behind as much as, if not more than, any of these specific measures. The old models don’t seem to be working, and the downside risks of this experiment are limited. Let’s run a truly high-pressure economy and see what happens…

Should-Read: Dean Baker: Doesn’t Anyone Care If the Trump Tax Cuts Are Working?

Should-Read: Dean Baker: Doesn’t Anyone Care If the Trump Tax Cuts Are Working?: “Capital goods orders for January…

…a hugely important early measure of the success of the Trump tax cuts. The ostensible rationale for the big cut in the corporate tax rate that was at the center of the tax cut is that it will lead to a flood of new investment…. If lower rates really produce a flood of investment we should at least begin to see some sign in new orders once the tax cut was certain to pass. The January report showed orders actually fell modestly for the second consecutive month…. Remarkably, these new data have gotten almost no attention from the media…


Dean Baker: Small Businesses Still Aren’t Impressed by the Republican Tax Cut: “The National Federation of Independent Businesses… 29 percent of businesses expect to make a capital expenditure in the next 3 to 6 months…

…somewhat higher than the 26 percent reported for February of 2017, but below the 32 percent reported for August of last year. It’s also the same as the 29 percent reading reported back in August of 2014 when a Kenyan socialist was in the White House…. There is no evidence here of any uptick in investment whatsoever and certainly not of the explosive increase promised by the Trump administration. Maybe if Trump did some more tweeting on the issue it would help…