Should-Read: Kenneth Rogoff: When Will Tech Disrupt Higher Education?

Should-Read: We more-or-less understand how to teach people to perform a single analytical task just beyond their current competence, or demonstrate basic background familiarity with a situation—hence the disruptive success of Kahn Academy in the tutoring disruption business. But otherwise? How should we “disrupt” higher education as a whole? We need to understand why what we do here works, to the extent that it does. And we really do not: Kenneth Rogoff: When Will Tech Disrupt Higher Education?: “Universities and colleges are pivotal to the future of our societies…

…But, given impressive and ongoing advances in technology and artificial intelligence, it is hard to see how they can continue playing this role without reinventing themselves over the next two decades. Education innovation will disrupt academic employment, but the benefits to jobs everywhere else could be enormous. If there were more disruption within the ivory tower, economies just might become more resilient to disruption outside it…

Should-Read: Stan Collender: This Is The Real Reason The GOP Doesn’t Want To Do A Budget This Year

Should-Read: Stan Collender: This Is The Real Reason The GOP Doesn’t Want To Do A Budget This Year: “Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) was the first high-level Republican to say Congress might not even consider let alone adopt a budget resolution this year…

…Then, at the GOP retreat last week, in what was close to his first official act as the new chairman of the House Budget Committee, Rep. Steve Womack (R-AR), let it be known that he and his committee had much better things to do than a 2019 budget resolution.

Not doing a budget resolution means there can’t be reconciliation, and without reconciliation the biggest parts of the GOP’s legislative agenda will be virtually impossible to enact…. The GOP can’t be making the decision not to do a budget—basically the equivalent of admitting that Congress and the White House aren’t going to accomplish much of anything significant this year—without a great deal of thought. So why isn’t the GOP going to do a budget? Because the vote on the 2019 budget — the last one Congress will consider before the 2018 midterm elections — will reveal that all the Republican promises on the deficit and debt, including its blind belief on dynamic scoring, were completely bogus…. no budget resolution will mean no hearings in the budget committees, no floor debate, much less media attention and, most importantly, no votes. That makes it a great..and maybe the best…way for congressional Republicans to avoid talking about or taking responsibility for the spiking deficit and debt they said wouldn’t occur.

After 25 years, it’s time for paid leave

It has been 25 years since the Family and Medical Leave Act was signed into law by President Bill Clinton, providing unpaid leave for qualified workers. Now it’s time for federal paid family and medical leave legislation.

Twenty-five years ago, barely two weeks after Bill Clinton was sworn in as president, he signed his first piece of legislation: The Family and Medical Leave Act. The law provides most workers with the job-protected right to take unpaid time off from work to care for a new child, a sick family member, or one’s own health. Now, it’s time to update the law to include paid leave.

Since its passage, the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 has served as a lifeline for workers, having been used more than 200 million times. But the law alone is not enough to address the needs of families in today’s economy: It only covers 60 percent of workers. Those who are excluded are disproportionately low-income and less educated. And even those who are eligible for unpaid time off do not take it, primarily because of financial reasons. Lack of access to paid leave has long-term economic effects as well, such as lower labor-force participation and reduced lifetime earnings.

That is why Congress needs to pass a comprehensive federal paid family and medical leave policy and the president needs to sign it. Federal policymakers can learn from the experience of the states such as California, New Jersey, and Rhode Island, all of which boast successful state paid leave laws, to craft a policy that is based on evidence garnered in our own backyard.

Last fall, we wrote a paper for The Hamilton Project at The Brookings Institution on the updates to U.S. labor policies that are necessary to address the concerns of 21st century families. In our report, we dug into the research to outline what must be included in a federal paid leave policy that benefits workers and their families while improving broad-based economic growth. Based on the evidence, we proposed that a successful paid leave policy must include the following:

  1. Cover the range of family and medical needs that require time away from work. Much of the discussion today around paid leave centers on parental leave to care for newborn children, but an effective paid leave program must include leave for workers to address their own illness or that of a family member. As the population ages, an increasing number of workers need time off to care for an aging parent or relative. And over half of those who used unpaid leave last year did so to address a personal medical concern.
  2. Be available to all workers, men and women, equally. An effective paid leave program should cover all workers regardless of employer identity or size, or the worker’s full-time or part-time status. It should also use an inclusive definition of family. Furthermore, paid leave should be gender neutral, following the example of the Family Medical Leave Act in providing eligible men and women with the same amount of leave.
  3. Provide adequate length of leave to address care needs. Paid leave should entail at least 12 weeks of leave, allowing families enough time to deal with a serious illness or to care for a new child.
  4. Have a sufficiently high replacement rate to make a difference in people’s lives. Wages should be replaced at a level sufficient to protect families at a time when household expenses rise. We suggest that, at the minimum, a national policy mimics New Jersey’s 66 percent wage replacement with a cap that prevents benefits from being overly generous to high-income families.

Each of these principles is based on evidence from the states, as we detail in our paper. In order to avoid burdening employers, all of the state programs are based on a social insurance system. That means the state governments collect a small payroll tax from employees (and in certain states, employers as well) and then pays out benefits directly to workers. A version of these models could be easily replicated at the federal level.

These policies have been overwhelmingly successful, with these states seeing, for example, increased labor-force participation, hours worked after the birth of a child, and a decline in the use of public assistance to cope with family medical emergencies. To date, there is no evidence that firms experience higher employee turnover or rising wage costs. In fact, a study done by Pew Research Center found that paid leave makes it more likely that workers return to their original employer compared to unpaid leave.

The 25-year-old Family and Medical Leave Act is not enough for workers or the U.S. economy today. A well-designed federal paid leave program based on a social insurance model would benefit U.S. workers and the U.S. economy alike.

Should-Read: Paul Krugman: “I am surely not the only person experiencing a fair bit of cryptofreude

Should-Read: A nice observation by Paul Krugman on Twitter this morning about the two Silicon Valley bubbles—NASDAQ and BitCoin. NASDAQ at least had some fundamentals underlying it. BitCoin not so much: the ability to create for free a commodity with identical qualities to BitCoin and then peg it for a while before tiptoeing away renders it unstable, in the absence of a hegemon, in a way that gold is not: Paul Krugman: “I am surely not the only person experiencing a fair bit of cryptofreude—pleasure in watching the Bitcoin etc bubble deflate…

…Bitcoin cultists tend, after all, to be nasty as well as crazy; not all of them, but surely above the average. But one thing people may wonder is, why aren’t we having a simple Wile E. Coyote moment (Wile E. Cryptocoyote?)? As we know from the laws of cartoon physics, someone who runs off a cliff is supposed to plunge as soon as he notices there’s nothing under his feet. What we see instead is a series of plunges followed by partial recoveries:

BitCoin Price

It’s worth noting, then, that you saw the same thing (in much slower motion) as the dotcom bubble burst way back when:

NASDAQ

Back then there was a reserve of true believers who kept buying the dips, sure that the market would eventually regain its faith in techno-magic. Some of the same thing presumably happening now. Plus there are probably market manipulators now, trying to support things.

The point is that even though bubbles are, in effect, natural Ponzi phenomena, they don’t end as cleanly and suddenly as deliberate Ponzi schemes. To realize the full joy of cryptofreude, you need to be a bit patient…

Should-Read: John Stuart Mill (1848, 1871): Principles of Political Economy

Should-Read: The dominance of Malthusian factors and pressures in economists’ minds up until the late nineteenth century: John Stuart Mill (1848, 1871): Principles of Political Economy: “Hitherto it is questionable if all the mechanical inventions yet made have lightened the day’s toil of any human being…

…They have enabled a greater population to live the same life of drudgery and imprisonment, and an increased number of manufacturers and others to make fortunes. They have increased the comforts of the middle classes. But they have not yet begun to effect those great changes in human destiny, which it is in their nature and in their futurity to accomplish. Only when, in addition to just institutions, the increase of mankind shall be under the deliberate guidance of judicious foresight, can the conquests made from the powers of nature by the intellect and energy of scientific discoverers become the common property of the species, and the means of improving and elevating the universal lot…

Should-Read: Susan Houseman: Understanding the [Post-2000] Decline in Manufacturing Employment

Should-Read: A very good point from Susan Houseman—and really important: “manufacturing” in America is very different from “computer manufacturing”. The second is doing very well, in spite of offshoring of all kinds and in spite of our “Dutch Disease” produced by capital inflows and service exports. The first, not so much: Susan Houseman: Understanding the [Post-2000] Decline in Manufacturing Employment: “How did so many people erroneously point to automation as the culprit? It was, Houseman said…

…”a widespread misinterpretation of basic manufacturing data.” True, manufacturing real (inflation-adjusted) output and productivity seemed to be growing strongly. However, a closer look revealed that the apparent strong growth was driven by a single industry within manufacturing: computer and electronics products. Despite making up less than 15 percent of manufacturing, the computer industry’s incredible growth pulled up the entire sector’s productivity numbers, papering over widespread weaknesses. “This one industry ends up dominating the manufacturing statistics and gives a misleading impression about what’s going on in the sector,” Houseman said….

Take out computers and the trends become clearer: real gross domestic product growth in manufacturing has been only 12 percent of the private sector average since 2000…. Trade issues, in fact, have left a big dent in manufacturing employment, Houseman said, citing recent research. Exchange rates, tariffs and other trade issues have made domestic manufacturing less competitive, while policy changes have made it easier and cheaper to import products, especially from China. People have been buying more manufactured products, Houseman said, but these products are increasingly made overseas…

Should-Read: John Austin: A tale of two Rust Belts: Diverging economic paths shaping community politics

Should-Read: John Austin: A tale of two Rust Belts: Diverging economic paths shaping community politics: “Some communities have assets (and have advanced strategies to build on those assets)…

…that now find them and their residents not only participating in, but actually leading the move to a more knowledge-based, technology-driven and urbanized economy. Pittsburgh, Columbus, Indianapolis, Minneapolis, and Milwaukee are today economically diversified, dynamic and growing metro economies. Big university towns like Madison, Ann Arbor, and Bloomington are magnets of state talent, innovation centers, and largely recession-proof. All of these communities are attracting and keeping highly educated populations, producing rising incomes, and maintain a diversified economic base. They are no longer beholden as manufacturing monocultures, as was the norm across the region fifty years ago when Minneapolis was “Flour City,” or Pittsburgh as the “Steel City.” And these communities all voted “blue” last fall.

It’s a very different story in many other Rust Belt communities, however. The small- and medium-sized factory towns that dot the highways and byways of Michigan, Indiana, Ohio and Wisconsin have lost their anchor employers and are struggling to fill the void. Many of these communities, including once solidly Democratic-voting, union-heavy, blue collar strongholds, flipped to Trump in 2016…

Should-Read: Chris Dillow: Economists in public

Should-Read: Good advice from Chris Dillow about how economists can try to avoid degrading the quality of the discussion in the public sphere: Chris Dillow: Stumbling and Mumbling: Economists in public: “There was a debate on Twitter this morning about how economists can better engage with the public….

…Our efforts to do so have not been wholly futile. Granted, economists’ influence on the debate about Brexit and austerity hasn’t been as great as we would like. But on the other hand, Tim Harford and Steve Levitt have gotten a wide public audience–one perhaps more deservedly so than the other, And my attempts to bring proper economics to the albeit niche readership of the Investors Chronicle have not been met with complete derision…. It is possible for economists to gain some influence. What follows are some suggestions as to how or when this can be done:

First, economists cannot hope to challenge beliefs that are part of people’s self-identity. If you tell someone “economics says you’re a twat” you’ll not get a sympathetic hearing even if you are bang right. This helps explain the success of Freakonomics and the failure over Brexit: nobody had strong prior beliefs about whether Sumo wrestlers cheat, but they did about the EU. In this context, I have it easy at the IC. People might not want to hear they are fools but they do want to know ways of making money, or at least to stop losing it egregiously. I can therefore try to be Keynes’ dentist, offering humble but competent advice without telling them they are fools. Secondly, try to appeal to facts rather than the consensus…

Should-Read: Olivier Coibion, Yuriy Gorodnichenko, and Mauricio Ulate: Real-Time Estimates of Potential GDP: Should the Fed Really Be Hitting the Brakes?

Should-Read: State-of-the-art, and very best thing I have seen recently on what potential output really is in the United States today: Olivier Coibion, Yuriy Gorodnichenko, and Mauricio Ulate: Real-Time Estimates of Potential GDP: Should the Fed Really Be Hitting the Brakes?: “CBO’s and other similar estimates of potential output are too pessimistic… Continue reading Should-Read: Olivier Coibion, Yuriy Gorodnichenko, and Mauricio Ulate: Real-Time Estimates of Potential GDP: Should the Fed Really Be Hitting the Brakes?

Should-Read: Janelle Jones and Ben Zipperer: Unfulfilled promises: Amazon fulfillment centers do not generate broad-based employment growth

Should-Read: Amazon—and other employers—have become very good at squeezing money out of mayors and others in relatively depressed areas in return for job-creation headlines. This does not mean that it is a pure winners’s curse situation: agglomeration economies are very real. but it does mean that the premium on not electing a stupid and corrupt mayor has just gone way up: Janelle Jones and Ben Zipperer: Unfulfilled promises: Amazon fulfillment centers do not generate broad-based employment growth: “When Amazon opens a new fulfillment center, the host county gains roughly 30 percent more warehousing and storage jobs but no new net jobs overall…

…jobs created in warehousing and storage are likely offset by job losses in other industries. Why it matters: State and local governments give away millions in tax abatements, credits, exemptions, and infrastructure assistance to lure Amazon warehouses but don’t get a commensurate “return” on that investment. What we can do about it: Rather than spending public resources on an ineffective strategy to boost local employment (luring Amazon fulfillment centers), state and local governments should invest in public services (particularly in early-childhood education and infrastructure) that are proven to spur long-term economic development…