Back to home-
NPR Asks President Obama about Tyler Cowen’s “Average Is Over”
This article originally appeared in NPR The economist Tyler Cowen was on our program the other day. He’d written a book about income inequality. And he argued, based on his analysis, that it’s really inevitable, it’s going to get worse, and the thing for public officials to do is to adapt to it rather than try to change it. Well, I don’t accept that. America is, always [has] been, at its best when everybody who’s willing to work hard has a chance to succeed. There is no doubt that these trends are powerful and they’re global. I mean, we’re seeing the same trends in Scandinavian countries that historically were — prided themselves on great equality. We’ve seen it magnified in less developed countries and emerging markets. So these are global trends that we’re going to have to fight against. But if we are educating a workforce that has the skills they need to compete, if we have a tax system that is fair and not rewarding those who can afford high-priced accountants and lawyers, if we are rebuilding our infrastructure in this country, not only to make us more competitive but because those create jobs that can’t be exported, if we are increasing a minimum wage so that it is reflective of the same purchasing power that existed many years ago, if we’re creating more ladders of opportunity for people who are locked in neighborhoods that have been abandoned and small towns where factories have closed — if we do those things, then we can lessen the impact of these broader market forces. But what is true is that globalization and technology are a mixed bag. On the one hand, they create a situation in which consumer goods are cheap and they create a situation in which we can have access to goods and services that we would never have had before. On the other hand, it does create a situation in which a lot of the jobs that are created are at the very top, high-skilled, you know, creative work that can’t be replicated, or at the bottom, low-skilled jobs. What we don’t have are those jobs in the middle that we have to really focus on building, because we can outcompete anybody when we have smart policies. Read Entire Transcript
-
A Dearth of Investment in Young Workers
This article originally appeared in The New York Times ONE of the most troubling features of the slow economic recovery is that it has largely bypassed young people. This doesn’t bode well for the future of the American economy. For Americans aged 16 to 24 who aren’t enrolled in school, the employment picture is grim. Only 36 percent are working full time, down 10 percentage points from 2007. Longer term, the overall labor-force participation rate for that age group has dropped 20 percentage points for men and 14 points for women since 1989. This lack of jobs will damage the long-term careers of a big chunk of the next working generation. Not working after you finish school very often means missing out on developing the skills and habits that will serve you well later on. The current employment numbers are therefore like a telescope into the future labor market: a 23-year-old who is working part time as a dog walker, yoga instructor or retail clerk may be having fun, but perhaps will receive fewer promotions as a 47-year-old. One culprit in this situation may be the higher minimum wage enacted in 2009, but the root causes run much deeper. Employers appear to be more risk-averse, more concerned about overhead costs and less willing to invest in developing young workers’ skills. And that seems true across a wide variety of sectors. In the legal profession, for instance, there is less interest in hiring junior associates and grooming them for partner status. Colleges and universities are often more interested in hiring adjuncts than tenure-track young faculty members. And publishing houses, instead of providing a big advance upfront and investing in young authors over a series of books, now expect many writers to earn their share of a book’s revenue through royalties. If we consider how many jobs are being advertised, without asking whether they are being filled, the labor market seems to be booming. If we measure labor market progress in terms of actual hiring, however, it’s clear that the economy is recovering slowly. Employers appear to be looking around for workers but then holding out for the very best candidates, and, if need be, making do with few new hires or none at all. These are signs of a world where next year’s business income is less certain, and many employers take greater care to keep weaker workers off the corporate team. Some employers would… Read more…
-
Who Will Prosper in the New World
This article originally appeared in The New York Times Self-driving vehicles threaten to send truck drivers to the unemployment office. Computer programs can now write journalistic accounts of sporting events and stock price movements. There are even computers that can grade essay exams with reasonable accuracy, which could revolutionize my own job, teaching. Increasingly, machines are providing not only the brawn but the brains, too, and that raises the question of where humans fit into this picture — who will prosper and who won’t in this new kind of machine economy? Who will do well? THE CONSCIENTIOUS Within five years we are likely to have the world’s best education, or close to it, online and free. But not everyone will sit down and go through the material without a professor pushing them to do the work. Those who are motivated to use online resources will do much, much better in the generations to come. It’s already the case that the best students from India are at the top in many Coursera classes, putting America’s arguably less motivated bright young people to shame. “Free” doesn’t really help you if you don’t make an effort. PEOPLE WHO LISTEN TO COMPUTERS Your smartphone will record data on your life and, when asked, will tell you what to do, drawing on data from your home or from your spouse and friends if need be. “You’ve thrown out that bread the last three times you’ve bought it, give it a pass” will be a text message of the future. How about “Now is not the time to start another argument with your wife”? The GPS is just the beginning of computer-guided instruction. Take your smartphone on a date, and it might vibrate in your pocket to indicate “Kiss her now.” If you hesitate for fear of being seen as pushy, it may write: “Who cares if you look bad? You are sampling optimally in the quest for a lifetime companion.”Those who won’t listen, or who rebel out of spite, will be missing out on glittering prizes. Those of us who listen, while often envied, may feel more like puppets with deflated pride. PEOPLE WITH A MARKETING TOUCH There will be a lot more wealth in this brave new world, but it won’t be very evenly distributed because a lot of human labor won’t seem like a special or scarce resource. Capturing the attention of customers… Read more…
-
Wealth Taxes: A Future Battleground
This article originally appeared in The New York Times If you’d like to know where American political debates are headed, the data suggest a simple answer. The next major struggle — in economic terms at least — will be over whether taxes on personal wealth should rise — and by how much. The mathematical reality is that wealth is becoming more important, relative to income. In a new paper,“Capital Is Back: Wealth-Income Ratios in Rich Countries 1700-2010,”Professors Thomas Piketty and Gabriel Zucman of the Paris School of Economics have performed the heroic task of measuring wealth for eight leading economies: the United States, Canada, Britain, France, Italy, Germany, Japan and Australia. Their estimates reveal some striking trends. For instance, wealth accumulation in these eight countries has risen relative to yearly production. Wealth-to-income ratios in these nations climbed from a range of 200 to 300 percent in 1970 to a range of 400 to 600 percent in 2010. Behind the changing ratios is some bad news, namely that slow productivity growth and slow population growth have depressed income growth, but also some good news — that relative peace and capital gains have preserved wealth. Focusing on the wealth of economies lets us reframe our recent debates about government debt in useful ways. A look at the ratio of debt to gross national product, for example, can be scary, but the ratio of debt to wealth is far less forbidding. If, say, a nation’s debt-to-G.D.P. ratio is 100 percent — often considered a dangerous level — and national wealth is 10 times yearly national income, the debt-to-wealth ratio is thus 10 percent, which is comparable to owing $100,000 on a $1 million home. Not so scary. Using the wealth numbers provided by Professors Piketty and Zucman, we can understand how Japan, despite a debt-to-G.D.P. ratio of more than 200 percent, can maintain low interest rates; Japan has a wealth-to-income ratio of about 600 percent. In essence, creditors think the Japanese political system will be able to drum up enough support for the requisite taxes, pulled out of national wealth if necessary, when the time comes. But don’t relax too quickly, because fiscal problems remain very real for many countries. While virtually every government could pay off its debts by taxing wealth, such taxes are often politically unacceptable. In other words, fiscal problems are best regarded as problems of dysfunctional governance. In the…
-
The Cookbook Theory of Economics
-
Emerging Markets, Hitting a Wall
-
On the Horizon, Five Reasons to Smile
-
Why is There No New Milton Friedman Today?
-
To Fight Pandemics, Reward Research
This article originally appeared in The New York Times That frightening word “pandemic” is back in the news. A strain of avian influenza has infected people in China, with a death toll of more than 25 as of late last week. The outbreak raises renewed questions about how to prepare for possible risks, should the strain become more easily communicable or should other deadly variations arise. Our current health care policies are not optimal for dealing with pandemics. The central problem is that these policies neglect what economists call “public goods”: items and services that benefit many people and can’t easily be withheld from those who don’t pay for them directly. Protection against communicable diseases is a core example of a public good, as is basic scientific research, which can yield new ideas that may be spread at very low additional cost. (In contrast, Medicare, which is publicly financed, has some elements of a public good, but any particular expenditure tends to benefit an individual receiving treatment, rather than being spread over a number of beneficiaries.) One obvious step forward would be to exempt biomedical research from cuts of the current federal budget sequestration. Research and development grants are a way to pay potential innovators up front — an important move, as an innovator can’t always charge high-enough prices for the value of its remedies when they’re actually needed. If a pandemic became a major issue in the United States, demand for remedies would surge far beyond the level associated with a typical seasonal flu outbreak, and permitting high prices would be unpopular — and perhaps unfair. The threat of contagion also makes it crucial to spread the net of protection as widely as possible, which again suggests low prices. Yet it is crucial to have some reward system in place for medical innovators. Well in advance of a pandemic, research needs to be done, and vaccine capacity and drug distribution facilities need to be built up. In the H.I.V./AIDS crisis, for instance, the United States was caught flat-footed — and an appropriate response has taken decades, in part because we were not prepared. Without government financing for such public goods, the capacity wouldn’t be there if a new pandemic produced a surge in demand. This would amount to an institutional failure. The government could also take another, more unusual step: it could promise to pay lucrative prices for the patents on drugs and vaccines that prove useful in… Read more…
-
Response: Inefficient, but Not Plutocratic