Podcast appearances and mentions of David Autor

The “China Shock”—triggered by the country's entry into the World Trade Organization—devastated America's heartland, causing a sudden exodus of manufacturing jobs and disrupting the communities that depended on them. Promoters of globalization promised “better” jobs would take their place. Nearly 25 years later, has that happened?David Autor, professor of economics at MIT and co-author of the famous “China Shock” paper, joins Oren to talk about the effects of free trade on America's working class. They also examine Autor's latest paper, which highlights that the new jobs in the hardest-hit communities often don't provide the pay or stability that the jobs outsourced by globalization did—and, even worse, that many former workers lack access to these jobs altogether. Plus, they explore the rise of automation in manufacturing and the implications of AI for American workers.Further reading:"Places versus People: The Ins and Outs of Labor Market Adjustment to Globalization" by David Autor, David Dorn, et al. "The China Shock: Learning from Labor Market Adjustment to Large Changes in Trade" by David Autor, David Dorn, and Gordon Hanson

How the Trump administration is using tariffs as a negotiating tool to weaken the U.S. dollar and increase the global competitiveness of U.S. manufacturers.Topics covered include:Why U.S. stocks are falling, and recession risk is increasingHow the U.S. dollar as the reserve currency is becoming a burden on the U.S.How the Trump administration aims to reduce its trade deficit and make it less attractive for foreign governments to own U.S. assetsWhat are the risks of trying to weaken the U.S. dollarEpisode SponsorsDelete Me – Use code David20 to get 20% offStawberry.meInsiders Guide Email NewsletterGet our free Investors' Checklist when you sign up for the free Money for the Rest of Us email newsletterOur Premium ProductsAsset CampMoney for the Rest of Us PlusShow NotesStock Market News, March 10, 2025: Nasdaq Falls 4% After Trump Doesn't Rule Out Recession by Caitlin McCabe and Krystal Hur—The Wall Street JournalTrump Says US Economy Faces ‘Transition,' Avoids Recession Call by María Paula Mijares Torres—BloombergIs the U.S. Heading for a Recession? Here's What the Experts Say by Caitlin McCabe—The Wall Street JournalMark Carney Wins Canada Liberal Contest, Will Succeed Trudeau in Days by Brian Platt and Laura Dhillon Kane—BloombergEntering the Fall 2024 | Alarming Signs? - Fireside Chat with Scott Bessent by Simplify Asset Management—YouTubeA User's Guide to Restructuring the Global Trading System by Stephen Miran—Hudson Bay CapitalCould Trump devalue the dollar with a "Mar-a-Lago Accord"? by Paul Diggle and Luke Bartholomew—Aberdeen InvestmentsWonking Out: The Mysteries of the Almighty Dollar by Paul Krugman—The New York TimesOn the Persistence of the China Shock by David Autor, David Dorn, and Gordon H. Hanson—NBERManufacturing, value added (% of GDP)—World Bank Data Group | Prosperity Data360Council of Economic Advisors Chair Nominee Stephen Miran's Critique of the Global Monetary System—Part I by Steven B. Kamin—AEIUsing Stock Returns to Assess the Aggregate Effect of the U.S.‑China Trade War by Mary Amiti, Matthieu Gomez, Sang Hoon Kong, and David E. Weinstein—Federal Reserve Bank of New YorkTwo cheers for Germany's fiscal reform by Neil Shearing—Capital EconomicsRelated Episodes404: Why Is the U.S. Dollar So Strong? Will It Continue?322: Why Currency Exchange Rates MatterSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Today's episode is a bonus drop from our friends over at the MIT CSAIL Alliances podcast. We'll back in two weeks for Season 11 of Me, Myself, and AI. David Autor, the Daniel (1972) and Gail Rubinfeld Professor, Margaret MacVicar Faculty Fellow in MIT's Department of Economics, says that AI is “not like a calculator where you just punch in the numbers and get the right answer. It's much harder to figure out how to be effective with it.” Offering unique insights into the future of work in an AI-powered world, Autor explains his biggest worries, the greatest upside scenarios, and how he believes we should be approaching AI as a tool, and addresses how AI will impact jobs like nursing and skilled trades. Read the episode transcript here. Studies and papers referenced in this conversation:  AI and Product Innovation AI and the Gender Gap Robotics and Nursing Homes CSAIL Alliances connects business and industry to the people and research of MIT's Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory. Each month, the CSAIL podcast features cutting-edge MIT and CSAIL experts discussing their current research, challenges, and successes, as well as the potential impact of emerging tech. Follow the podcast here. Me, Myself, and AI is a collaborative podcast from MIT Sloan Management Review and Boston Consulting Group and is hosted by Sam Ransbotham and Shervin Khodabandeh. Our engineer is David Lishansky, and the coordinating producers are Allison Ryder and Alanna Hooper. Stay in touch with us by joining our LinkedIn group, AI for Leaders at mitsmr.com/AIforLeaders or by following Me, Myself, and AI on LinkedIn. We encourage you to rate and review our show. Your comments may be used in Me, Myself, and AI materials.

AEI's Michael Strain analyzes the mistakes left and right make about middle class stagnation, quality of life, and other matters. Plus, what is risked when Trump/Musk attack foundational institutions. This episode is sponsored by BetterHelp. Give online therapy a try at betterhelp.com/mona and get on your way to being your best self. Referenced Works & Figures: Michael Strain's Book — The American Dream Is Not Dead: (But Populism Could Kill It) Elizabeth Warren & Bill de Blasio – Critique of middle-class decline. Josh Hawley – Comment on wage stagnation. David Autor's "China Shock" Paper – Study on trade-induced job losses. Robert Bork's Antitrust Theories – Influence on U.S. competition policy. Smoot-Hawley Tariffs – Historical reference to the consequences of trade protectionism. Occupy Wall Street & Tea Party Movements – Examples of populist political reactions. Federal Job Training Programs – Discussion on their past inefficacy and recent improvements.

China's entry into the World Trade Organization, normalizing trade relations with the PRC, was billed to the American public as a rising tide that lifts all boats. But decades later, many of the manufacturing workers who lost their jobs to cheaper Chinese goods have not recovered. And while the first “China shock” left millions of […]

China's entry into the World Trade Organization, normalizing trade relations with the PRC, was billed to the American public as a rising tide that lifts all boats. But decades later, many of the manufacturing workers who lost their jobs to cheaper Chinese goods have not recovered. And while the first “China shock” left millions of textile and low-skill manufacturing workers without a job, Chinese trade practices are now targeting sectors crucial to American prosperity and national security. How can the U.S. protect vital industries from unfair trade practices? And why is it so difficult to help those who lose their job to trade find new work? David Autor is the Daniel and Gail Rubinfeld Professor in the MIT Department of Economics and co-director of the National Bureau of Economic Research Labor Studies Program and the MIT Shaping the Future of Work Initiative. Autor is also an elected Fellow of the Econometrics Society, the Society of Labor Economists, and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and a Faculty Research Associate of the National Bureau of Economic Research and the Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab. In 2019, the Economist labeled Autor “The academic voice of the American worker.”Read the transcript here. Subscribe to our Substack here.

This week, Nick and Goldy discuss the future of AI and its potential impact on labor markets and society with MIT professor and economist David Autor. While many pundits predict that AI will bring economic misery to working Americans, Autor optimistically argues that AI could empower the middle class by augmenting human expertise, unlocking new solutions to complex problems, and enabling individuals with fewer formal skills to excel in areas requiring advanced knowledge. Professor Autor also underscores the need for targeted investments, labor market supports, and thoughtful regulations to ensure the benefits of AI are widely and equitably distributed rather than concentrated among a privileged few. It's a fascinating discussion about the future of AI that tackles the pressing questions about its ethical deployment, the risks of monopolization, and the societal shifts required to harness it for the greater good. David Autor is a labor economist and professor of economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who studies how technological change and globalization affect workers. He is also co-director of the MIT Shaping the Future of Work Initiative and the National Bureau of Economic Research Labor Studies Program. Social Media Twitter: @davidautor Further reading:  NOEMA - AI Could Actually Help Rebuild The Middle Class New York Times - How One Tech Skeptic Decided A.I. Might Benefit the Middle Class Website: http://pitchforkeconomics.com Instagram: @pitchforkeconomics Threads: pitchforkeconomics Bluesky: @pitchforkeconomics.bsky.social Twitter: @PitchforkEcon, @NickHanauer, @civicaction YouTube: @pitchforkeconomics LinkedIn: Pitchfork Economics Substack: The Pitch

Rebroadcast: Labor economist David Autor's research shows how historically, technological advances hurt the incomes of middle- and working-class Americans. But when it comes to AI, Autor says the exact opposite could happen.

Zachary Mazlish is an economist at the University of Oxford, and he joins David on Macro Musings to explain some recent and important macroeconomic developments, specifically the inflation linkages to the 2024 presidential election and the macroeconomic implications of transformative AI. David and Zach also discuss transformative AI's impact on asset pricing, optimal monetary policy in world of high growth, the causes of the slowdown in trend productivity, and more.   Transcript for this week's  episode.   Zach's Twitter: @ZMazlish Zach's Substack Zach's website   David Beckworth's Twitter: @DavidBeckworth Follow us on Twitter: @Macro_Musings   Check out our new AI chatbot: the Macro Musebot! Join the new Macro Musings Discord server!   Join the Macro Musings mailing list! Check out our Macro Musings merch!   Related Links:   *Yes, Inflation Made the Median Voter Poorer* by Zachary Mazlish   *Transformative AI, Existential Risk, and Real Interest Rates* by Trevor Chow, Basil Halperin, and Zachary Mazlish   *Decomposing the Great Stagnation: Baumol's Cost Disease vs. “Ideas Are Getting Hard to Find”* by Basil Halperin and Zachary Mazlish   *The Unexpected Compression: Competition at Work in the Low Wage Labor Market* by David Autor, Arin Dube, and Annie McGrew   Timestamps:   (00:00:00) – Intro   (00:04:03) – Inflation Made the Median Voter Poorer: Comparing Periods of Wage Growth   (00:15:26) – Inflation Made the Median Voter Poorer: The Median Change in the Wage   (00:22:19) – Assessing the Feedback to Zachary's Article   (00:25:05) – The Significance of Transformative AI and its Double-Edged Sword   (00:27:02) – The Impact of Transformative AI on Asset Pricing and its Policy Challenges   (00:38:07) – The Broader Macroeconomic Effects of Rapid Growth   (00:41:05) – Optimal Monetary Policy in a World of High Growth   (00:43:19) – Exploring the Causes of the Productivity Slowdown   (00:49:21) – Outro

It's true that robots (and other smart technologies) will kill many jobs. It may also be true that newer collaborative robots (“cobots”) will totally reinvigorate how work gets done. That, at least, is what the economists are telling us. Should we believe them? SOURCES:David Autor, professor of economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.James Rosenman, C.E.O. of Andrus on Hudson senior care community.Karen Eggleston, economist at Stanford University.Yong Suk Lee, professor of technology, economy, and global affairs at the University of Notre Dame. RESOURCES:"Robots and Labor in Nursing Homes," by Yong Suk Lee, Toshiaki Iizuka, and Karen Eggleston (NBER Working Paper, 2024)."Global Robotics Race: Korea, Singapore and Germany in the Lead," by International Federation of Robotics (2024)."Unmet Need for Equipment to Help With Bathing and Toileting Among Older US Adults," by Kenneth Lam, Ying Shi, John Boscardin, and Kenneth E. Covinsky (JAMA Internal Medicine, 2021)."Robots and Labor in the Service Sector: Evidence from Nursing Homes," by Karen Eggleston, Yong Suk Lee, and Toshiaki Iizuka (NBER Working Papers, 2021).The Work of the Future: Building Better Jobs in an Age of Intelligent Machines, by David Autor, David Mindell, Elisabeth Reynolds, and the MIT Task Force on the Work of the Future (2020)."Robots and Jobs: Evidence from US Labor Markets," by Daron Acemoglu and Pascual Restrepo (University of Chicago Press, 2020)."The Slowdown in Productivity Growth and Policies That Can Restore It," by Emily Moss, Ryan Nunn, and Jay Shambaugh (The Hamilton Project, 2020)."The China Shock: Learning from Labor Market Adjustment to Large Changes in Trade," by David H. Autor, David Dorn, and Gordon H. Hanson (NBER Working Papers, 2016)."Deregulation at Heart of Japan's New Robotics Revolution," by Sophie Knight and Kaori Kaneko (Reuters, 2014). EXTRAS:"What Do People Do All Day?" by Freakonomics Radio (2024)."Did China Eat America's Jobs?" by Freakonomics Radio (2017).

Les institutions démocratiques favorisent-elles la croissance économique et la prospérité au bénéfice de l'ensemble d'une population ? Question épineuse et passionnante posée par les trois lauréats du prix Nobel d'économie Daron Acemoglu, James A. Robinson et Simon Johnson qui se sont notamment intéressés à l'Histoire de la colonisation. Nous vous proposons un entretien exceptionnel avec l'un d'entre eux (à lire ci-dessous). Dans la seconde partie de l'émission, retour sur le plan Sénégal 2050 présenté par le président Bassirou Diomaye Faye et son gouvernement dirigé par Ousmane Sonko. Les pistes proposées seront-elles à la hauteur des attentes d'une population qui s'impatiente ? Sont-elles réalisables au vu du contexte international et des contraintes économiques ?NOTRE INVITÉ :- Meissa Babou, enseignant chercheur au département d'économie de l'Université Cheikh Anta Diop de Dakar (Sénégal)Enfin, nous réfléchissons sur le futur du secteur automobile dans le monde intimement lié aux bras de fer commerciaux entre les grandes puissances : illustration au Mondial de l'Automobile 2024 à Paris avec l'influence grandissante des constructeurs chinois en pointe en particulier dans le domaine des véhicules électriques. Quelle est leur stratégie à long terme ? Y a t-il un risque de surcapacité ? Comment les Européens peuvent-ils défendre leur industrie ? Quelle conséquence pour la décarbonation du secteur ?NOS INVITÉS :- Alicia Garcia Herrero, chef économiste pour l'Asie-Pacifique chez Natixis, basée à Hong-Kong- Antoine Le Bec, chargé d'études chez Futuribles, centre de réflexion sur notre avenir et auteur d'une note intitulée «Automobile : vers un leadership chinois. Les constructeurs chinois à l'assaut du marché mondial». NOTRE ENTRETIEN :Simon Johnson, enseignant en sciences économiques au Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) est l'un des trois lauréats du Prix Nobel d'économie 2024 pour ses travaux sur la compréhension des inégalités et des écarts de richesses entre les nations. Il a accordé un long entretien à Paola Ariza, journaliste à la rédaction en espagnol de RFI. RFI : Simon Johnson, qu'avez-vous ressenti lorsque vous avez remporté ce prix Nobel avec vos collègues ? Simon Johnson : Eh bien, j'ai d'abord été très surpris et puis très vite, absolument ravi.  Votre travail a mis en lumière la relation entre le système politique et la croissance économique. 20% des pays du monde sont 30 fois plus riches que les 20% les plus pauvres. Pourquoi ces inégalités ? Simon Johnson : L'Histoire a une influence énorme, et plus précisément la façon dont de nombreux pays ont été colonisés et dirigés par les puissances européennes. Bien sûr, les Européens n'ont pas colonisé toute la planète, mais une bonne partie. Parfois cet héritage aura été positif pour le développement économique de ces pays, mais parfois assez négatif. Il est très important de se rappeler que l'impact sur les peuples autochtones, même dans des endroits ou des pays qui sont devenus prospères, Les peuples autochtones ont toujours souffert très durement de la colonisation européenne.  Un pays est-il prédestiné à devenir riche ou alors pauvre?  Simon Johnson : Non, il n'y a pas de prédestination, il faut faire les bons choix. J'ai été pendant un certain temps haut fonctionnaire et économiste en chef au Fonds monétaire international. Et nous avons travaillé longtemps et dur pour aider les pays et les gouvernements à faire de meilleurs choix qui aideraient à partager la prospérité dans ces endroits. Mais il est difficile d'échapper aux héritages que les Européens ont laissé derrière eux.  Dans vos recherches, vous mentionnez aussi l'importance des institutions pour combattre les inégalités et promouvoir la croissance. De quelles institutions parlez-vous?  Simon Johnson : Nous avons toujours souligné l'importance des interactions entre les institutions politiques. Si vous avez une démocratie vraiment viable et robuste avec une alternance au pouvoir et la possibilité de contester les élites dirigeantes existantes et ainsi de suite... Mais, en parallèle, ce qui compte, ce sont les institutions économiques. Est-ce qu'il y a des droits de propriété garantis si vous vous lancez dans un investissement ? Allez-vous récupérer les bénéfices de cet investissement ou sera-t-il accaparé par une personne puissante, un voisin ou un chef, ou une entreprise ? C'est donc la combinaison des institutions politiques et économiques qui, je pense, est la plus importante. Vous parlez plus précisément des institutions inclusives, qui sont liées à la démocratie, qui sont bonnes pour la croissance et la prospérité à long terme et puis d'autre part les institutions extractives mènent à la pauvreté. Comment en êtes-vous arrivé à cette conclusion? Et pourquoi est-il difficile de réformer les institutions extractives? Simon Johnson : C'est parce que certaines personnes y gagnent beaucoup. Celles qui ont dirigé le commerce des esclaves, qui était dirigé par des Européens, les gens qui ont exploité les plantations, souvent des Européens, les gens qui ont mis en place des contrats miniers par exemple au Pérou et ainsi de suite. Un petit nombre de personnes gagnent donc beaucoup d'argent et deviennent riches grâce aux institutions extractives. Ces riches obtiennent aussi beaucoup de pouvoir politique et peuvent défendre les arrangements qui leur sont favorables. Et même s'il y a un coup d'état ou une révolution ou un renversement du gouvernement, ces leviers de pouvoir économique restent très concentrés. Vous dites que les pays qui se démocratisent, à partir d'un régime non démocratique, se développent plus vite que les régimes non démocratiques. En 8 ou 9 ans. Comment faites-vous ce calcul? On pense bien sûr à l'Amérique latine, aux pays qui ont souffert de dictatures ou même aux pays actuels où les lacunes de la démocratie sont dénoncées. Simon Johnson : Bien sûr, la démocratie n'est pas parfaite, les démocraties sont vulnérables aux chocs économiques. Nous ne disons pas que c'est une baguette magique ou que les résultats positifs sont nécessairement immédiats. Mais sur le long terme, vous voyez que parfois les régimes autoritaires font bien pendant un certain temps, et parfois ils peuvent même laisser les salaires augmenter. Mais tôt ou tard, le dictateur devient vieux, le dictateur devient corrompu. Et ces régimes ont prouvé à maintes reprises, y compris en Amérique latine, leur fragilité.  Maintenant, les démocraties doivent produire des résultats. On ne peut pas dire “les élections ont été libres et équitables, on peut se détendre ! “. Non. Vous devez vous assurer que la prospérité est partagée. Sinon, vous créez de la frustration. Et qu'en est-il de la Chine, et plus généralement des économies asiatiques dans des pays pas toujours démocratiques ? Mais avec de fortes croissances, grâce à la technologie. Quelle est votre analyse ? Simon Johnson : C'est très intéressant de voir que les salaires des travailleurs peu qualifiés au Japon après la Seconde Guerre mondiale augmentent lentement au début. Mais à partir des années 1970, ils augmentent plus vite comme aux États-Unis. C'est la même tendance en Corée du Sud pendant cette période où l'on s'oriente vers la démocratie mais cela prend du temps et avec des conflits.Pour la Chine, il y a très peu d'augmentation de salaires depuis le début des années 1990, lorsque la libéralisation a vraiment commencé. Et puis les Chinois ont arrêté de publier les données. C'est même en fait un crime qui peut être puni de prison si vous publiez ces données en dehors de la Chine. Il faut donc poser la question : si la prospérité est si largement partagée en Chine, pourquoi ne publient-ils pas les données sur les salaires ?Vous dénoncez aussi la corruption dans les pays du sud global mais aussi dans les pays du nord qui handicape le développement. Comment faire pour la réduire ? Simon Johnson : Oui, je pense que la corruption est un problème énorme partout où elle apparaît dans le monde. Il y a toujours quelqu'un qui reçoit le pot-de-vin et quelqu'un qui le paie. Et dans de nombreux cas, il est payé par des gens qui sont assez riches, comme des entreprises étrangères, américaines ou européennes. Il y a beaucoup de belles paroles mais dans de nombreux pays, y compris les pays à faible revenu, la corruption est pire aujourd'hui qu'elle ne l'était dans les années 1990. Avec la mondialisation, les capitaux circulent plus librement entre les pays. La corruption est devenue encore plus un obstacle au développement économique, à la prospérité partagée avec tous les niveaux de revenus.  Pourquoi pensez-vous qu'il y a plus de corruption à notre époque ? Qu'est ce qui a changé ? Simon Johnson : Pensez aux énergies propres par exemple qui intéressent tout le monde et moi aussi. Elles nécessitent un certain nombre de composants clés. Des minéraux, y compris le lithium. Donc, si votre pays a beaucoup de lithium, vous pouvez finalement participer à l'économie mondiale. Mais qui contrôle les droits sur ce lithium? Qui détermine le prix? Ce seront les gens qui ont de l'électricité et qui paient pour ce lithium. Ce sont des entreprises mondiales qui veulent fabriquer des batteries.  Donc, je pense qu'il y a une forme de complaisance. Dans les pays riches, nous nous bouchons les yeux pour ne pas voir les mauvaises pratiques dans les pays qui ont un déficit d'institutions et qui sont donc vulnérables à la corruption. Simon Johnson, vos travaux portent aussi sur le développement de la technologie et de l'intelligence artificielle. Très peu de grandes entreprises et de pays détiennent ces marchés qui ont de forts impacts sur les emplois et le produit intérieur brut. Qu'en pensez-vous ?   Simon Johnson : Oui, en réalité, un seul pays possède les entreprises dominantes, ce sont les États-Unis d'Amérique. Nous avons un groupe de recherche au MIT avec mon collègue prix Nobel Daron Acemoglu et David Autor, l'un des plus grands économistes du travail dans le monde. Notre position, c'est que l'intelligence artificielle offre une occasion d'accroître la productivité des travailleurs à faible revenu et moins qualifiés, ce qui pourrait être très utile pour faire progresser les classes moyennes, pas seulement aux États-Unis. Mais au lieu de saisir cette opportunité, les grandes entreprises technologiques sont obsédées par une vision dans laquelle l'IA est avant tout une technologie d'automatisation, ce qui signifie que vous utilisez ces algorithmes pour remplacer les humains à grande échelle, et si ce processus d'automatisation avance aussi rapidement que le voudraient les soi-disant visionnaires du secteur, nous perdrons des millions d'emplois avant d'avoir le temps et la possibilité de créer de nouveaux emplois pour les remplacer. Nous reproduisons encore plus vite le processus dans les économies industrielles lorsque la technologie numérique s'est répandue à partir des années 1980. Donc, l'IA est dangereuse mais seulement sur le plan de l'emploi, parce que si nous choisissons de développer des technologies en augmentant la productivité des travailleurs peu qualifiés, alors l'IA sera très utile pour soutenir les classes moyennes, réduire la polarisation du marché du travail et réduire, espérons-le, la polarisation politique. Comment voyez-vous l'impact du changement climatique sur l'économie? Un sujet d'actualité chez vous aux Etats-Unis... Simon Johnson : Bien sûr, nous avons eu des événements tragiques aux États-Unis récemment avec deux ouragans, beaucoup de pluies par exemple dans les montagnes de la Caroline du Nord sur des personnes qui pensaient être loin du risque climatique, parce qu'elles sont très loin de la mer mais dont les maisons ont été emportées. Donc je pense que ces phénomènes extrêmes vont toucher tout le monde, partout. Et bien sûr, nous devrions nous rendre moins vulnérables. Mais nous devons vraiment nous attaquer au problème sous-jacent, à savoir notre utilisation continue et excessive des combustibles fossiles en modifiant les politiques. Mais il faut aussi développer de nouvelles technologies. Nous devons accélérer les investissements dans ce domaine pour créer des emplois, de bons emplois aux États-Unis et dans le monde entier. Au final, à quoi vont servir vos recherches ? Simon Johnson : Évidemment, gagner ce prix, c'est un immense honneur, C'est une reconnaissance de notre travail et pour ceux qui en bénéficient. Maintenant, il y a des décisions qui peuvent être prises. Non, le monde n'est pas figé. Nous devons redoubler d'efforts, nous devons impliquer plus de personnes, nous devons donner aux jeunes chercheurs les moyens nécessaires, permettre aux universités et aux entreprises de trouver les bonnes solutions. Depuis 30 ans, j'ai travaillé sur certains des problèmes les plus difficiles. J'ai travaillé avec le mouvement Solidarnosc en Pologne. J'ai travaillé pendant la crise financière asiatique en 1997 et pendant la crise financière américaine de 2008. J'ai travaillé sur la réforme financière dans de nombreux pays, j'ai travaillé pendant la COVID et rien ne dit que j'ai eu la bonne solution ou la bonne réponse. Il suffit de trouver les bonnes personnes, qui vont dans la bonne direction et les soutenir politique, avec la technologie et tout ce que l'on peut mobiliser.Propos recueillis par Paola Ariza, journaliste à RFI.Retrouvez nous sur Facebook et X.

Les institutions démocratiques favorisent-elles la croissance économique et la prospérité au bénéfice de l'ensemble d'une population ? Question épineuse et passionnante posée par les trois lauréats du prix Nobel d'économie Daron Acemoglu, James A. Robinson et Simon Johnson qui se sont notamment intéressés à l'Histoire de la colonisation. Nous vous proposons un entretien exceptionnel avec l'un d'entre eux (à lire ci-dessous). Dans la seconde partie de l'émission, retour sur le plan Sénégal 2050 présenté par le président Bassirou Diomaye Faye et son gouvernement dirigé par Ousmane Sonko. Les pistes proposées seront-elles à la hauteur des attentes d'une population qui s'impatiente ? Sont-elles réalisables au vu du contexte international et des contraintes économiques ?NOTRE INVITÉ :- Meissa Babou, enseignant chercheur au département d'économie de l'Université Cheikh Anta Diop de Dakar (Sénégal)Enfin, nous réfléchissons sur le futur du secteur automobile dans le monde intimement lié aux bras de fer commerciaux entre les grandes puissances : illustration au Mondial de l'Automobile 2024 à Paris avec l'influence grandissante des constructeurs chinois en pointe en particulier dans le domaine des véhicules électriques. Quelle est leur stratégie à long terme ? Y a t-il un risque de surcapacité ? Comment les Européens peuvent-ils défendre leur industrie ? Quelle conséquence pour la décarbonation du secteur ?NOS INVITÉS :- Alicia Garcia Herrero, chef économiste pour l'Asie-Pacifique chez Natixis, basée à Hong-Kong- Antoine Le Bec, chargé d'études chez Futuribles, centre de réflexion sur notre avenir et auteur d'une note intitulée «Automobile : vers un leadership chinois. Les constructeurs chinois à l'assaut du marché mondial». NOTRE ENTRETIEN :Simon Johnson, enseignant en sciences économiques au Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) est l'un des trois lauréats du Prix Nobel d'économie 2024 pour ses travaux sur la compréhension des inégalités et des écarts de richesses entre les nations. Il a accordé un long entretien à Paola Ariza, journaliste à la rédaction en espagnol de RFI. RFI : Simon Johnson, qu'avez-vous ressenti lorsque vous avez remporté ce prix Nobel avec vos collègues ? Simon Johnson : Eh bien, j'ai d'abord été très surpris et puis très vite, absolument ravi.  Votre travail a mis en lumière la relation entre le système politique et la croissance économique. 20% des pays du monde sont 30 fois plus riches que les 20% les plus pauvres. Pourquoi ces inégalités ? Simon Johnson : L'Histoire a une influence énorme, et plus précisément la façon dont de nombreux pays ont été colonisés et dirigés par les puissances européennes. Bien sûr, les Européens n'ont pas colonisé toute la planète, mais une bonne partie. Parfois cet héritage aura été positif pour le développement économique de ces pays, mais parfois assez négatif. Il est très important de se rappeler que l'impact sur les peuples autochtones, même dans des endroits ou des pays qui sont devenus prospères, Les peuples autochtones ont toujours souffert très durement de la colonisation européenne.  Un pays est-il prédestiné à devenir riche ou alors pauvre?  Simon Johnson : Non, il n'y a pas de prédestination, il faut faire les bons choix. J'ai été pendant un certain temps haut fonctionnaire et économiste en chef au Fonds monétaire international. Et nous avons travaillé longtemps et dur pour aider les pays et les gouvernements à faire de meilleurs choix qui aideraient à partager la prospérité dans ces endroits. Mais il est difficile d'échapper aux héritages que les Européens ont laissé derrière eux.  Dans vos recherches, vous mentionnez aussi l'importance des institutions pour combattre les inégalités et promouvoir la croissance. De quelles institutions parlez-vous?  Simon Johnson : Nous avons toujours souligné l'importance des interactions entre les institutions politiques. Si vous avez une démocratie vraiment viable et robuste avec une alternance au pouvoir et la possibilité de contester les élites dirigeantes existantes et ainsi de suite... Mais, en parallèle, ce qui compte, ce sont les institutions économiques. Est-ce qu'il y a des droits de propriété garantis si vous vous lancez dans un investissement ? Allez-vous récupérer les bénéfices de cet investissement ou sera-t-il accaparé par une personne puissante, un voisin ou un chef, ou une entreprise ? C'est donc la combinaison des institutions politiques et économiques qui, je pense, est la plus importante. Vous parlez plus précisément des institutions inclusives, qui sont liées à la démocratie, qui sont bonnes pour la croissance et la prospérité à long terme et puis d'autre part les institutions extractives mènent à la pauvreté. Comment en êtes-vous arrivé à cette conclusion? Et pourquoi est-il difficile de réformer les institutions extractives? Simon Johnson : C'est parce que certaines personnes y gagnent beaucoup. Celles qui ont dirigé le commerce des esclaves, qui était dirigé par des Européens, les gens qui ont exploité les plantations, souvent des Européens, les gens qui ont mis en place des contrats miniers par exemple au Pérou et ainsi de suite. Un petit nombre de personnes gagnent donc beaucoup d'argent et deviennent riches grâce aux institutions extractives. Ces riches obtiennent aussi beaucoup de pouvoir politique et peuvent défendre les arrangements qui leur sont favorables. Et même s'il y a un coup d'état ou une révolution ou un renversement du gouvernement, ces leviers de pouvoir économique restent très concentrés. Vous dites que les pays qui se démocratisent, à partir d'un régime non démocratique, se développent plus vite que les régimes non démocratiques. En 8 ou 9 ans. Comment faites-vous ce calcul? On pense bien sûr à l'Amérique latine, aux pays qui ont souffert de dictatures ou même aux pays actuels où les lacunes de la démocratie sont dénoncées. Simon Johnson : Bien sûr, la démocratie n'est pas parfaite, les démocraties sont vulnérables aux chocs économiques. Nous ne disons pas que c'est une baguette magique ou que les résultats positifs sont nécessairement immédiats. Mais sur le long terme, vous voyez que parfois les régimes autoritaires font bien pendant un certain temps, et parfois ils peuvent même laisser les salaires augmenter. Mais tôt ou tard, le dictateur devient vieux, le dictateur devient corrompu. Et ces régimes ont prouvé à maintes reprises, y compris en Amérique latine, leur fragilité.  Maintenant, les démocraties doivent produire des résultats. On ne peut pas dire “les élections ont été libres et équitables, on peut se détendre ! “. Non. Vous devez vous assurer que la prospérité est partagée. Sinon, vous créez de la frustration. Et qu'en est-il de la Chine, et plus généralement des économies asiatiques dans des pays pas toujours démocratiques ? Mais avec de fortes croissances, grâce à la technologie. Quelle est votre analyse ? Simon Johnson : C'est très intéressant de voir que les salaires des travailleurs peu qualifiés au Japon après la Seconde Guerre mondiale augmentent lentement au début. Mais à partir des années 1970, ils augmentent plus vite comme aux États-Unis. C'est la même tendance en Corée du Sud pendant cette période où l'on s'oriente vers la démocratie mais cela prend du temps et avec des conflits.Pour la Chine, il y a très peu d'augmentation de salaires depuis le début des années 1990, lorsque la libéralisation a vraiment commencé. Et puis les Chinois ont arrêté de publier les données. C'est même en fait un crime qui peut être puni de prison si vous publiez ces données en dehors de la Chine. Il faut donc poser la question : si la prospérité est si largement partagée en Chine, pourquoi ne publient-ils pas les données sur les salaires ?Vous dénoncez aussi la corruption dans les pays du sud global mais aussi dans les pays du nord qui handicape le développement. Comment faire pour la réduire ? Simon Johnson : Oui, je pense que la corruption est un problème énorme partout où elle apparaît dans le monde. Il y a toujours quelqu'un qui reçoit le pot-de-vin et quelqu'un qui le paie. Et dans de nombreux cas, il est payé par des gens qui sont assez riches, comme des entreprises étrangères, américaines ou européennes. Il y a beaucoup de belles paroles mais dans de nombreux pays, y compris les pays à faible revenu, la corruption est pire aujourd'hui qu'elle ne l'était dans les années 1990. Avec la mondialisation, les capitaux circulent plus librement entre les pays. La corruption est devenue encore plus un obstacle au développement économique, à la prospérité partagée avec tous les niveaux de revenus.  Pourquoi pensez-vous qu'il y a plus de corruption à notre époque ? Qu'est ce qui a changé ? Simon Johnson : Pensez aux énergies propres par exemple qui intéressent tout le monde et moi aussi. Elles nécessitent un certain nombre de composants clés. Des minéraux, y compris le lithium. Donc, si votre pays a beaucoup de lithium, vous pouvez finalement participer à l'économie mondiale. Mais qui contrôle les droits sur ce lithium? Qui détermine le prix? Ce seront les gens qui ont de l'électricité et qui paient pour ce lithium. Ce sont des entreprises mondiales qui veulent fabriquer des batteries.  Donc, je pense qu'il y a une forme de complaisance. Dans les pays riches, nous nous bouchons les yeux pour ne pas voir les mauvaises pratiques dans les pays qui ont un déficit d'institutions et qui sont donc vulnérables à la corruption. Simon Johnson, vos travaux portent aussi sur le développement de la technologie et de l'intelligence artificielle. Très peu de grandes entreprises et de pays détiennent ces marchés qui ont de forts impacts sur les emplois et le produit intérieur brut. Qu'en pensez-vous ?   Simon Johnson : Oui, en réalité, un seul pays possède les entreprises dominantes, ce sont les États-Unis d'Amérique. Nous avons un groupe de recherche au MIT avec mon collègue prix Nobel Daron Acemoglu et David Autor, l'un des plus grands économistes du travail dans le monde. Notre position, c'est que l'intelligence artificielle offre une occasion d'accroître la productivité des travailleurs à faible revenu et moins qualifiés, ce qui pourrait être très utile pour faire progresser les classes moyennes, pas seulement aux États-Unis. Mais au lieu de saisir cette opportunité, les grandes entreprises technologiques sont obsédées par une vision dans laquelle l'IA est avant tout une technologie d'automatisation, ce qui signifie que vous utilisez ces algorithmes pour remplacer les humains à grande échelle, et si ce processus d'automatisation avance aussi rapidement que le voudraient les soi-disant visionnaires du secteur, nous perdrons des millions d'emplois avant d'avoir le temps et la possibilité de créer de nouveaux emplois pour les remplacer. Nous reproduisons encore plus vite le processus dans les économies industrielles lorsque la technologie numérique s'est répandue à partir des années 1980. Donc, l'IA est dangereuse mais seulement sur le plan de l'emploi, parce que si nous choisissons de développer des technologies en augmentant la productivité des travailleurs peu qualifiés, alors l'IA sera très utile pour soutenir les classes moyennes, réduire la polarisation du marché du travail et réduire, espérons-le, la polarisation politique. Comment voyez-vous l'impact du changement climatique sur l'économie? Un sujet d'actualité chez vous aux Etats-Unis... Simon Johnson : Bien sûr, nous avons eu des événements tragiques aux États-Unis récemment avec deux ouragans, beaucoup de pluies par exemple dans les montagnes de la Caroline du Nord sur des personnes qui pensaient être loin du risque climatique, parce qu'elles sont très loin de la mer mais dont les maisons ont été emportées. Donc je pense que ces phénomènes extrêmes vont toucher tout le monde, partout. Et bien sûr, nous devrions nous rendre moins vulnérables. Mais nous devons vraiment nous attaquer au problème sous-jacent, à savoir notre utilisation continue et excessive des combustibles fossiles en modifiant les politiques. Mais il faut aussi développer de nouvelles technologies. Nous devons accélérer les investissements dans ce domaine pour créer des emplois, de bons emplois aux États-Unis et dans le monde entier. Au final, à quoi vont servir vos recherches ? Simon Johnson : Évidemment, gagner ce prix, c'est un immense honneur, C'est une reconnaissance de notre travail et pour ceux qui en bénéficient. Maintenant, il y a des décisions qui peuvent être prises. Non, le monde n'est pas figé. Nous devons redoubler d'efforts, nous devons impliquer plus de personnes, nous devons donner aux jeunes chercheurs les moyens nécessaires, permettre aux universités et aux entreprises de trouver les bonnes solutions. Depuis 30 ans, j'ai travaillé sur certains des problèmes les plus difficiles. J'ai travaillé avec le mouvement Solidarnosc en Pologne. J'ai travaillé pendant la crise financière asiatique en 1997 et pendant la crise financière américaine de 2008. J'ai travaillé sur la réforme financière dans de nombreux pays, j'ai travaillé pendant la COVID et rien ne dit que j'ai eu la bonne solution ou la bonne réponse. Il suffit de trouver les bonnes personnes, qui vont dans la bonne direction et les soutenir politique, avec la technologie et tout ce que l'on peut mobiliser.Propos recueillis par Paola Ariza, journaliste à RFI.Retrouvez nous sur Facebook et X.

How can people in all corners of the world participate in the AI revolution and unlock benefits in their own lives? James Manyika, Senior Vice President of Research, Technology & Society at Google, joins the show to discuss global access to AI and the impact on capitalism, the economy, science, and the workforce. He speaks to Google's latest AI developments, including tools to warn people about natural disasters like floods and wildfires, along with the virtual research assistant NotebookLM. Read the transcript of this episode here: www.possible.fm/podcasts/manyika For more info on the podcast and transcripts of all the episodes, visit https://www.possible.fm/podcast/  Topics: 01:18 - Hellos and intros 02:36 - James's career and path into AI 03:59 - UN involvement and diversity of perspectives in global AI  08:04 - Learnings from UN High-Level Advisory Body on AI 10:01 - NotebookLM demo 12:06 - Specific uses of the virtual research assistant NotebookLM  15:03 - Global positive impacts of AI 18:38 - AI and capitalism, the economy  24:10 - AI and climate change  29:17 - Humanity and AI development  32:14 - How to mitigate risks  35:02 - The rising importance of humanist disciplines  36:50 - NotebookLM rollout  39:31 - Truth and bias in the age of AI 40:58 - Rapid-fire questions Select mentions:  NotebookLM - https://notebooklm.google.com/  Governing AI for Humanity, from the UN's High-level Advisory Body on AI - https://www.un.org/sites/un2.un.org/files/governing_ai_for_humanity_final_report_en.pdf Project Green Light - https://sites.research.google/greenlight/  “Applying AI to Rebuild Middle Class Jobs” by David Autor - https://www.nber.org/papers/w32140  “Accelerating Climate Action with AI” from BCG – https://web-assets.bcg.com/72/cf/b609ac3d4ac6829bae6fa88b8329/bcg-accelerating-climate-action-with-ai-nov-2023-rev.pdf  Possible is an award-winning podcast that sketches out the brightest version of the future—and what it will take to get there. Most of all, it asks: what if, in the future, everything breaks humanity's way? Tune in for grounded and speculative takes on how technology—and, in particular, AI—is inspiring change and transforming the future. Hosted by Reid Hoffman and Aria Finger, each episode features an interview with an ambitious builder or deep thinker on a topic, from art to geopolitics and from healthcare to education. These conversations also showcase another kind of guest: AI. Whether it's Inflection's Pi, OpenAI's ChatGPT or other AI tools, each episode will use AI to enhance and advance our discussion about what humanity could possibly get right if we leverage technology—and our collective effort—effectively.

David Autor took his first economics class at 29 years old. Now he's one of the central academics studying the labor market. The M.I.T. economist and Steve dissect the impact of technology on labor, spar on A.I., and discuss why economists can sometimes be oblivious. SOURCES:David Autor, professor of economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. RESOURCES:"Does Automation Replace Experts or Augment Expertise? The Answer Is Yes," by David Autor (Joseph Schumpeter Lecture at the European Economic Association Annual Meeting, 2024).“Applying AI to Rebuild Middle Class Jobs,” by David Autor (NBER Working Paper, 2024).“New Frontiers: The Origins and Content of New Work, 1940–2018,” by David Autor, Caroline Chin, Anna Salomons, and Bryan Seegmiller (The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 2024).“Bottlenecks: Sectoral Imbalances and the US Productivity Slowdown,” by Daron Acemoglu, David Autor, and Christina Patterson (NBER Macroeconomics Annual, 2024)."Good News: There's a Labor Shortage," by David Autor (The New York Times, 2021)."David Autor, the Academic Voice of the American Worker," (The Economist, 2019).“Why Are There Still So Many Jobs? The History and Future of Workplace Automation,” by David Autor (The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 2015).“The Growth of Low-Skill Service Jobs and the Polarization of the US Labor Market,” by David Autor and David Dorn (The American Economic Review, 2013).“The China Syndrome: Local Labor Market Effects of Import Competition in the United States,” by David Autor, David Dorn, and Gordon H. Hanson (The American Economic Review, 2013). EXTRAS:"What Do People Do All Day?" by Freakonomics Radio (2024)."Daron Acemoglu on Economics, Politics, and Power," by People I (Mostly) Admire (2024)."You Make Me Feel Like a Natural Experiment," by People I (Mostly) Admire (2022)."In Search of the Real Adam Smith," series by Freakonomics Radio (2022)."Max Tegmark on Why Superhuman Artificial Intelligence Won't be Our Slave," by People I (Mostly) Admire (2021)."Automation," by Last Week Tonight With John Oliver (2019).

In the third episode of the CEPS Tech Podcast series on “the Future of Work and AI”, we delve into the transformative impact of AI on the labour market and job structures. Our hosts, Tom Parker and Laura Nurski, are joined by David Autor, Professor of Economics at MIT, and Sabine Köszegi, Professor of Labor Science and Organization at TU Vienna. Together, they explore how AI's learning capabilities distinguish it from traditional computing and its potential to reshape middle-skilled jobs. The episode highlights the evolving nature of expertise as AI takes on new tasks, the risks of de-skilling, and the essential role of human-AI collaboration. The discussion also addresses policy recommendations aimed at ensuring the widespread benefits of AI, with a focus on enhancing digital literacy and redesigning jobs to counter the challenges posed by automation. They explore how, with careful design, AI can expand access to skilled work and foster a more inclusive labour market. For further reading on CEPS' and Laura Nurski's research on other interesting Future of Work and AI topics follow this link. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Sixty percent of the jobs that Americans do today didn't exist in 1940. What happens as our labor becomes more technical and less physical? And what kinds of jobs will exist in the future?  SOURCES:David Autor, professor of economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Paula Barmaimon, manager of coverage and audience analytics at The New York Times.Ellen Griesedieck, artist and president of the American Mural Project.Adina Lichtman, co-host of the Our Friends Are Smart party.Avi Popack, co-host of the Our Friends Are Smart party.Huck Scarry, author and illustrator.James Suzman, anthropologist and author.Ben Varon, rabbi and chaplain at NYU Langone Hospital—Brooklyn . RESOURCES:"New Frontiers: The Origins and Content of New Work, 1940–2018," by David Autor, Caroline Chin, Anna Salomons, and Bryan Seegmiller (The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 2024).Work: A Deep History, from the Stone Age to the Age of Robots, by James Suzman (2020).Working: People Talk About What They Do All Day and How They Feel About What They Do, by Studs Terkel (1974).What Do People Do All Day?, by Richard Scarry (1968)."Economic Possibilities for our Grandchildren," by John Maynard Keynes (1930).American Mural Project. EXTRAS:"Will the Democrats 'Make America Great Again'?" by Freakonomics Radio (2023)."How to Stop Worrying and Love the Robot Apocalypse," by Freakonomics Radio (2021)."Did China Eat America's Jobs?" by Freakonomics Radio (2017).People I (Mostly) Admire.

MIT economics professor David Autor and president and CEO of Y Combinator Garry Tan join Washington Post Live to discuss how the next phase of the artificial intelligence revolution could impact America's businesses, workforce and economy. Conversation recorded on Wednesday, October 2, 2024.

The Future of Student Search Pulse Check Series is sponsored by Carnegie. When talking about the future of Student Search, you can't go a day without talking about the impact of technology and AI. In this episode, Trent Gilbert, VP of Student Search Solutions at Carnegie, and Paul LeBlanc, Former President of Southern New Hampshire University, discuss how technology can be used to amplify and improve human connections and the impact of AI on the workforce. They discuss the ethical considerations of AI and the importance of using it in ways that align with human values. Key takeaways include:The use of technology to amplify and improve human relationships, rather than replace them.How AI has the potential to radically change the workforce.Ethical considerations that are crucial in the development and use of AI.How AI is changing the landscape of Student Search.Links:“Applying AI to Rebuild Middle Class Jobs,” by David Autor on nber.orgTechnological revolutions and techno-economic paradigms by Carlota Perez on jstor.comPaul's Book Broken: How Our Social Systems are Failing Us and How We Can Fix Them https://www.amazon.com/Broken-Social-Systems-Failing-Them/dp/1637741766Guest Name: Paul LeBlanc, Former President, Southern New Hampshire UniversityGuest Bio: Paul LeBlanc spent two-decades as president of Southern New Hampshire University and helped transform the struggling private residential institution of 2,500 students into the largest higher education provider in the United States, renowned for its excellence in online education. LeBlanc, who retired from his post at SNHU this past June, is now the co-founder of Human Systems, a company working to reimagine learning for the age of AI.Guest Social: https://www.linkedin.com/in/paul-j-leblanc-6a17749/Pulse Check Host: Trent Gilbert - VP of Student Search Solutions at Carnegiehttps://www.linkedin.com/in/trentgilbert/Having served as Vice President for Enrollment at three different institutions, Trent Gilbert understands the challenges and pressures modern-day enrollment managers face at both the undergraduate and graduate levels. In addition to serving as a former VPEM, Trent also co-founded and served as an industry leader of Render Experiences, which put him at the table of enrollment strategy conversations at over 250 institutions. As the VP of Student Search Solutions at Carnegie, Trent is uniquely positioned to work with clients and create tailored solutions that creatively engage students while keeping the experience of human connection at the forefront of the process. - - - -Connect With Our Co-Hosts:Mallory Willsea https://www.linkedin.com/in/mallorywillsea/https://twitter.com/mallorywillseaSeth Odell https://www.linkedin.com/in/sethodell/https://twitter.com/sethodellAbout The Enrollify Podcast Network:The Higher Ed Pulse is a part of the Enrollify Podcast Network. If you like this podcast, chances are you'll like other Enrollify shows too! Some of our favorites include Generation AI and Confessions of a Higher Education Social Media Manager.Enrollify is made possible by Element451 — the next-generation AI student engagement platform helping institutions create meaningful and personalized interactions with students. Learn more at element451.com.Element451 is hosting the AI Engage Summit on Oct 29 and 30Register now for this free, virtual event.The future of higher ed is being redefined by the transformative power of AI. The AI Engage Summit brings together higher ed leaders, innovators, and many of your favorite Enrollify creators to explore AI's impact on student engagement, enrollment marketing, and institutional success. Experience firsthand how AI is improving content personalization at scale, impacting strategic decision-making, and intuitively automating the mundane tasks that consume our time. The schedule is packed with real examples and case studies, so you leave knowing how to harness AI to drive meaningful change at your institution. Whether you're looking to enhance student outcomes, optimize enrollment marketing, or simply stay ahead of the curve, the AI Engage Summit is your gateway to the next level of higher education innovation. Registration is free, save your spot today.

New technology has rarely led to fewer jobs, though it often impacts the way we work — eliminating old ways of doing things to create new opportunities. To mitigate workforce disruption from the rise of AI and automation, we must invest in our people to enhance the value of expertise and enable valuable work. But how do we ensure that AI is constructive and not destructive? On this episode, we're joined by David Autor, a renowned labour force economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), who has spent his career studying the consequences of technology on jobs and the economy.

Welcome to this week's episode of "The Mixtape with Scott”! This podcast is dedicated to capturing the personal stories of living economists and creating an oral history of the profession through these narratives. This week, I'm excited to welcome David Autor, an esteemed labor economist from MIT, where he serves as the Daniel (1972) and Gail Rubinfeld Professor, as well as the Margaret MacVicar Faculty Fellow. He was also last year's VP of the AEA, is on the Foreign Affairs board of the US State Department, and is a Digital Fellow at Stanford Digital Economy Lab. The number of accolades is too numerous to list, though, so I will just say that David's pioneering work in labor economics, particularly on the impact of trade, technological change, and the computerization of work, has significantly shaped and re-shaped our understanding of these critical areas.David Autor is perhaps best known for his influential research on the economic impacts of globalization and technological advancements. His groundbreaking study with David Dorn and Gordon Hanson on the effects of Chinese trade on U.S. labor markets highlighted the deep and often painful economic adjustments faced by local labor markets exposed to import competition. Additionally, his work on the computerization of labor, including studies on skill-biased technological change, has provided crucial insights into how technological advancements reshape the labor market and wage structures.One of the things you'll learn in the interview, just as a teaser, is that David was mentored by Lawrence Katz and Alan Krueger, and that mentorship had a lasting effect. Not only did it changed his own human capital and trajectory, it seems also that it changed David's own attitudes about mentorship. And although we couldn't delve into artificial intelligence in our conversation, Autor's extensive research on the computerization of labor probably positions him as one of a handful of working economists at the moment whose voice will be kay in understanding the future intersections of AI and labor economics, and probably more than that. So with that I'll stop, but thanks again to everyone for all your support. If you like the podcast, please share it!Scott's Substack is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Get full access to Scott's Substack at causalinf.substack.com/subscribe

Plus Why Google AI Search Blew Up (subscribe in the links below) Get a free 20-page AI explainer: AI FROM ZERO plus these stories and more, delivered to your inbox, every weekday. Subscribe to our newsletter at https://aidaily.us  Like this? Get AIDAILY, delivered to your inbox, every weekday. Subscribe to our newsletter at https://aidaily.us AI Cracks the Code of Smell Advances in machine olfaction, or digitized smell, are enabling computers to identify and interpret odors. Machine learning, particularly deep learning, maps molecular structures to odor descriptors, overcoming data shortages with larger datasets. This progress promises applications in personalized perfumes, insect repellents, disease detection, and augmented reality. Why AI Search Blew Up in Google's Face Google's AI Overviews, part of its AI-powered search enhancements, produced bizarre and inaccurate answers, revealing the challenges of automating the search process. Despite years of AI expertise, Google overestimated its technology's capabilities and underestimated the complexity of user needs. This debacle highlights the difficulty of automating tasks traditionally managed by human users.  Corporate Lobbyists Swarm Capitol Hill to Shape AI Policy Lobbying for AI regulation surged in 2023, with over 3,400 lobbyists deployed, a 120% increase from the previous year. Public Citizen warns that corporate interests dominate AI policy discussions, potentially prioritizing profits over public welfare. Federal agencies are working on AI regulations to ensure transparency and accountability, but corporate influence remains a concern.  AI Enhances, Not Replaces, Expertise MIT's David Autor argues that AI can augment human expertise and help restore middle-skill jobs, unlike past automation. Discussed at Singapore's Asian Monetary Policy Forum, AI's potential in sectors like healthcare demonstrates its role in complementing skills and addressing labor shortages due to declining birthrates. iOS 18's AI Will Summarize Notifications, Articles, and More Apple's iOS 18, part of Project Greymatter, will enhance Siri, Notes, and Messages with AI capabilities like notification summarization, article transcription, and text summarization. These features aim to improve user experience by automating routine tasks and offering advanced functionalities such as AI-powered photo editing, mathematical notation in Notes, and enhanced natural language responses. AI's Environmental Impact Exposed Mariana Mazzucato warns about the significant energy consumption of AI technologies like ChatGPT, which exacerbate environmental issues. Datacenters, crucial for AI operations, contribute more to global emissions than commercial flights. The extraction of minerals for these technologies also harms the environment and human rights. Policymakers must ensure transparency and sustainable practices in the tech industry. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/aidaily/message

Labor economist David Autor's research shows how historically, technological advances hurt the incomes of middle- and working-class Americans. But when it comes to AI, Autor says the exact opposite could happen.

Quickly evolving technology such as artificial intelligence coupled with changing labor dynamics have altered the workplace. Labor economist and MIT professor David Autor delve into these two critical areas in his conversation with Gene Marks on Paychex THRIVE, a Business Podcast, to help the audience understand the shifting trends impacting businesses. They also discuss strategies around integrating AI-driven insights with human expertise.    Topics Include: 00:00: Episode Preview 00:01:01: Introduction of David Autor 00:01:40: Autor's background 00:03:32: Discussion on industry dynamics 00:03:51: Impacts of AI on labor markets 00:08:33: AI and decision making in various industries 00:09:37: AI and skills re-evaluation 00:11:19: Skills needed for future with AI 00:15:19: AI's current potential 00:17:16: Long-term impact on labor markets 00:18:17: Discussion on potential disruptions of future technology 00:23:16: Discussion on minimum wage debate 00:29:45: Current state of workforce after pandemic 00:33:24: Wrap-up and thank you DISCLAIMER: The information presented in this podcast, and that is further provided by the presenter, should not be considered legal or accounting advice, and should not substitute for legal, accounting, or other professional advice in which the facts and circumstances may warrant. We encourage you to consult legal counsel as it pertains to your own unique situation(s) and/or with any specific legal questions you may have.

New technology has rarely led to fewer jobs, though it often impacts the way we work — eliminating old ways of doing things to create new opportunities. To mitigate workforce disruption from the rise of AI and automation, we must invest in our people to enhance the value of expertise and enable valuable work. But how do we ensure that AI is constructive and not destructive? On this episode, we're joined by David Autor, a renowned labour force economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), who has spent his career studying the consequences of technology on jobs and the economy.

Alle in der Tech-Welt wollen mit KI Geld verdienen - aber nicht alle schaffen es. Wer macht das große Geschäft? Chip-Hersteller wie Nvidia, Anbieter sogenannter Foundation Models wie OpenAI - oder am Ende doch eines der zahlreichen neuen Startups mit ihren spezialisierten KI-Produkten? Und was muss passieren, damit am Ende nicht nur Unternehmen profitieren, sondern auch die Arbeitnehmer? Wir tauchen ab in das KI-Ökosystem und schauen uns die großen und die kleinen Fische an. Über die Hosts: Gregor Schmalzried ist freier Tech-Journalist und Berater, er arbeitet u.a. für den Bayerischen Rundfunk und Brand Eins. Fritz Espenlaub ist freier Journalist und Moderator beim Bayerischen Rundfunk und 1E9 mit Fokus auf Technologie und Wirtschaft. 00:00 Intro 02:18 Das Wasser: Nvidia und co 06:06 Die Wale: Foundation Models 12:12 Und die anderen Fische: KI-Software aller Art 22:21 Profitieren nur Mega-Unternehmen oder wir alle? 30:57 Was haben wir diese Woche mit KI gemacht? Links Wird Googlen mit KI bald zahlungspflichtig? https://www.golem.de/news/suchmaschine-google-soll-ki-suche-als-bezahloption-planen-2404-183821.html Saudi Arabien will 40 Milliarden Dollar in KI-Firmen investieren: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/19/business/saudi-arabia-investment-artificial-intelligence.html Foundation Models versus KI-Software: https://every.to/napkin-math/what-are-ai-agents-and-who-profits-from-them Firma Dorfner macht mehr Umsatz mit KI: https://www.handelsblatt.com/technik/ki/kuenstliche-intelligenz-dorfner-macht-durch-ki-schon-30-prozent-mehr-umsatz/100026634.html Daron Acemoglu und Simon Johnson: Power and Progress https://basicbooks.uk/titles/daron-acemoglu/power-and-progress/9781399804455/ David Autor in der NYT: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/01/business/ai-tech-economy.html Künstler schreiben offenen Brief gegen KI: https://www.br.de/nachrichten/netzwelt/angriff-auf-die-kreativitaet-musiker-fordern-schutz-vor-ki,U8yXd6l Redaktion und Mitarbeit: David Beck, Cristina Cletiu, Chris Eckardt, Fritz Espenlaub, Marie Kilg, Mark Kleber, Gudrun Riedl, Christian Schiffer, Gregor Schmalzried Kontakt: Wir freuen uns über Fragen und Kommentare an podcast@br.de. Unterstützt uns: Wenn euch dieser Podcast gefällt, freuen wir uns über eine Bewertung auf eurer liebsten Podcast-Plattform. Abonniert den KI-Podcast in der ARD Audiothek oder wo immer ihr eure Podcasts hört, um keine Episode zu verpassen. Und empfehlt uns gerne weiter!

Across the Americas people looked up today, as a total solar eclipse journeyed across Mexico, toward the United States and Canada. The skies above delivered a huge communal opportunity across what can only be described as a bitterly divided country. As it started to pass across the Americas, physicist, mathematician, and author Brian Greene joined the program to discuss what made it so special.  Also on today's show: Sharone Lifschitz, Father held hostage in Gaza; David Autor, Ford Professor of Economics, MIT  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

AI is an incredibly exciting space, provoking both great wonder and fear. One of the big worries obviously is: What will happen to everyone's job? Will it make more people's livelihoods obsolete, causing even greater inequality than we have now? On this episode, we speak with an economist who argues that this concern is not just misplaced, but exactly wrong. MIT's David Autor, famous for his work on the China shock, contends that the last 40 years of advances in computer technology have been a major driver of inequality, but AI should be seen as an entirely different paradigm. He argues that human work, aided by AI, will remove the premium captured by extremely high-paid, experienced professionals (like doctors or top lawyers) as their capabilities become more diffuse. He also discusses what policy choices the government should be making to improve the odds that AI will prove societally beneficial.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On this edition of Wall Street  Week, David Bianco, DWS CIO addresses some of the economic concerns he sees in 2024. Lawrence H. Summers, Former US Treasury Secretary gives us his reaction to the most recent US jobs numbers. Bloomberg International Economics and Policy Correspondent Michael McKee dives into the upcoming election and how it might impact the US economy, and David Autor, MIT Professor of Economics discusses what to expect from generative AI in 2024 and beyond.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This week, Emily Bazelon, John Dickerson, and David Plotz discuss Nikki Haley's progress and Ron DeSantis's stagnation in Iowa, Donald Trump's testimony in New York, and Dean Phillips's campaign in New Hampshire; the first social-media cases of the term at the Supreme Court; and Ours Was the Shining Future: The Story of the American Dream with author David Leonhardt. And you can be a part of the show: submit your Conundrum at slate.com/conundrum.    Here are some notes and references from this week's show: Brianne Pfannenstiel for the Des Moines Register: “Donald Trump builds on big lead as Nikki Haley pulls even with Ron DeSantis in Iowa Poll”  Jennifer Rubin for The Washington Post: “Nikki Haley has a shot. But a really, really long one.” Jonah E. Bromwich and Ben Protess for The New York Times: “Trump Civil Fraud Trial: Donald Trump Jr. Resumes Testifying in Fraud Case Aimed at His Father” Geoffrey Skelley for 538: The curious case of Dean Phillips's last-minute primary challenge 538: “How popular is Joe Biden?” Jeff Neal for Harvard Law Today: “The Supreme Court takes on (anti)social media” Adam Liptak for The New York Times: “Supreme Court Lifts Limits for Now on Biden Officials' Contacts With Tech Platforms” Amy Howe for SCOTUSblog: “Justices take major Florida and Texas social media cases” Ours Was the Shining Future: The Story of the American Dream by David Leonhardt Emily Bazelon for The New York Times's The Morning newsletter, November 2, 2023 David Leonhardt for The Atlantic: “The Hard Truth About Immigration” Peter Dizikes for MIT News: “Q&A: David Autor on the long afterlife of the “China shock”” History.com: “A. Philip Randolph” Natasha Singer for The New York Times: “This Florida School District Banned Cellphones. Here's What Happened.” and “New Laws on Kids and Social Media Are Stymied by Industry Lawsuits” Cristiano Lima and Naomi Nix for The Washington Post: “41 states sue Meta, claiming Instagram, Facebook are addictive, harm kids”   Here are this week's chatters: Emily: The New Yorker's Poetry Podcast with Kevin Young: “Toi Derricotte Reads Tracy K. Smith” John: The Graham Norton Show: “Dame Judi Dench Masterfully Does A Shakespeare Sonnet”; BBC Radio 4's Cabin Pressure; Endeavour on PBS Masterpiece; John Dickerson for CBS News Prime Time: “Grammy-winning artist Jason Isbell talks about the craft of songwriting and his latest music”; and Ray Bradbury in the Los Angeles Times: “'Ice Cream Suit'--Touchstone for the Past and Present” David: Sarah Zhang for The Atlantic: “Everything I Thought I Knew About Nasal Congestion Is Wrong” Listener chatter from Albert Fox Cahn: N'dea Yancey-Bragg for USA Today: “Advocates say excited delirium provides cover for police violence. They want it banned” and John Dickerson for CBS News 60 Minutes: “How a questionable syndrome, “Excited Delirium,” could be protecting police officers from misconduct charges”   For this week's Slate Plus bonus segment, Emily, John, and David talk about classroom cellphone bans. In the latest Gabfest Reads, David talks with Kristi Coulter about her book, Exit Interview: The Life and Death of My Ambitious Career.   Email your chatters, questions, and comments to gabfest@slate.com. (Messages may be referenced by name unless the writer stipulates otherwise.)   Podcast production by Cheyna Roth  Research by Julie Huygen Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This week, Emily Bazelon, John Dickerson, and David Plotz discuss Nikki Haley's progress and Ron DeSantis's stagnation in Iowa, Donald Trump's testimony in New York, and Dean Phillips's campaign in New Hampshire; the first social-media cases of the term at the Supreme Court; and Ours Was the Shining Future: The Story of the American Dream with author David Leonhardt. And you can be a part of the show: submit your Conundrum at slate.com/conundrum.    Here are some notes and references from this week's show: Brianne Pfannenstiel for the Des Moines Register: “Donald Trump builds on big lead as Nikki Haley pulls even with Ron DeSantis in Iowa Poll”  Jennifer Rubin for The Washington Post: “Nikki Haley has a shot. But a really, really long one.” Jonah E. Bromwich and Ben Protess for The New York Times: “Trump Civil Fraud Trial: Donald Trump Jr. Resumes Testifying in Fraud Case Aimed at His Father” Geoffrey Skelley for 538: The curious case of Dean Phillips's last-minute primary challenge 538: “How popular is Joe Biden?” Jeff Neal for Harvard Law Today: “The Supreme Court takes on (anti)social media” Adam Liptak for The New York Times: “Supreme Court Lifts Limits for Now on Biden Officials' Contacts With Tech Platforms” Amy Howe for SCOTUSblog: “Justices take major Florida and Texas social media cases” Ours Was the Shining Future: The Story of the American Dream by David Leonhardt Emily Bazelon for The New York Times's The Morning newsletter, November 2, 2023 David Leonhardt for The Atlantic: “The Hard Truth About Immigration” Peter Dizikes for MIT News: “Q&A: David Autor on the long afterlife of the “China shock”” History.com: “A. Philip Randolph” Natasha Singer for The New York Times: “This Florida School District Banned Cellphones. Here's What Happened.” and “New Laws on Kids and Social Media Are Stymied by Industry Lawsuits” Cristiano Lima and Naomi Nix for The Washington Post: “41 states sue Meta, claiming Instagram, Facebook are addictive, harm kids”   Here are this week's chatters: Emily: The New Yorker's Poetry Podcast with Kevin Young: “Toi Derricotte Reads Tracy K. Smith” John: The Graham Norton Show: “Dame Judi Dench Masterfully Does A Shakespeare Sonnet”; BBC Radio 4's Cabin Pressure; Endeavour on PBS Masterpiece; John Dickerson for CBS News Prime Time: “Grammy-winning artist Jason Isbell talks about the craft of songwriting and his latest music”; and Ray Bradbury in the Los Angeles Times: “'Ice Cream Suit'--Touchstone for the Past and Present” David: Sarah Zhang for The Atlantic: “Everything I Thought I Knew About Nasal Congestion Is Wrong” Listener chatter from Albert Fox Cahn: N'dea Yancey-Bragg for USA Today: “Advocates say excited delirium provides cover for police violence. They want it banned” and John Dickerson for CBS News 60 Minutes: “How a questionable syndrome, “Excited Delirium,” could be protecting police officers from misconduct charges”   For this week's Slate Plus bonus segment, Emily, John, and David talk about classroom cellphone bans. In the latest Gabfest Reads, David talks with Kristi Coulter about her book, Exit Interview: The Life and Death of My Ambitious Career.   Email your chatters, questions, and comments to gabfest@slate.com. (Messages may be referenced by name unless the writer stipulates otherwise.)   Podcast production by Cheyna Roth  Research by Julie Huygen Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This week, Emily Bazelon, John Dickerson, and David Plotz discuss Nikki Haley's progress and Ron DeSantis's stagnation in Iowa, Donald Trump's testimony in New York, and Dean Phillips's campaign in New Hampshire; the first social-media cases of the term at the Supreme Court; and Ours Was the Shining Future: The Story of the American Dream with author David Leonhardt. And you can be a part of the show: submit your Conundrum at slate.com/conundrum.    Here are some notes and references from this week's show: Brianne Pfannenstiel for the Des Moines Register: “Donald Trump builds on big lead as Nikki Haley pulls even with Ron DeSantis in Iowa Poll”  Jennifer Rubin for The Washington Post: “Nikki Haley has a shot. But a really, really long one.” Jonah E. Bromwich and Ben Protess for The New York Times: “Trump Civil Fraud Trial: Donald Trump Jr. Resumes Testifying in Fraud Case Aimed at His Father” Geoffrey Skelley for 538: The curious case of Dean Phillips's last-minute primary challenge 538: “How popular is Joe Biden?” Jeff Neal for Harvard Law Today: “The Supreme Court takes on (anti)social media” Adam Liptak for The New York Times: “Supreme Court Lifts Limits for Now on Biden Officials' Contacts With Tech Platforms” Amy Howe for SCOTUSblog: “Justices take major Florida and Texas social media cases” Ours Was the Shining Future: The Story of the American Dream by David Leonhardt Emily Bazelon for The New York Times's The Morning newsletter, November 2, 2023 David Leonhardt for The Atlantic: “The Hard Truth About Immigration” Peter Dizikes for MIT News: “Q&A: David Autor on the long afterlife of the “China shock”” History.com: “A. Philip Randolph” Natasha Singer for The New York Times: “This Florida School District Banned Cellphones. Here's What Happened.” and “New Laws on Kids and Social Media Are Stymied by Industry Lawsuits” Cristiano Lima and Naomi Nix for The Washington Post: “41 states sue Meta, claiming Instagram, Facebook are addictive, harm kids”   Here are this week's chatters: Emily: The New Yorker's Poetry Podcast with Kevin Young: “Toi Derricotte Reads Tracy K. Smith” John: The Graham Norton Show: “Dame Judi Dench Masterfully Does A Shakespeare Sonnet”; BBC Radio 4's Cabin Pressure; Endeavour on PBS Masterpiece; John Dickerson for CBS News Prime Time: “Grammy-winning artist Jason Isbell talks about the craft of songwriting and his latest music”; and Ray Bradbury in the Los Angeles Times: “'Ice Cream Suit'--Touchstone for the Past and Present” David: Sarah Zhang for The Atlantic: “Everything I Thought I Knew About Nasal Congestion Is Wrong” Listener chatter from Albert Fox Cahn: N'dea Yancey-Bragg for USA Today: “Advocates say excited delirium provides cover for police violence. They want it banned” and John Dickerson for CBS News 60 Minutes: “How a questionable syndrome, “Excited Delirium,” could be protecting police officers from misconduct charges”   For this week's Slate Plus bonus segment, Emily, John, and David talk about classroom cellphone bans. In the latest Gabfest Reads, David talks with Kristi Coulter about her book, Exit Interview: The Life and Death of My Ambitious Career.   Email your chatters, questions, and comments to gabfest@slate.com. (Messages may be referenced by name unless the writer stipulates otherwise.)   Podcast production by Cheyna Roth  Research by Julie Huygen Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Vores podcast var med i Berlin, da verdens førende arbejdsmarkedsøkonomer mødtes for at diskutere den nyeste viden inden for arbejdsmarkedsøkonomi og bidrage til en ny udgave af den indflydelsesrige Handbook of Labor Economics vol. 5. Hør bl.a. professor Christian Dustmann, som er leder af ROCKWOOL Fonden Berlin, og Thomas Lemieux fra Vancouver School of Economics samt topøkonomerne David Autor, Ioana Marinescu, David Deming og Kerwin K. Charles fortælle om nogle af de nyeste indsigter fra forskningen. Podcasten er på engelsk.Paneldiskussion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4ykNDWPpnQROCKWOOL Foundation Berlin: https://www.rfberlin.com/

Are you prepared for the future? What if we told you that philosophers will play a key role in it? We had a fascinating conversation with the brilliant Dr. Seth Benzel, a Digital Economist from MIT and Assistant Professor at Chapman University. He shared his insights about the transformation of job market landscape, the rise of new types of jobs, and the profound impact of AI on jobs and productivity. We explored how universities are stepping up, investing in STEM education, and how they can play a pivotal role in reducing inequalities and stimulating growth. Ever heard of luxury jobs, last mile jobs, or new tech jobs? These are part of David Autor's taxonomy of future jobs and they're not as far away as you might think. We also delved into the increasing wealth of the top 3% and the subsequent rise in demand for luxury services. What does this mean for you? Well, we chatted about the importance of teaching philosophy in universities and striking a balance between STEM skills and interpersonal skills. We rounded out our conversation by discussing the increasing compensation for leadership and cooperative jobs. Ready to equip yourself with the right skills to remain competitive in the modern job market? Then you don't want to miss this episode!Support the show

This podcast is a commentary and does not contain any copyrighted material of the reference source. We strongly recommend accessing/buying the reference source at the same time. ■Reference Source https://www.ted.com/talks/david_autor_will_automation_take_away_all_our_jobs ■Post on this topic (You can get FREE learning materials!) https://englist.me/256-academic-words-reference-from-david-autor-will-automation-take-away-all-our-jobs-ted-talk/ ■Youtube Video https://youtu.be/rZxxyW6ayTY (All Words) https://youtu.be/qOIQyx8F-TE (Advanced Words) https://youtu.be/SDDfW4YTmPk (Quick Look) ■Top Page for Further Materials https://englist.me/ ■SNS (Please follow!)

David Autor, economics professor at MIT, is widely regarded as one of the top labor economists in the world. Preet and Autor discuss what artificial intelligence tools will mean for jobs, and how technological innovations have impacted the labor market from the Industrial revolution until today. Plus, a U.S. Attorney resigns after investigations by multiple federal watchdog agencies found evidence of ethics violations. Don't miss the Insider bonus, where Preet and Autor discuss the value of engineering as a profession in the age of AI. To listen, try the membership for just $1 for one month: cafe.com/insider. For show notes and a transcript of the episode head to: https://cafe.com/stay-tuned/is-ai-coming-for-our-jobs-with-david-autor/ Tweet your questions to @PreetBharara with the hashtag #AskPreet, email us your questions and comments at staytuned@cafe.com, or call 669-247-7338 to leave a voicemail. Stay Tuned with Preet is brought to you by CAFE and the Vox Media Podcast Network. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In his new book, "Power and Progress: Our 1000-Year Struggle Over Technology and Prosperity", renowned MIT Professor of Economics Daron Acemoglu (with co-author Simon Johnson) argues that the benefits from technological progress are shaped by the distribution of power in society. In this episode, Acemoglu joins Bethany and Luigi to discuss the key challenges of ensuring that this progress benefits everyone, not just the wealthy and powerful. They discuss the rules, norms, and expectations around technology governance, the unintended consequences of AI development, and how the mismanagement of property rights, especially over data, can reinforce inequality and exploitation.Show Notes:In case you missed it, revisit our recent episode with David Autor, referenced in this discussionRevisit "Democracy and Economic Growth: New Evidence," co-authored by Daron Acemoglu, on ProMarket

For the last four decades, technology has been mostly a force for greater inequality and a shrinking middle class. But new empirical evidence suggests that the age of AI could be different. We speak to MIT's David Autor, one of the greatest labor economists in the world, who envisions a future where we use AI to make a wider array of workers much better at a whole range of jobs and help rebuild the middle class.This episode was produced by Dave Blanchard and edited by Molly Messick. It was fact-checked by Sierra Juarez and engineered by Katherine Silva. Jess Jiang is Planet Money's acting executive producer.Help support Planet Money and get bonus episodes by subscribing to Planet Money+ in Apple Podcasts or at plus.npr.org/planetmoney.

On this episode, our hosts Bethany McLean and Luigi Zingales sit down with renowned MIT economist David Autor to discuss the impact of technology, labor markets, and immigration on wage inequality and the economy at large. Autor is best known for his work on the "China Shock," the impact of rising Chinese exports on manufacturing employment in the United States and Europe after China's accession to the World Trade Organization in 2001. His most recent work sheds light on which groups have seen the largest nominal wage gains during the COVID recovery, the connections between wage growth and inflation, and more. Autor discusses how advances in technology have disrupted traditional labor markets, how to make better policy choices about the future of work, and the challenges and benefits of immigration in a globalized economy.Show Notes:Revisit our conversation with R. Glenn Hubbard, which is referenced in the interview with David AutorRead the Autor's paper discussed in the episode here.

In this episode of the podcast, I chat to Anton Korinek about the economic impacts of GPT. Anton is a Professor of Economics at the University of Virginia and the Economics Lead at the Centre for AI Governance. He has researched widely on the topic of automation and labour markets. We talk about whether GPT will substitute for or complement human workers; the disruptive impact of GPT on the economic organisation; the jobs/roles most immediately at risk; the impact of GPT on wage levels; the skills needed to survive in an AI-enhanced economy, and much more.You can download the episode here or listen below. You can also subscribe the podcast on Apple, Spotify, Google, Amazon or whatever your preferred service might be. Relevant LinksAnton's homepageAnton's paper outlining 25 uses of LLMs for academic economistsAnton's dialogue with GPT, Claude and the economic David Autor #mc_embed_signup{background:#fff; clear:left; font:14px Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; } /* Add your own MailChimp form style overrides in your site stylesheet or in this style block. We recommend moving this block and the preceding CSS link to the HEAD of your HTML file. */ Subscribe to the newsletter

There's been a lot of anxiety lately about AI replacing workers. But what many economists are really worried about is not mass unemployment, but polarization. Emerging technology, they say, isn't coming for all our jobs—it's shrinking the middle class, specifically. Experts warn that we've seen this movie before with globalization a generation ago. Without a smart policy response, the coming shifts in the labor market could not only heighten economic hardship, but also sow even more division in our increasingly polarized society. In this episode, we ask: Could the robots come between us? And what can we do about it? MIT's Frank Levy and David Autor, Stanford's Erik Brynjolfsson, and CMU's Lee Branstetter suggest ways we can work together to ensure the Fourth Industrial Revolution is an economic reboot for the better.

ChatGPT is the latest example of technology that appears to be able to execute tasks that would have required the services of high level academics not too long ago. Similar AI initiatives are taking place across the world, which begs the question: is automation coming for knowledge work next? In this episode of the Sound of Economics, Giuseppe Porcaro invites Maria Savona, Professor of Applied Economics at the Department of Economics at LUISS University, Rome and Professor of Economics of innovation at SPRU, Science Policy Research Unit at the University of Sussex, UK, and David Autor, Ford Professor in the MIT Department of Economics, to discuss different perspectives and lessons from the US and Europe on the design of digital automation technologies and their implications for the future of work. This podcast was produced within the project "Transatlantic expert group on the future of work", with the financial support of the European Union. Its contents are the sole responsibility of Bruegel, AISBL and The German Marshall Fund of the United States and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Union.

Why will tech and automation never lead to the demise of human work? What qualifies as “good” work? What role will robots and AI play in the fast-approaching future? David Autor, MIT professor and co-chair of the MIT Task Force on The Work of The Future, provides answers in this riveting and enlightening conversation. 

In deze podcast reeks van #ZigZagHR overvliegt Lesley Arens afwisselend met Frank Vander Sijpe en Jan Denys de arbeidsmarkt en de HR actualiteit. Eén aflevering per maand. Zo ben jij als HR professional op 30 minuten helemaal mee. Deze maand in de #ZigZagHR Actua Podcast0:00 Intro01:23: Studentenarbeid06:33: Economische migratie13:28: Interregionale mobiliteit16:46: Onderzoek van de maand: VDAB Schoolverlatersstudie 22:00: Cijfer van de maand: Werkzaamheid 55-65 jarigen - Vlaanderen heeft nog veel werk aan werk21:05: Boek van de maand: Work of the future, (David Autor)26:10: Uitspraak van de maand: W Schaufeli "Burn-out is een moderniteitsziekte"Heb je een vraag voor Frank Vander Sijpe, Jan Denys of Lesley Arens?Mail naar info@zigzaghr.be en misschien komt jouw vraag aan bod in onze HR Actua PodcastAnd don't forget: it's a great time to be in HR!+++ism Randstad

What does the economic policy platform of a Pirate Party look like? What does it say about intellectual property protection (i.e. copyright and patents), the Right to Repair, UBI, taxation, and business support? And what type of pirates are Pirate Parties inspired by exactly: Captain Jack Sparrow or Kim Dotcom? Pirate Party Australia Treasurer John August answers these questions in a conversation with Economics Explored host Gene Tunny.  About this episode's guest - John AugustJohn August is the Treasurer of the Pirate Party Australia and a Fusion Party candidate for the electorate of Bennelong in the 2022 Australia federal election. John does computer support work in retail and shareholder communication. He is passionate about justice and ethics in our world, particularly as it plays out in law generally and intellectual property in particular. He has stood on behalf of the Pirate Party in the Federal seat of Bennelong and also as a Councillor for Ryde City Council.Along with technology and law John is also interested in spoken word and poetry. He broadcasts on community radio and hosts the program “Roving Spotlight” on Tuesdays from noon-2pm on Radio Skid Row Marrickville Sydney, and writes about his ideas on the website www.johnaugust.com.au. You can keep up to date with what John is up to via his Facebook page. Links relevant to the conversationhttps://pirateparty.org.au/https://www.fusionparty.org.au/Land Value Uplift from Light Rail by Cameron MurrayOn the persistence of the China shock by David Autor, David Dorn, and Gordon HansonTermites in the Trading System by Jagdish BhagwatiThanks to the show's audio engineer Josh Crotts for his assistance in producing the episode. Please consider signing up to receive our email updates and to access our e-book Top Ten Insights from Economics at www.economicsexplored.com. Also, please get in touch with any questions, comments and suggestions by emailing us at contact@economicsexplored.com or sending a voice message via https://www.speakpipe.com/economicsexplored. Economics Explored is available via Apple Podcasts, Google Podcast, and other podcasting platforms.

As much as the media has been inundated with future of work stories that read like a Sci-Fi-like robot apocalypse, the future of work, in a very real sense, is already here. And what's really at stake is inequality. The real question for the future of work is not whether automation, robots and AI will replace jobs - they will. And, if history is any guide, as-yet unimaginable jobs will be created. Over 60 percent of the jobs today didn't exist in 1940, according to MIT researchers. The real question is - will the jobs that are created be “big enough” for workers and families to thrive, much less survive. And, given the current trajectory we're on, the answer is no. Since the 1980s, automation, globalization, the financialization of the U.S. economy and policies that rewarded capital instead of labor have led to a sharp polarization of the U.S. workforce. Middle class jobs lost have been replaced by increasingly unstable, precarious jobs - involuntary part-time, low-wages, with scant access to benefits like health care, and unpredictable schedules. But, as economist David Autor and his colleagues at MIT argue, that polarization is a choice. And we could come together as a society and make a different choice for the future. If we don't, he warns, we are building toward a stratified society of “the servers and the served.” Guests Joe Liebman, warehouse picker in St. Louis making $17.50/ hour. Lost his white collar job in the 2008 Great Recession - and his house, his family, his sense of wellbeing. David Autor, economist, MIT, co-chair of the MIT Task Force on the Work of the Future. Resources: MIT Future of Work Task Force Future of Work Initiative, Aspen Institute Extending the Race Between Education and Technology, Autor, Goldin, Katz, 2020 The Future of Warehouse Work, UC Berkeley Labor Center Worker Voices: Technology and the Future for Workers, Molly Kinder, Amanda Lenhart, New America, 2019 The Future of work and its impact on Health, Blue Shield of California Foundation and the Institute for the Future, 2020  The Future of Jobs Report 2020, World Economic Forum (Automation projected to eliminate about 85 million jobs in the next five years—potentially displacing up to half of the United States workforce with no clear path for them to connect to the new jobs likely to be created by these technological changes) BLS fastest growing occupations 2020-2030 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

As much as the media has been inundated with future of work stories that read like a Sci-Fi-like robot apocalypse, the future of work, in a very real sense, is already here. And what's really at stake is inequality. The real question for the future of work is not whether automation, robots and AI will replace jobs - they will. And, if history is any guide, as-yet unimaginable jobs will be created. Over 60 percent of the jobs today didn't exist in 1940, according to MIT researchers. The real question is - will the jobs that are created be “big enough” for workers and families to thrive, much less survive. And, given the current trajectory we're on, the answer is no. Since the 1980s, automation, globalization, the financialization of the U.S. economy and policies that rewarded capital instead of labor have led to a sharp polarization of the U.S. workforce. Middle class jobs lost have been replaced by increasingly unstable, precarious jobs - involuntary part-time, low-wages, with scant access to benefits like health care, and unpredictable schedules. But, as economist David Autor and his colleagues at MIT argue, that polarization is a choice. And we could come together as a society and make a different choice for the future. If we don't, he warns, we are building toward a stratified society of “the servers and the served.” Guests Joe Liebman, warehouse picker in St. Louis making $17.50/ hour. Lost his white collar job in the 2008 Great Recession - and his house, his family, his sense of wellbeing. David Autor, economist, MIT, co-chair of the MIT Task Force on the Work of the Future. Resources: MIT Future of Work Task Force Future of Work Initiative, Aspen Institute Extending the Race Between Education and Technology, Autor, Goldin, Katz, 2020 The Future of Warehouse Work, UC Berkeley Labor Center Worker Voices: Technology and the Future for Workers, Molly Kinder, Amanda Lenhart, New America, 2019 The Future of work and its impact on Health, Blue Shield of California Foundation and the Institute for the Future, 2020  The Future of Jobs Report 2020, World Economic Forum (Automation projected to eliminate about 85 million jobs in the next five years—potentially displacing up to half of the United States workforce with no clear path for them to connect to the new jobs likely to be created by these technological changes) BLS fastest growing occupations 2020-2030

In this episode of the McKinsey Global Institute's Forward Thinking podcast, Michael Chui talks with David Autor, Ford Professor of Economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Autor talks about the paradoxes created for labor markets by the pandemic, the effect of trade globalization, the rise of China as a world economic power, and the economic impact of automation. He answers questions including: ● How have labor markets changed as the result of the pandemic, and how might they evolve? ● How has the globalization of trade affected the US labor market? ● What could have been done, and should be done now, to mitigate localized negative effects of trade shocks? ● Does ‘cowboy capitalism' give us higher growth? ● What's the most surprising thing you've learned during the pandemic? This conversation was recorded in February 2022. To read a transcript of this episode, visit: https://mck.co/DavidAutor Follow @McKinsey_MGI on Twitter and the McKinsey Global Institute on LinkedIn for more.See www.mckinsey.com/privacy-policy for privacy information

In this episode of the McKinsey Global Institute's Forward Thinking podcast, Michael Chui talks with David Autor, Ford Professor of Economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Autor talks about the paradoxes created for labor markets by the pandemic, the effect of trade globalization, the rise of China as a world economic power, and the economic impact of automation. He answers questions including: ● How have labor markets changed as the result of the pandemic, and how might they evolve? ● How has the globalization of trade affected the US labor market? ● What could have been done, and should be done now, to mitigate localized negative effects of trade shocks? ● Does ‘cowboy capitalism' give us higher growth? ● What's the most surprising thing you've learned during the pandemic? This conversation was recorded in February 2022. To read a transcript of this episode, visit: https://mck.co/DavidAutor Follow @McKinsey_MGI on Twitter and the McKinsey Global Institute on LinkedIn for more. Read more > Listen to the podcast (duration: 38:06) >

David Mansilla es Autor, empresario, podcastero, inversor, mentor y filántropo Es fundador y director ejecutivo de varias empresas, la más destacada de ellas es su empresa más antigua, ISU Corp. ISU es una empresa de soluciones de software personalizadas con clientes que van desde nuevas empresas hasta conglomerados multimillonarios como General Electric y Heinz. David Mansilla comenzó como un joven padre adolescente en la Ciudad de Guatemala. La ambición y el impulso tanto de él como de su esposa, Shelly, los llevaron a buscar un futuro mejor en Canadá. Con solo $20 dólares en el bolsillo, la presión de sobrevivir en un nuevo país con una familia que alimentar convertiría las brasas de David en diamantes.   En esta entrevista con David platicamos de:          ✨ ¿Cómo re-direccionar tu vida después de grandes momentos de crisis? ✨ ¿Cómo lograr el 80% de tus resultados con el 20% de esfuerzo? ✨ ¿Por qué la meditación le ha servido para tomar mejores decisiones y ser más feliz? ✨ ¿Cómo suceden los milagros? ✨ ¿Cómo invierte para crear independencia financiera?   Más sobre David: Autor de los libros Breaking Out of Corporate Jail https://www.amazon.com.mx/Breaking-Out-Corporate-Jail-Freedom-ebook/dp/B08D8HF1K5 Your Business Lives Through Code: The Complete Guide on Future https://www.amazon.com/Your-Business-Lives-Through-Code/dp/1777205026 David y sus empresas han sido premiados varias veces, incluyendo el premio Canadian Business Excellence (2020, 2019 y 2018) y el premio AI de la empresa de software empresarial de alta tecnología más innovadora de 2020. Documentales que mencionamos: Inner Worlds, Outer worlds One Strange rock (documental narrado por Will Smith): https://www.disneyplus.com/series/one-strange-   ► SÍGUENOS EN: ◄ ☘️ YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCt2r8LeKpms_rf2zw_jYO-Q ☘️ Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/mentores_con_maite/ ☘️ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/mentoresconmaite ☘️Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/2O952j0tyXgDCW5APgYpzN?si=HgB3vsMVRWSZYdk1ge5AAQ ☘️iTunes: https://podcasts.apple.com/mx/podcast/mentores/id1524837156   Contacto: info@mentoresconmaite.com   ➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖   ► SÍGUELO EN: ◄ ☘️www.davidmansilla.com ☘️ https://www.facebook.com/DavidMansillaFreedom ☘️ https://www.instagram.com/davidmfreedom/   ➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖ Este SET es patrocinado por mi empresa Yes to Value, una empresa que se dedica a dar “Performance mentoring” (mentoría en desempeño) a través de programas de inteligencia emocional, cultivar hábitos, aprender a vivir incómodos, mindfulness y despertar inteligencias. El enfoque está en generar excelencia y satisfacción dentro de las empresas y en la vida de las personas de manera simple y eficaz.   Si eres dueño de negocio o colaboras en alguna empresa contáctame si quieres que llevemos estos programas, serán impactantes, benéficos y ayudará a generar un ambiente laboral en el que es inspirador trabajar y crecer.   Escríbeme a: cursosmaite@gmail.com   ➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖   Maite Valverde de Loyola:   ✨Creadora y host de MENTORES ✨Fundadora y directora de “Yes to Value”, empresa que ofrece "performance mentoring” a través de conferencias y cursos multimedia sobre entrenar la mente, aprender a vivir incómodos, Mindfulness, disciplina, hábitos, bienestar, desarrollo de inteligencias, reducción de estrés, inteligencia emocional y hablar en público. ✨Fundadora y productora de su canal de YouTube y podcast: Maite Valverde de Loyola ✨Da cursos, conferencias y mentoría en performance, estrategias de comunicación, bienestar, inteligencias (inteligencia emocional y social) y public speaking ✨Tiene una Maestría en Mindfulness (Universidad de Zaragoza - 2017 - 2019) ✨Certificación en Formación Maestros de Meditación (Yoga Espacio, 2 años 2014-15) ✨Más de 10 años ofreciendo contenidos en medios de comunicación sobre: inteligencias, performance, disciplina, hábitos, meditación, estilo de vida, bienestar, logro de metas (ej: con Ricardo Rocha en Telefórmula, Televisa, TVC, Youtube) ✨Mentora de meditación para empresas, universidades y grupos privados (desde 2014). ✨Practicante de meditación ( más de 10 años) ✨Fue productora y titular de su programa Dimensión 11:11 (103.3FM 2017-2019, Radio Fórmula. De lunes a viernes 11pm) ✨Da terapia individual basada en Mindfulness y trabajo corporal ✨Es parte del equipo que está formando la siguiente generación de maestros certificados de Yoga Espacio (2019-2020)   ► SÍGUELA EN: ◄ ☘️ YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCIH7z1i8IapYfN33NvI7ssQ ☘️ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/soy.maite.txu ☘️ Instagram: www.instagram.com/maitevalverdedeloyola/ ☘️ Podcast iTunes: ‎https://podcasts.apple.com/mx/podcast/maite-valverde-de-loyola/id1463115047 ☘️ Podcast Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/1QJS3ZLfAWxKHzIHMKN13J?si=IGcvBQ48RKu217m5mioaMg   Contacto: cursosmaite@gmail.com

The Paycheck Protection Program was supposed to help workers stay afloat during the pandemic. But new analysis finds most PPP funding went to the richest 20% of Americans. David Autor and Lydia DePillis join Meghna Chakrabarti.

Middle-income jobs have been declining over the past decades, leaving behind a polarized workforce, with one group of people doing high-skilled, well remunerated work, and another growing set, that are in low-wage, relatively economically insecure positions, that don't have much of a career ladder. Automation, globalization, and the shrinking role of unions have all contributed to the hollowing out of middle-wage jobs, exacerbating wage inequality among American workers. In the current economic recovery, however, there are hopeful signs that labor demand, and worker activism might improve conditions for low wage workers. This week on EconoFact Chats, David Autor discusses the economic forces behind the hollowing out of the middle class, and what types of policies can help expand opportunities for those left behind.  David is Ford Professor in the MIT Department of Economics and co-director of the NBER Labor Studies Program.

Middle-income jobs have been declining over the past decades, leaving behind a polarized workforce, with one group of people doing high-skilled, well remunerated work, and another growing set, that are in low-wage, relatively economically insecure positions, that don't have much of a career ladder. Automation, globalization, and the shrinking role of unions have all contributed to the hollowing out of middle-wage jobs, exacerbating wage inequality among American workers. In the current economic recovery, however, there are hopeful signs that labor demand, and worker activism might improve conditions for low wage workers. This week on EconoFact Chats, David Autor discusses the economic forces behind the hollowing out of the middle class, and what types of policies can help expand opportunities for those left behind.  David is Ford Professor in the MIT Department of Economics and co-director of the NBER Labor Studies Program.

The U.S. economy has come a long way since the darkest days of the pandemic, but the future remains uncertain for many, especially those hit the hardest: low-wage workers. Last April, David Autor, an MIT economist, predicted that a pandemic-induced recession would be an “automation forcing event,” with executives rapidly deploying non-human labor to replace workers, particularly in the service sector - and he was right. Autor and Betsey Stevenson, who served as chief economist at the U.S. Department of Labor and is currently a professor of economics and public policy at the University of Michigan, discuss COVID-19's long-lasting impact on the ways employees will work, consume and manage family dynamics, for years to come.

Why productivity growth is key to creating wealth. Why U.S. productivity growth is slowing, and what we can do to increase business and personal productivity.Topics covered include:How productivity is measured and how it relates to GDP, inflation, and living standardsHow productivity growth has led to more food, better health, better housing, and more consumer goods.What are potential reasons why productivity growth is slowingEvidence that work from home has led to lower productivityWhat individuals and businesses can do to increase productivityThanks to LinkedIn and Hello Fresh for sponsoring the episode. Use code david12off for 12 free meals with free shipping from Hello Fresh.Show NotesThe Slowdown in Productivity Growth and Policies That Can Restore It by Emily Moss, Ryan Nunn, and Jay Shambaugh—The Hamilton ProjectThe technology-employment trade-off: Industry, automation, and income effects by Gene Kindberg-Hanlon—World Bank BlogsWill productivity and growth return after the COVID-19 crisis? by Jan Mischke, et al.—McKinsey & CompanyWork from Home & Productivity: Evidence from Personnel & Analytics Data on IT Professionals by Michael Gibbs, Friederike Mengel, Christoph Siemroth—Becker Friedman Institute for EconomicsThe Work of the Future: Building Better Jobs in an Age of Intelligent Machines by David Autor, David Mindell, and Elisabeth Reynolds—Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyHow to Stop Worrying and Love the Robot Apocalypse (Ep. 461) by Stephen J. Dubner, Produced by Zack Lapinski—FreakanomicsIs working from home bad for productivity? by Claire Jones—Financial TimesA World Without Email: Reimagining Work in an Age of Communication Overload by Cal NewportEffortless: Make It Easier to Do What Matters Most by Greg McKeown

The pandemic has fuelled an explosion of unemployment and a transformation in how many people work, especially in richer countries. We consider the many reasons for optimism about the labour market and the prospects for working from home. And, we talk to David Autor, a labour economist at MIT, about the effect of covid-19 on automation. Simon Long hosts For full access to print, digital and audio editions, subscribe to The Economist at www.economist.com/podcastoffer See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

The pandemic has fuelled an explosion of unemployment and a transformation in how many people work, especially in richer countries. We consider the many reasons for optimism about the labour market and the prospects for working from home. And, we talk to David Autor, a labour economist at MIT, about the effect of covid-19 on automation. Simon Long hosts For full access to print, digital and audio editions, subscribe to The Economist at www.economist.com/podcastoffer See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Nontechnical skills — communication, creativity, and teamwork — are important to career success. Unfortunately, they often aren't well-defined, and we have trouble “teaching” them in a classroom. David Deming of the https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=Malcom+Weiner+Center+on+Social+Policy+at+Harvard&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 (Malcom Wiener Center on Social Policy) at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government has spent several years researching the role noncognitive and nontechnical skills play in workforce success. On this episode of “Hardly Working,” I sat down with Deming to learn more about his career and the impact of job outcomes. He also spoke about the launch and development of the new Harvard Skills Lab and how state and local workforce agencies, training organizations, community colleges, and others can gain access to more information about what works in workforce preparation.      Items mentioned during the podcast: https://www.aei.org/research-products/report/stem-without-fruit-how-noncognitive-skills-improve-workforce-outcomes/ (STEM without fruit: How noncognitive skills improve workforce outcomes) https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/app.1.3.111 (Early childhood intervention and life-cycle skill development: Evidence from Head Start) https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=Malcom+Weiner+Center+on+Social+Policy+at+Harvard&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 (Malcom Wiener Center on Social Policy) “https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01ARRWPUS/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1 (The Gardener and the Carpenter: What the New Science of Child Development Tells Us About the Relationship Between Parents and Children)” https://www.pw.hks.harvard.edu/ (Harvard Project on Workforce) https://www.pw.hks.harvard.edu/post/skills-lab (Harvard Skills Lab) https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/ddeming/files/deming_socialskills_aug16.pdf (David Deming's 2017 paper on noncognitive skills) https://scholar.harvard.edu/ddeming/publications/team-players-how-social-skills-improve-group-performance (David Deming's 2020 paper on team players) https://hfh.fas.harvard.edu/community-practice (Community of practice webinar) https://twitter.com/profdaviddeming?lang=en (David Deming's Twitter) https://scholar.harvard.edu/ddeming/home (David Deming's personal website)   Scholars mentioned during the podcast: https://sites.google.com/a/umich.edu/susan-dynarski/ (Susan Dynarski) https://scholar.harvard.edu/lkatz/home (Lawrence Katz) https://economics.mit.edu/faculty/dautor (David Autor)  

MIT labor economist David Autor, co-chair of the Institute’s Task Force on the Work of the Future, discusses the initiative’s report, “The Work of the Future: Building Better Jobs in an Age of Intelligent Machines.” Describing the report as both optimistic and cautionary, Autor makes the case that the US needs to reinvest in innovation while supporting a more sustainable workforce transformation that broadens opportunity and narrows inequality.

Michael Spence (MS): The economic outlook is a little grim and tough in the short to medium run. There are two things going on. One is the pandemic, which forced us to conduct experiments in the economy that we normally would have conducted at a much slower pace. And some of those experiments are going to result in learning that changes the whole pattern of work - maybe more working from home, maybe a lot more collaboration, and maybe less international travel.  But the flip side is that the pandemic economy both domestically and internationally has suffered an adverse shock with respect to distribution. I looked at a study done at the University of Chicago by a couple of professors early on in the pandemic, and they asked the question, “What fraction of work can be done at home in the United States?” Their answer is (an approximation, because they did it really quickly) was one-third. They also looked at it by geography and then by sector, which is really striking, ranging from around 80% in the tech and financial sectors down to 4% in hospitality, which we've had to mostly shut down in the pandemic. Then there's a serious question that none of us knows the answer to: how fast they can come back? That, I think, depends primarily not on policy so much as how fast we can get the pandemic under control, meaning the prevalence down to the point that people's risk aversion doesn't cause them simply not to go places. And that looks like it is a process that varies across countries. The Chinese have done it more aggressively using tools, including digital ones, that we are not willing to use. And in the west, it is pretty clear the process is not going well. Certainly, there are a set of sectors that are going to struggle to come back.Driving Change (DC): Let's talk first about Europe versus America, where different approaches were taken to the question of, “Can we keep people in jobs for as long as possible, and hope that we come through the pandemic with as much of the existing economy and workforce in place that when things do start to grow, again, we're not having to rebuild from scratch?” How are those experiments and different policies playing out?MS: There are real differences, but the similarity is that everybody basically decided they had to buffer the economy, meaning the household sector and lots of businesses that weren't going to make it. The shock - and most people don't think of it this way - is to the balance sheet. There are a bunch of parts of every economy where the people's balance sheets are fragile and thin enough that they are not much of a shock absorber. So what governments in general have done, basically, is run big deficits and transfer some fairly substantial amount to the sovereign balance sheet, where it's not perfect, but certainly easier to manage. After that, it gets more complicated. In the United States, we had a bunch of programs and unemployment insurance, which is not new, we had programs to support businesses keeping people on and so on. The Europeans were further down that road well before the pandemic, having used this kind of technique in the great financial crisis of 2008/09 and even before, most obviously in Germany and some of the northern countries. But it is also true in Italy, where I live some of the time, which has a program that's similar, where the state absorbs some of the costs. What these economies do is encourage businesses to partner with the state, basically to redistribute the costs around. So jobs get slimmed down, but fewer people are unemployed - they kind of spread the work around. I think that is actually a pretty sensible way to do it. But it is hard to implement. So if you haven't put such a scheme in place beforehand, you can't you can't snap your fingers and get it done overnight.DC: So do you think that America is going to suffer from prolonged higher rates of unemployment because it hasn't had that kind of job sharing scheme? Or at some point, as the furloughs and other job-sharing schemes reach their time limits and stop in Europe, will the unemployment rate there eventually soar too?MS: Yes, we have too many variables! I would say that, if you held everything else constant, American unemployment would be higher. But there are elements in the American economy that might produce faster growth. Where I am in Italy, we have grown essentially negligibly since the year 2000. So that factors in as well. While I'm not wildly pessimistic, I think there are going to be pockets of real distress, people in sectors that really do struggle to come back. That will make unemployment higher than we would like. Especially as it will be a struggle to move those people into other sectors as the economy recovers. There will be a challenge of structural transition of a certain type.DC: There's an ongoing debate about what shape the economic recovery will be: V, W, square root shaped, even a K, where half the economy goes up and the other half goes down. What is your default prediction for how the economy grows from here?MS: The square root is the one that's been used most often in the United States, or as the French call it, the wing of a bird. So you get a sudden very big contraction across countries, then you get a flat period where you're trying to get the virus under control. (I'm speaking now mostly about the developed countries just for a moment.) And then you get things that can come back fairly rapidly, so you get something that starts to look like the start of a W after the after the trough. And then you get ones where the headwinds are a lot bigger, like international air travel: I don't know when people are going to feel safe and comfortable doing that or when all of the bilateral international restrictions are removed (which doesn't look like it will be very fast). So you go down, back up fairly fast, and then start to level out: that's where the square root square root idea comes from. I think that pattern is a reasonable guess.DC: In terms of job creation, normally economists would say just get the economy growing again. Is that the right policy at this point? Or is there more that can be done beyond the stimulus packages there have been so far?MS: The thing we lost track of in America is that the other best thing you can do is get the pandemic under control. I think the differences we see across countries are mainly attributable to that. So a widely available vaccine, provided people actually have it administered to them, would produce a V very quickly, but there's hurdles, even there. I'm appalled at surveys that I read, that a third of the people say they are unwilling to have the vaccine injected. I'm not terribly aggressive about this, but there's a balance between individual freedoms and rights on the one hand and collective interests. My friend, Mohamed El-Erian, put it well. He said, in finance, everybody knows what counterparty risk is. And, if it is big enough, the system stops because nobody trusts the other party. What we have now is individual human counterparty risk: as long as the prevalence of the virus is pretty high, everybody is a risk to everybody else. So we need to do things that reduce that risk, to restore confidence that you can safely engage in ordinary economic activity, like riding the subway to work, and stuff like that. We'll talk more about China later - but China uses digital tools in a way that we probably can't, because of concerns about data and privacy and even trust in the government. So the Chinese are walking around with mobile health certificates that are color coded. So if you're in circulation in China that means that a system powered by a fair amount of data thinks that your probability of being infectious is relatively low. We basically can't do that. Put it into crude terms: we are all yellow.DC: To what extent has a mask become a sort of proxy for that? If people are wearing masks, does that overcome the counterparty risk sufficiently that normal life can resume some extent?MS: It certainly helps. I'm no expert on the medical and epidemiological side of this. Social distancing, I think, is helpful. Being outside is certainly helpful. It seems pretty clear that the most dangerous situation is lots of people in an enclosed space with poor ventilation. So if you're outside, you're not gathering in large crowds, and you're wearing a mask, while it is not a perfect substitute for what we were just talking about, it certainly helps if everybody complies.DC: You brought up China. It started there, but they got on top of it pretty quickly. What is the economy doing in China? What happened to job losses and then job creation after they started to get the pandemic under control? And what does that tell us about what might happen elsewhere?MS: China's recovering pretty quickly. It basically took the hit in the first quarter, mainly, whereas we took the hit in the early part of the second quarter. So they are ahead of us. But because they were so aggressive about it, they literally locked down a whole city of 11m people and didn't let anybody go in and out, China is looking more like a V shaped recovery. But even there, you know, there are sectors that are going to be stubborn with respect to recovery. And China is still an economy, like many others, that is dependent on the state of the rest of the global economy. And there's nothing they can do about that except live with it. So it's a faster recovery than we're seeing in some other places, but it's not just snapping back.DC: We have been talking mostly about the developed economies. What are you seeing in the developing economies? Does this set back the path of development for a lifetime?MS: I think it does, for a while. So if you think of the resources the developed countries went into this with, we're richer, our balance sheets are a little bigger. The sovereign fiscal space is bigger in developed countries than in than in many developing countries. And the medical situation is, they have less capacity. In terms of the kind of basic economic policy tools that you need to use, they are less well armed. If you look at the tracking data for India, the economy is coming back but it's coming back with the virus still growing at a pretty rapid rate. I'm not sure the data are all that good to make significant comparisons across, especially, the poorer countries, but what I'm worried about is that the health/ livelihood trade-off is much starker in the poorer parts of developing countries, or in just plain poor developing countries, and that they'll be forced open up the economy, and then just have to accept the consequences in terms of health, because the alternative, which is locking down the economy for extended period, is worse. That's not necessarily an economic catastrophe. But it's not something that from a health and human welfare standpoint you would wish to see. A vaccine, or some other therapeutic that really works, if it's widely available, would help. There is some international support on all those fronts, medical, financial, and so on. But I don't think it is big enough to blunt the blow to a number of countries.DC: If so, will they continue to be isolated from the global economy, to some extent?MS: They will and they will have to deal too with the unknown consequences of a fragmenting global international infrastructure. For much of the postwar period, these poor countries lived under the big multilateral tent that the United States and others built. It was an important opportunity for growth for many of them - and they still need it, especially the poorer countries. So we don't know, at this point, whether tensions between the US and China and other tensions - Europe is not getting along all that well with China right now, either - will produce some kind of fragmentation that diminishes the opportunity for smaller developing countries, I'm not saying the whole thing is collapsing, to the point that the opportunities are gone, but it is getting there. The other thing they have to deal with is that digital technology is moving so fast, in the area of automation, vision, robotics, and so on. Labor-intensive process-oriented manufacturing as a source of competitive advantage may not be as powerful a driver of the export side of growth as it was in the past. That means not that the global economy is unimportant, but that they have to invent or discover other ways of leveraging the global economy, other sources of comparative advantage.DC: So the old Chinese model of making lots of cheap stuff for the West is not going to work anymore?MS: I think a lot of countries are hoping that the baton will get passed, and the opportunity won't collapse so fast that that it cuts them off. But it looks like it is at least a threat.DC: So we have these two big policy challenges in terms of what we do about the future workforce and getting people jobs. One is the pandemic-related concern about industries where there's high human counterparty risk, as you put it: tourism, travel, etc. The other is where these digital trends have been accelerated by everyone being stuck at home. What policies should governments be adopting to deal with those two quite different shocks in terms of equipping people to get back to work?MS: You are right. They are different. I don't think there's a magic bullet, other than vaccines, that are a substitute for getting the virus under control. So on that one, I'm pretty clear. If you are in an industry that is reliant on basically having trust and low human counterparty risk, such as tourism, your only strategy is to convince potential visitors that it's a virus-free safe place, and you have to convince domestic folks that it's safe to let them in.On the other one, digital and jobs, the lion's share of the discussion, which is not misguided, has to do with really ramping up our capacity for helping people change what they do, their skills and so on. Actually, digital tools are showing, partly as a result of the pandemic experience, that they're really quite useful in doing that. But we are going to need more collaboration that involves business, educational institutions and government. You know, we thought that before and it's even more true now, but can we get it done?DC: What do you have in mind, specifically?MS: Everybody has pieces of the puzzle, right? Businesses know how their business model is evolving and they have a pretty good sense of what skills they need. Armed with the right tools, they can be pretty good educators or partners with educational institutions to get the job done. There's a reasonable amount of evidence that done at a local level, with state governments or local institutions, that these partnerships actually kind of work. A second piece of the puzzle, that nobody I know, is wildly enthusiastic about, is the current scattershot approach to international relations and international trade. We could have a strategy for dealing with China and for dealing with international trade and institutions and so on. We know all that has to change; we are not going to go back to where we were before. That strategy could include domestic employment, around where jobs reside geographically. Done stupidly, that doesn't really help, but done smartly, I think it could. The part that seems to me hard I wrote about recently. In the publicly-traded equity markets, an increasing part of the value that is being created is in is being created by intangible capital. And the entities that are creating it are doing it with a relatively small number of employees. If you stand back from it – and I'm overstating it for simplicity - employment is diverging from value creation measured in that way. Then you ask the question, “Who owns that capital?” The answer is, it is a highly concentrated set of people at the upper end of the wealth distribution, and a bunch of institutions. I think, to fully solve this problem, we are going to have to figure out a way to have broader participation in value creation, the turbocharged parts of the economic value creation process. We don't have that now; actually, nobody has it. This is a challenge that no country I know of has actually addressed effectively. DC: This crisis has brought about an acceleration of a lot of the trends towards greater concentration of wealth amongst a small part of the population. As you say, this does open up some very big questions. Firstly, if most people aren't going to be in jobs that are high in value creation, or there won't be any jobs at all, do we need to provide some kind of universal basic income or equivalent of that to keep people in a decent standard of living? And do we need much heavier taxation of the wealth - and how easy would that be to do politically and practically? Is there a need for nationalizing chunks of the value creating part of the economy, maybe into a common or sovereign wealth fund of some kind?MS: Well, these are things that, if you get them wrong, can really screw up the economy. On the other hand, the trajectory of the distribution of balance sheets in the economy is not very promising from the point of view of political and social cohesion. I think the most promising avenue to explore (and I don't want to pretend that this is a worked-out solution), is to have the public broadly, maybe through the government, be passive owners of the growing parts of the economy. DC: How would it be different from more taxation, the traditional way that we've done that?MS: Given the outcome of the election, I think we're going to do more taxation. But I think exploring this other avenue as a complement to that is a worthwhile idea. We've discussed bits and pieces of this. The late James Tobin put forward a widely discussed, but not implemented, proposal to finance college essentially with loans you pay back based on what you later earn. You would basically pre-commit to a very small fraction of your future income. So people who become artists and musicians, for instance, those who become fabulously wealthy would pay a lot, while others who go into the nonprofit sector and do a lot for their fellow human beings wouldn't pay so much. The mechanics of these things need to be worked out. There's all kinds of moral hazard and other problems that have to be thought through. But I think this is the right time for creativity in these dimensions, as well as the responsible, effective use of the existing tax system.DC: Are you optimistic that we are going to see that? People have been aware for years of the threat that digital posed to a lot of traditional jobs, traditional middle-class employment. Yet there didn't seem to be much policy reaction to that. Might the pandemic shock the world's governments into doing something more ambitious and creative?MS: It depends on where you are, I think, because the exact challenge varies. In the United States, we still have reasonably powerful engines for generating innovative new economic activity, and we don't want to destroy those. But we need to address the problem that a significant subset of the population feels, with some good reason, that they were abandoned over the last few decades, and they don't - I'm going to put this mildly - like their leaders, and the people on the coasts. and so on. It's a little hard to see that, regardless of electoral outcomes, turning into something that, at least in the short run, looks like a constructive dialogue about how to achieve inclusiveness. I'm just trying to be realistic. In Europe, at least on digital, the challenge perceived here is that the industry is way behind. They need more platform companies, they need a cloud computing system, that goes along with their policies with respect to data. They need opportunities for very talented, innovative young people to build companies with supportive ecosystems around them, so they don't have to go to New York or California. So the challenge is to modernize, digitize and get to somewhere near the forefront of innovation. And that has consequences for growth. This is a slightly different perception of the challenges in Europe, which if you look at Gini coefficients, is a more egalitarian operation. It is not exempt from the pressures that we've seen in the United States. David Autor and others have documented that job and income polarization to varying degrees is occurring across a broad swath of the developed world. But we've had policies in Europe that have muted the impacts of that to a greater extent than, say, in the UK or the US.DC: Europe hasn't had a great record of catching up on these sort of innovation deficits. In two or three years, however we think about the relative effectiveness of the policy response to the pandemic in America and Europe, how likely is it that America will emerge with stronger economic prospects than Europe for the decades ahead?MS: People in Europe are a little more optimistic because of the new emergency fund financed with European debt. They are saying this is the first time, unlike in the great financial crisis, that Europe has taken the position that we're in this together, as opposed to “If you're in trouble, it's your fault, get out of it”. It remains to be seen if that turns into more momentum on a broader front. Europe's economy is still fragmented. It needs European level institutions - not bureaucratic ones, but ones that really pump energy into the system. This is bottom line: Europe is pretty far behind.DC: What is the number one policy recommendation you have for policymakers around the world as they think about how to give their people the best chance of getting good work in the years ahead? MS: On the work question, I would first get the virus under control. We need to recognize we have a common problem and cooperate with each other on finding solutions to the pandemic, including technological ones, and then focus on skills, job creation and retraining.

Steven Greenhouse, the author of "Beaten Down, Worked Up: The Past, Present, and Future of American Labor," speaks to David Autor, the Ford Professor of Economics at MIT, about how Covid is likely to change the workforce by accelerating automation and reducing the number of low-wage jobs.  STEVEN GREENHOUSE was a reporter for The New York Times for over thirty years, covering labor and the workplace for many of them. He is the author of two books: Beaten Down, Worked Up: The Past, Present, and Future of American Labor and The Big Squeeze: Tough Times for the American Worker. DAVID AUTOR is the Ford Professor of Economics at MIT and co-chair of its Work of the Future task force. A transcript of this episode is available at Aventine.org Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Jim Tankersley is a tax and economics reporter for the New York Times and has written a new book on the middle class titled, *The Riches of This Land: The Untold, True Story of the American Middle Class.* Jim joins Macro Musings to talk about this book, and the state of the middle class in the US. David and Jim also discuss the history and golden era of the middle class as well as the steps policymakers can take to ensure we return to a path of robust economic growth.   Transcript for the episode can be found here: https://www.mercatus.org/bridge/tags/macro-musings   Jim’s Twitter: @jimtankersley Jim’s New York Times archive: https://www.nytimes.com/by/jim-tankersley   Related Links:   *The Riches of This Land: The Untold, True Story of the American Middle Class* by Jim Tankersley https://www.publicaffairsbooks.com/titles/jim-tankersley/the-riches-of-this-land/9781541767836/   *The Allocation of Talent and U.S. Economic Growth* by Chang-Tai Hsieh, Erik Hurst, Charles Jones, and Peter Klenow https://www.nber.org/papers/w18693   *Populism in Place: The Economic Geography of the Globalization Backlash* by J. Lawrence Broz, Jeffry Freiden, and Stephen Weymouth https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3501263   *Testing the ‘China Shock’: Was Normalizing Trade with China a Mistake?* by Scott Lincicome https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/testing-china-shock-was-normalizing-trade-china-mistake   *The China Shock: Learning from Labor-Market Adjustment to Large Changes in Trade* by David Autor, David Dorn, and Gordon Hanson https://economics.mit.edu/files/12751   *The Complacent Class: The Self-Defeating Quest for the American Dream* by Tyler Cowen https://us.macmillan.com/books/9781250108708   David’s Twitter: @DavidBeckworth David’s blog: http://macromarketmusings.blogspot.com/

Everybody, in one way or another, is being impacted by the coronavirus pandemic. From our health to our social lives, so much has changed so quickly. However, the crisis is hitting some Americans harder than others. Estimates are that America's unemployment rate is currently in the teens (and potentially headed higher), and there has been a record number of unemployment benefit claims during the past month. According to David Autor, Ford Professor of Economics at MIT and co-chair of the MIT Work of the Future Task Force, what’s happening will be “transformative” for the country’s economy in the long run — both positively and negatively.

Christiane Amanpour speaks with Matteo Renzi, former Italian Prime Minister, about Italy's response the Coronavirus and the decision to impose a nationwide lock down. Trump 2020 Advisory Committee member David Urban talks about the presidential race, and what steps America can take to control the spread of the Coronavirus. And our Walter Isaacson speaks with David Autor, Ford Professor of Economics at MIT, about US-China trade relations and the potential long-term impact of the Coronavirus.

In this episode, we explore the Trump side of the US-China Trade War, including protectionism, US de-industrialization, China's trade violations and the alleged new cold war taking place before our very eyes.Please subscribe and leave a 5-star review - thank you!***‘Why Trump Will Win the US China Trade War – Stephen Moore’, American Thought Leaders – The Epoch Times, YouTube.‘US China Trade War: ‘Trump is Not Going to Back Down….This is a War of Values’ – Curtis Ellis’, American Thought Leaders – The Epoch Times, YouTube.‘Trumponomics: Inside the America First Plan to Revive Our Economy’, Stephen Moore and Arthur B. Laffer, 2018, All Points Books, United States.‘Schism: China, America and the Fracturing of the Global Trading System’, Paul Blustein, 2019, Centre for International Governance Innovation, Canada.‘Trade War From The Chinese Side’, Milton Ezrati, Forbes.‘How China Really Sees the Trade War’, Andrew J. Nathan, Foreign Affairs.‘The U.S. Trade War Has Caught Beijing’s Attention. Now Washington Needs a Longer-Term Plan.’, Tim Roemer, Foreign Policy.‘2018 Data Report’, Reshoring Initiative.U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.‘The China Shock: Learning from Labor Market Adjustment to Large Changes in Trade’, David Autor, David Dorn, and Gordon Hanson, NBER Working Paper No. 21906, January 2016, National Bureau of Economic Research.‘Trump’s Push to Bring Back Jobs to U.S. Shows Limited Results’, Jim Tankersley, New York Times.‘WTO chief: 'Months' needed to fix disputes body’’, Jonathan Josephs, BBC.‘David Autor on Trade, China, and U.S. Labor Markets’, Econ Talk Podcast.‘China’s Currency Moves Escalate Trade War, Rattling Markets’, Ana Swanson, Alexandra Stevenson and Jenna Smialek, New York Times.‘Does China manipulate its currency as Donald Trump claims?’, Farok J Contractor, The Conversation.‘Why Capital Flows Uphill’, Peter Passell, Foreign Policy.‘Why China Buys U.S. Debt With Treasury Bonds’, Shobhit Seth, Investopedia.‘The Impact of China Devaluing the Yuan’, Investopedia.‘China's Xi allowed to remain 'president for life' as term limits removed’, BBC.‘China has started ranking citizens with a creepy 'social credit' system’, Alexandra Ma, Business Insider.‘Made in China 2025: The Industrial Plan that China Doesn’t Want Anyone Talking About’, Emily Crawford, PBS.‘China NBA: How one tweet derailed the NBA's China game plan’, Mark Dreyer, BBC.‘Australia to tighten foreign investment rules amid China concerns’, Jamie Smyth, Financial Times.‘China's Belt and Road Initiative: Where it goes and what it's supposed to accomplish’, CBC.‘China’s Sea Control Is a Done Deal, ‘Short of War With the U.S’’, Hannah Beech, New York Times. ‘Steve Bannon's Warning On China Trade War (w/ Kyle Bass) | Real Vision Classics’, Real Vision Finance, YouTube.‘Steve Bannon on the US-China trade war (full interview)’, CNBC Television, YouTube.‘US China Trade War: ’Trump is Not Going to Back Down… This is a War of Values’—Curtis Ellis’, America Thought Leader – The Epoch Times, YouTube.***Music: Julian AngelatosArtwork: Nerpa Mate

In this episode, we explore the background of free trade, the US-China trade war itself, and why tariffs are a bad idea.Please subscribe and leave a 5-star review. Thank you!***References:‘Trumponomics: Inside the America First Plan to Revive Our Economy’, Stephen Moore and Arthur B. Laffer, 2018, All Points Books, United States.‘Schism: China, America and the Fracturing of the Global Trading System’, Paul Blustein, 2019, Centre for International Governance Innovation, Canada.‘An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations’, Adam Smith, Abridged with Commentary by Laurence Dickey, 1993, Hackett Publishing Company, Indianapolis/Cambridge.‘On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation’, David Ricardo, 1817, republished in 2001, Batoche Books, Kitchener.‘Comparative Advantage’, Investopedia.‘International Trade’, Britannica.‘How Trump's Trade War Went From Method to Madness’, Bloomberg, YouTube.‘A Quick Guide to the US-China Trade War’, BBC.‘US-China trade war: 'We're all paying for this', Virginia Harrison, BBC.‘China tariffs will still cost US $316 billion by end of 2020, even after trade deal’, Gina Heeb, Business Insider.‘The US-China Trade War: A Timeline’, Dorcas Wong & Alexander Chipman Koty, China Briefing.‘I, Pencil: My Family Tree as Told to Leonard E. Read’, Leonard Read, republished by Foundation for Economic Education. ‘Economists Actually Agree on This: The Wisdom of Free Trade’, N. Gregory Mankiw, New York Times.The World Trade Historical Database, Giovanni Federico & Antonio Tena-Junguito, VOXeu.org.‘Shooting an Elephant’, The Economist, September 17, 2016.‘Steve Lamar: Announced phase 1 trade deal gave retailers limited relief’, CNBC, YouTube.‘The U.S. Trade Deficit Is Narrowing for Reasons That Aren’t All Good’, Shawn Donnan, Bloomberg.‘Trade War From The Chinese Side’, Milton Ezrati, Forbes.‘How China Really Sees the Trade War’, Andrew J. Nathan, Foreign Affairs.‘The U.S. Trade War Has Caught Beijing’s Attention. Now Washington Needs a Longer-Term Plan.’, Tim Roemer, Foreign Policy.‘David Autor on Trade, China, and U.S. Labor Markets’, Econ Talk Podcast.‘Donald Trump accuses China of trade 'rape'’, The Telegraph, YouTube.‘Donald Trump FULL Speech | Toledo, Ohio Rally (10/27/2016)’, ABC News, YouTube.‘Trump vs Friedman - Trade Policy Debate’, LibertyPen, YouTube.‘Milton Friedman - Congressional House Economic Task Force (1993)’, BasicEconomics, YouTube.‘Krugman Says U.S. Not Taken Advantage of in Trade Deals’, Bloomberg Politics, YouTube.‘Don Boudreaux - Why Free Trade is ALWAYS Best Policy’, LibertyPen, YouTube.‘Trade wars are easy to start, very hard to stop: Economist Thomas Sowell’, Fox Business, YouTube.‘Milton Friedman - Free Trade’, BasicEconomics, YouTube.***Music: Julian AngelatosArtwork: Nerpa Mate

Can US Senator Elizabeth Warren convince Wall Street to back her and how are the other candidates faring in the Democratic competition for the 2020 presidential nomination? And, David Autor, an economist at MIT, speaks to Money Talks about how computers changed the US labour market, the impact of China and his gecko brand. Also, will the world follow Sweden’s lead and go cashless? Simon Long hosts See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Can US Senator Elizabeth Warren convince Wall Street to back her and how are the other candidates faring in the Democratic competition for the 2020 presidential nomination? And, David Autor, an economist at MIT, speaks to Money Talks about how computers changed the US labour market, the impact of China and his gecko brand. Also, will the world follow Sweden’s lead and go cashless? Simon Long hosts See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Will robots and AI replace human work? What has the historical impact of technology been on labour markets and what are the current trends that are shaping the present and future of work? Will quantum computing change this future? Watch David Autor discuss these and related questions with Social Europe Editor-in-Chief Henning Meyer. David Autor is an American economist and Professor of Economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), where he also acts as co-director of the School Effectiveness and Inequality Initiative. You might also find our regular articles, blogs and other written publications of interest. Just visit our website www.socialeurope.eu to read our latest output. If you want to stay up-to-date with all things Social Europe just sign up to our regular newsletter. You can do so on our website.

Alphachat is back, and with a new host, Brendan Greeley. Brendan is the new US editor of Alphaville, and in this episode, he talks to MIT economics professor David Autor about what economics got wrong about trade, how the profession is fixing itself and why policy is still catching up. Music by Podington Bear. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Don Boudreaux is a professor of economics at George Mason University as well as the co-director of the Program on the American Economy and Globalization at the Mercatus Center. He joins the show today to talk about the future of trade and globalization. David and Don also discuss the history of protectionism in the US, President Trump’s trade policies, and why the China Shock thesis may signal bad economics. Don’s blog: https://cafehayek.com/ Don’s Mercatus Profile: https://www.mercatus.org/donald-j-boudreaux Related Links: *Clashing over Commerce: A History of U.S. Trade Policy* by Doug Irwin https://www.press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/C/bo24475328.html *Tariffs, Immigration, and Economic Insulation: A New View of the U.S. Post-Civil War Era*by Cecil Bohanon and Norman Van Cott https://www.jstor.org/stable/24562083?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents *The China Shock: Learning from Labor Market Adjustment to Large Changes in Trade* by David Autor, David Dorn, and Gordon Hanson https://www.nber.org/papers/w21906 David’s blog: macromarketmusings.blogspot.com David’s Twitter: @DavidBeckworth

On a special goodbye Worldly — it’s Yochi’s final episode, sadly — he, Jenn, and Zack talk about President Donald Trump’s looming trade war with China, which could soon make it more expensive to buy everything from an iPhone to an air conditioner. The US has imposed tens of billions of dollars worth of tariffs on Chinese imports, Beijing is hitting back, and it’s all heading in a pretty dangerous direction. On Elsewhere, the team says goodbye to Yochi, who’s returning to full-time writing, and celebrates what he’s done for the show. Someone was definitely cutting onions in the studio during the taping of this episode. Throughout the episode, we talk about what a trade war might mean. Zeeshan Aleem wrote a great explainer on this. Jenn walked us through the tariffs back and forth right at the top of the show. You can read more specifics about those tariffs here and here. The Verge also had a great piece about what this might mean for tech manufacturing. More context on the delegation that went to Beijing to talk about tariffs without much success. Here’s a piece that dives into Trump’s rhetoric about Asia and trade going back decades, and one that looks very specifically at what he said about Japan. When Zack said that some people call this IP theft the greatest theft in history, the exact quote was “the greatest transfer of wealth in history.” Yochi also talked about foreign agents and spying more generally.   Jenn mentioned that companies complain about Chinese trade practices. There’s a great Planet Money episode this week that touches on why those companies don’t necessarily say things explicitly. Here’s the piece that Zeeshan wrote a few months ago about disagreements between Trump advisers. Here’s the Washington Post piece about the navy hack and the submarine warfare intelligence that was gathered as a result. Yochi cited a few Republican lawmakers grilling Wilbur Ross on tariffs. Here’s a write up of that grilling, and here’s the full session on C-SPAN.   Yochi shouted out Zack’s writing on manufacturers who have been affected by China. Zack walked us through some of economist David Autor’s research on the effect US-China trade ties have had on American jobs.   We pulled a clip from Trump’s appearance on the Bernie and Sid show and from this interview with Larry Kudlow. And here’s the wild trailer for Death by China. For more trade war content, check out this great Today, Explained episode about the Chinese tariffs and this one, about the tariff fight we’re having with Mexico, Canada, and the EU. This episode of The Indicator and this episode The Daily are also great!    Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Daniel Griswold is a Mercatus Center Senior Research Fellow and Co-Director of the Program on the American Economy and Globalization at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. He joins the show to discuss the theory of trade, dating back to Adam Smith, and his work on current US trade policy. Daniel and David discuss some of the misconceptions surrounding trade and why Americans should embrace free trade instead of protectionism. This episode was originally aired on May 1, 2017. [To sign-up for Mercatus’ NGDP prediction market, go to get.mercatus.org/ngdppredictions/. Just answer a few simple questions, and you’ll receive an email invitation to start forecasting!] David’s blog: macromarketmusings.blogspot.com/ Daniel Griswold’s blog: madabouttrade.com/ David’s Twitter: @DavidBeckworth Daniel Griswold’s Twitter: @DanielGriswold Related links: “Plumbing America’s Balance of Trade” by Daniel Griswold www.mercatus.org/publications/ame…balance-of-trade *Mad About Trade: Why Main Street America Should Embrace Globalization* by Daniel Griswold www.amazon.com/Mad-About-Trade-A…ion/dp/193530819X “The China Shock: Learning from Labor-Market Adjustment to Large Changes in Trade” by David Autor, David Dorn, & Gordon Hanson www.ddorn.net/papers/Autor-Dorn-…son-ChinaShock.pdf

[I am not an economist or an expert on this topic. This is my attempt to figure out what economists and experts think so I can understand the issue, and I’m writing it down to speed your going through the same process. If you have more direct access to economists and experts, feel free to ignore this] Technological unemployment is a hard topic because there are such good arguments on both sides. The argument against: we’ve had increasing technology for centuries now, people have been predicting that technology will put them out of work since the Luddites, and it’s never come true. Instead, one of two things have happened. Either machines have augmented human workers, allowing them to produce more goods at lower prices, and so expanded industries so dramatically that overall they employ more people. Or displaced workers from one industry have gone into another – stable boys becoming car mechanics, or the like. There are a bunch of well-known theoretical mechanisms that compensate for technological displacement – see Vivarelli for a review. David Autor gives a vivid example:

Daniel Griswold is a Mercatus Center Senior Research Fellow and Co-Director of the Program on the American Economy and Globalization at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. He joins the show to discuss the theory of trade, dating back to Adam Smith, and his work on current US trade policy. Daniel and David discuss some of the misconceptions surrounding trade and why Americans should embrace free trade instead of protectionism. David’s blog: http://macromarketmusings.blogspot.com/ Daniel Griswold’s blog: https://madabouttrade.com/ David’s Twitter: @DavidBeckworth Daniel Griswold’s Twitter: @DanielGriswold Related links: “Plumbing America’s Balance of Trade” by Daniel Griswold https://www.mercatus.org/publications/american-balance-of-trade *Mad About Trade: Why Main Street America Should Embrace Globalization* by Daniel Griswold https://www.amazon.com/Mad-About-Trade-America-Globalization/dp/193530819X “The China Shock: Learning from Labor-Market Adjustment to Large Changes in Trade” by David Autor, David Dorn, & Gordon Hanson http://www.ddorn.net/papers/Autor-Dorn-Hanson-ChinaShock.pdf

In the first of our Economist Radio specials from Washington, Money Talks examines the Wall Street versus Main Street argument playing out in the election. Our Buttonwood columnist dissects how markets might respond to a Trump win. And award-winning MIT economist, David Autor, dissects the negative consequences of free trade. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

In the first of our Economist Radio specials from Washington, Money Talks examines the Wall Street versus Main Street argument playing out in the election. Our Buttonwood columnist dissects how markets might respond to a Trump win. And award-winning MIT economist, David Autor, dissects the negative consequences of free trade. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

What follows is an edited transcript of my conversation with Emily Hamilton about land use regulations' effects on affordable housing. Petersen: My guest today is Emily Hamilton. She is a researcher at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. Emily, thanks for being on Economics Detective Radio. Hamilton: Thanks a lot for having me. Petersen: So, Emily recently wrote a paper titled "How Land Use Regulation Undermines Affordable Housing" along with her co-author Sanford Ikeda. The paper is a review of many studies looking at land use restrictions and it identifies four of the most common types of land use restrictions. Those are: minimum lots sizes, minimum parking requirements, inclusionary zoning, and urban growth boundaries. So Emily, could you tell us what each of those restrictions entail? Hamilton: Sure. So, starting off with the first, minimum lots sizes. This is probably what people most commonly associate with zoning. It's the type of Euclidian zoning that separates residential areas from businesses and then within residential areas limits the number of units that can be on any certain size of land. And this is the most common tool that makes up what is sometimes referred to as Snob Zoning, where residents lobby for larger minimum lots sizes and larger house sizes to ensure that their neighbors are people who can afford only that minimum size of housing. Petersen: So it keeps the poor away, effectively. Hamilton: Exactly. And then parking requirements are often used as a tool to ensure that street parking doesn't get too congested. So when cars first became common, parking was really crazy where people would just leave their car on the street, maybe double parked, or in an inconvenient situation near their destination. And obviously as driving became more and more common and that was just an untenable situation and there had to be some sort of order to where people were allowed to park. But street parking remained typically free or underpriced relative to demand. So, people began lobbying for a parking requirement that would require business owners and residential developers to provide parking that was off streets so that this underpriced street parking remained available. But that brought us to today where we often have just mass seas of parking in retail areas and residential areas, which are paper focuses on. Parking substantially contributes to the cost of housing, making it inaccessible in some neighborhoods for low income people and driving up the cost of housing for everyone who has been using the amount of parking that their developer was required to provide. Petersen: So that's one where you can really see the original justification. And it makes sense, if you have a business and a lot of people are parking and it spills over onto the street then maybe that's an externality. And it seems reasonable for you to have to provide parking for the people who come to your business, especially if a lot of them are driving there. But we push that too far, is what I'm hearing. Hamilton: Exactly. Yeah, it does seem reasonable but the argument in favor of parking requirements tends to ignore that business owners have every incentive to make it easy to get to their business. So, in many cases there's not necessarily an externality because the business owner providing the parking has the right incentive to provide enough to make it easy for their customers to get there. The externality really comes up when we think about street parking and Donald Shoup---probably the world's foremost expert on parking---has made the argument that pricing street parking according to demand is a real key in getting parking rules right. Petersen: So, on to the next one. What is inclusionary zoning? Hamilton: Inclusionary zoning is a rule that requires developers to make a certain number of units in a new development accessible to people at various income levels. Often inclusionary zoning is tied with density bonuses. So, a developer will have the choice to make a non-inclusionary project that is only allowed to have the regular amount of density that that lot is zoned for. Or, he can choose to take the inclusionary zoning density bonus which will allow him to build more units overall including the inclusionary unit and additional market-rate units. Typically, units are affordable to people who are making a certain percentage of the area median income, so people who might not have low income but who are making not enough to afford a market rate unit in their current neighborhood. Petersen: Okay, so that's sort of forcing developers to build affordable units that they then will probably lose money on, so that they can build the market rate units that they can make money on. Hamilton: Exactly. That's how cities make inclusionary zoning attractive to developers is by giving them that bonus that can allow them to build more market rate housing. In other cities, however, inclusionary zoning is required for all new developments so it really varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction how it's implemented. Petersen: So the fourth land use restriction you mention is urban growth boundaries. What are those? Hamilton: So Oregon is the most famous example in the US of implementing an urban growth boundary. And what it is, is basically a state law that requires each city to set up a boundary around its edges, where for a certain amount of time no housing can be built outside of that boundary. And the idea is to gradually expand the city's footprint over time to allow the suburbs to expand a little further, but to restrict that suburban development using the boundary for some time period. Other examples like London's urban growth boundary I believe are permanent, so there are certain areas that can never be developed. Petersen: So I believe we have something like this in Vancouver. We have farmland in the metro Vancouver area which---for context this area is one of the most overheated high-priced housing markets in the world---and we have this land that's just zoned for farms. And a lot of the time people don't even bother to plant crops, they're just holding the land for the day when eventually it can be rezoned into housing. So I looked it up before we went on and some of these plots are $350,000 an acre, which of course is not reflective of just how productive they are as farmland but of how productive they would be when they are eventually rezoned. Hamilton: Exactly. Yes, very similar to Oregon's program. And a lot of empirical studies have been done on Portland's growth boundary because researchers can easily look at the block that are selling on either side of the boundary to see whether or not it's affecting land prices and several studies have found a very clear effect of the boundary in driving up the price of the land. Petersen: And in Vancouver, the city is very reluctant to rezone. So, people are constantly applying and being denied but you know it's like winning the lottery having your bit of useless farmland rezoned to super high value housing. And people are just holding on to those dead lands in the hopes of winning that lottery which is kind of---it's a bizarre outcome. Hamilton: It is. And urban growth boundary supporters often frame it as environmental regulation that's going to protect this open space. While encouraging people to live in more dense and transit and walkable friendly neighborhoods, but it's not as if Portland is free of other types of zoning rules. So at the same time it has this urban growth boundary it also has a lot of traditional zoning rules that limit the potential to build up while the growth boundary is limiting the potential to grow out. So it's coming from both directions. Petersen: So, just how costly do economists think these regulations are? What kind of estimates do they have? Hamilton: So, I think some of the most compelling estimates look at the macroeconomic effect of these rules. Because typically the most binding zoning rules are also in the most productive cities, where there's the highest level of demand for people to live. Because these are where the best jobs are as well as the best urban amenities, a lot of people want to live here. One study looking at this macroeconomic effect found that the three most productive cities which are New York, San Francisco, and San Jose---I should clarify; this is just looking at the effective growth within US---if those three cities lowered the burden of their land use regulation to that of the median American city it could result in a 9% increase in the level of US GDP. So, these rules are having just an enormous effect on economic growth. Not to mention the very substantial effect they have for individuals and making it difficult or impossible for people to afford to live in their desired location. Petersen: So, you know, San Francisco that's where Silicon Valley is. And so we think of it as a place with super high productivity---tech workers working at Google---and yet with their housing market being one of the most restricted. So not only is there the loss from the housing market itself, that you could sell a lot of housing there and that would increase GDP by itself, but also there are people living in less productive areas doing less productive jobs, who could come and work for Google. But they can't because they've been priced out of the market. Is that where most of the effect comes from? Hamilton: That's right. Yeah, I think the effect is also certainly at that top-end of the market where we're seeing all kinds of blog posts and articles about a person making six figures at Facebook who can't afford the Bay area. So those people might choose to go live in say Denver, or Austin, or a city that still has plenty of great jobs but isn't as productive as San Francisco or San Jose. But then we also see this down the income spectrum, where people who are in the service industry, say waiting tables, could make much more in San Francisco then they can in Houston, or wherever they happen to live. But their quality of life is much better in some of less productive cities because of the cost of housing and other areas of consumption that higher real estate costs drive up. Petersen: One thing I've heard about a lot of these Californian coastal cities---I think it was Palo Alto---where not a single member of the Palo Alto Police Department lives in Palo Alto because you just can't live there on a policeman's salary, so they all have to commute in every day and then commute out every night. Hamilton: Yeah, and for some of these hugely important needed services it just makes the quality of life of the people in those industries so much worse than it would be if they could afford to live closer to their job. Petersen: Right. So, to summarize the labor market mobility of the United States in general has been greatly restricted by these land use restrictions. Even though the land use restrictions are local, this has an effect on the national economy. Hamilton: Exactly right. And we can see this in the data where income convergence across areas of the country has greatly slowed down since the 1970's when these rules really started taking off. Petersen: You argue that the costs of these restrictions fall primarily on low-income households so can you talk through how that happens? Hamilton: Sure. It happens in two ways. First off, you have the low income people who are living in very expensive cities and these people might have to endure very long commutes---you talked about the police officer in Palo Alto who can't live anywhere near his job. Not that police officers are low income, but just as an example that illustrates the point. Or they have to live in very substandard housing, perhaps a group house that's just crammed with people maybe even illegally, in order to afford to live anywhere near where they're working. Petersen: Yeah, I was going to say I thought those group houses were illegal from these very same land use regulations, but I guess people get around it. Hamilton: Yeah, a lot of US cities have rules about the number of unrelated people who can live in a house. And certainly those rules are sometimes broken. That, I think, is clear to anyone who's spent time in an expensive city. You know, people have to live in these less than ideal conditions and waste too much of their time commuting in order to make that work. But the unseen version of it is the person who lives in a low-income part of the country and would like to improve their job opportunity and quality of life by moving to somewhere more productive, but they simply can't make it work so they stay in that low-income area without meeting their working potential. Petersen: There was a study by David Autor---I think I cited it in a previous episode and got the author name wrong but it's definitely David Autor---and it was looking at the shock, the trade shock that hit United States when it opened up trade with China in the early 2000's. And it basically showed that a lot of parts of the country just never recovered. So, if you worked in particular industries---I think the furniture industry was one that was basically wiped out---and if you worked in a town next to a furniture factory and that was your job, not only did you lose your job, you lost all the value in your home because the one industry in the town is gone. And you can't afford to move to one of the booming industries like Silicon Valley or in another part of the country because they've so greatly restricted the elasticity of their housing supply. And that's not all, Autor's paper basically just shows that it took a very long time to recover from the shock and a lot of places didn't recover at all. But I really think that housing is part of that picture if you're trying to figure out why the US economy can't respond to shocks like it used to in the 20th century. That has to be a big part of the picture. Hamilton: Definitely. And that trend, as far as people being able to leave these depressed or economically stagnant areas, this also comes out in the income's convergence as we talked about earlier. Petersen: So, the other part of that, I saw in your paper, was not only are poor people hurt but rich people who already own homes have seen those home prices rise. So it's affecting inequality at both ends of the spectrum, correct? Hamilton: Right, Bill Fischel at Dartmouth has done a lot of work on why it is that people lobby so hard in favor of rules that restrict development. And he terms it as the Homevoter Hypothesis, where people who own homes have a huge amount of their wealth tied up in their home and so they are in favor of rules that protect that asset and prevent any shocks such as a huge amount of new development that could result in a decline in their homes value. I think you talked about that in your episode with Nolan Gray on trailer parks. Petersen: Yeah, we talked about William Fischel's Homevoter Hypothesis. So the essence of that is that people vote in local elections, and they lobby to restrict the supply of housing in their neighborhood, and that increases their wealth by, you know, increasing the land values in that area. How do you deal with that when there's such an entrenched special interest everywhere to push up land prices? Hamilton: I think that's the hugely difficult problem. And at the same time as we have the challenges with the Homevoter system that Fischel plays out, we have a lot of federal policies that encourage homeownership as not just a good community-building tool but also as an investment. So people are programmed by the federal government to see their house as an investment in spite of economic challenges that it presents. David [Schleicher]---a law professor at Yale---has done some really interesting work on ways that institutional changes could limit the activity of homeowners and lobbying against new development. One of his proposals is called a Zoning Budget. And under a zoning budget, municipalities would have to allow a certain amount of population growth each year. So, they could designate areas of a city that are going to only be home to single family homes, but within some parts of the city, they would have to allow building growth to accommodate a growing population. Petersen: How would that be enforced, though? Hamilton: It would have to be a state law, or perhaps a federal law, but I think much more likely a state law that would mandate that localities do that. Massachusetts recently passed a law that requires all jurisdictions within the state to allow at least some multifamily housing. So it's kind of a similar idea. The state government can set a floor on how much local government can restrict development. Petersen: So, what I'm hearing is that different levels of government have different incentives with respect to restrictions. So, at the lowest level if I'm just in a small district or municipal area and I can restrict what my neighbors build on their property, that really affects my home price and that's the main thing that I'm going to lobby for at that level of government. But if I had to go all the way to the state government to try to push up house prices in my neighborhood, it wouldn't go so well. The state government has incentives to allow more people to live within their boundaries. Is that the gist of it? Hamilton: Yeah, that's right. It's easy to imagine a mayor of a fancy suburban community who simply represents his constituents' views that the community already has enough people, you know, life there is good and so nothing needs to change. But, I don't think that you'd find a Governor that would say "Our state doesn't need any more people or economic growth." So the incentives are less in favor of homeowners, local homeowners, the further up you go from the local to state jurisdiction. Petersen: Right. I guess a big issue is that the people who would like to move somewhere but live somewhere else don't get to vote in that place's elections or in their ballot measures. And so there's this group that has an interest in lower housing costs because they might move to your city or your town, if they could afford it, but they're not represented politically in that city or town and so they can't vote for more housing and lower prices. But then when you go to the whole state level and people are mobile within a state, those people do have a say or they are represented and pricing them out of the places they'd like to live really is bad for politics, bad for getting their votes. Hamilton: Right. So the Palo Alto police officer can't vote to change Palo Alto's policies but he can vote to change California policy. Petersen: Right, because he still lives within California. So one of the other policy recommendations I saw in your paper is tax increment local transfers or TILTs. What are they and how can they impact land use restrictions? Hamilton: That's another idea that comes from David Schleicher and I think it's another really interesting concept. The idea behind TILT is that a new development increases the property tax base within a jurisdiction. So, if you have a neighborhood, say a block full of single family homes that is allowed to be sold to a developer in order to build a couple of large apartment buildings, each apartment is going to be less expensive than the previous single family homes, but overall the apartment buildings will contribute more to property tax. And the idea behind a TILT is that part of this tax increment---which is the difference between the new tax base and the previous smaller tax base---could be shared with neighbors to the new development to kind of buy off their support for the development. So, those people who are in some sense harmed by the new buildings, whether in terms of more traffic or a change in their neighborhood's character, also benefit from the new building financially. So they're more likely to support it. Petersen: So economists talk about Potential Pareto Improvements, where you have a situation where some people are made better off while other people are worse off, but you could have a transfer to make everyone better off. And what I'm hearing with TILTs is you actually do that transfer, you actually pay off the losers with some of the surplus you get from the winners. So everyone can be better off when you make this overall beneficial change. Hamilton: Exactly. And sometimes communities do use community benefit as a tool to try to get developers to share their windfall and build a new project with the neighborhood. So they might say, "you can build an apartment building here, but you also have to build a swimming pool that the whole neighborhood can use at this other location," and in a way that achieves the end goal of buying off community support for new development. But it also drives up the cost of the new housing that the developer can provide. So TILTs have the advantage of keeping the cost of building the same for the developer, but still sharing that financial windfall of the new development with a broader group of people. Petersen: Yeah, I really like these policy recommendations. It would be so easy to just say "land use restrictions are bad, let's not have those anymore." But these really have an eye to the political structures that we currently have and towards making progress within the structure we have. So I like that approach to policy or to policy recommendations. I think economists should maybe do that more often. Hamilton: Yeah, looking for a win-win outcome. Petersen: The one other one that I don't think we've talked about is home equity insurance, which sounds like a business plan more than a policy proposal. But how can home equity insurance help to reduce the costs of land use restrictions? Hamilton: That proposal also came from Bill Fischel a couple of decades ago following on his work of the Homevoters theory. He proposed the idea that the reason home owners are so opposed to new development is often because they have so much of their financial wealth tied up in this house that they're not just opposed to a loss in their investment, but even more so, opposed to risk. So they want the policies that they see will limit the variance in their home equity and he proposed home equity insurance as a financial goal that could lower this threat and provide homeowners with a minimum amount of equity that they would have regardless to the new development. I think it's a really interesting concept but it's unclear, would this be a private financial product? Obviously the market isn't currently providing it, or would it be some kind of government policy? And while I do think it's very interesting, I think that we should be somewhat leery of new government policies that promote homeownership as a financial wealth building tool. Petersen: Well, the funny thing is that usually with insurance, if you have fire insurance you want to minimize the moral hazard of that, you don't want people to say: "Well I've got fire insurance so I don't have to worry about fires anymore." But with this, you sort of want that, you have insurance on the value of your home and then actually your goal is to make people less worried about the value of their home so that they will be okay with policies that reduce it. It's almost the opposite of what you want with insurance most of the time. In this case you want to maximize moral hazard. Hamilton: Yeah that's a great point and I think that's why it could only be a government product. Petersen: Right. Because if the private sector was providing home price insurance to homeowners then the company that provided the insurance would now have an incentive to lobby against upzoning the neighborhood. Hamilton: Exactly. Yeah it would create a new a new group of NIMBYs. Petersen: Yeah, at first I thought 'Oh great!', well this is something that we can just do, without the government. You can just get a bunch of people together, who have an interest in making cities more livable and they can provide this financial asset. But that seems like there are problems with it that are hard to overcome within the private sector. So overall do you think the tide might be turning on the NIMBYs? Are people becoming more aware of this issue and of land use restrictions and their effects on housing prices? Hamilton: I do think awareness is growing. There's a group popping up called YIMBY which stands for "Yes In My Backyard" as opposed to the suburban NIMBY to say "Not In My Backyard" to any sort of new development. And these YIMBY groups are gaining some traction in cities like San Francisco and lobbying in favor of new development to counter the voices that oppose new development. I am somewhat pessimistic, I have to say, just because from a public choice standpoint the forces in favor of land use regulations that limit housing are so powerful. But in spite of my pessimism, I'm seeing since the time that I started working on this issue several years ago, much more coverage of the issue from all kinds of media outlets, as well as much more interest in on-the-ground politics from people who aren't in the typical homeowner category. Petersen: Yeah, and I am hopeful too. But I often see people blame other factors for high home prices. They blame the speculators. The speculators are always the ones that are pushing up home prices. And rarely, I think, do people blame restrictions, although the YIMBY movement is a happy exception to that. Hamilton: Yeah, I think way too often real estate developers are framed as the enemy in these debates because they're the ones who make money off building new housing. But it's really the regulations that are to blame both for the inordinate profits that developers can make in expensive cities, and for the high costs of housing. Petersen: Do you have any closing thoughts about land use restrictions? Hamilton: I think that it's just really important to try to spread the message about the costs that these regulations have. Not just for low-income people but for the whole country and world economic growth. That's obviously a cause that I would think everyone would be behind: creating opportunity for people to live in the most productive cities where they can contribute the most to society and to the economy. Petersen: My guest today has been Emily Hamilton. Emily, thanks for being part of Economics Detective Radio. Hamilton: Thanks a lot for having me.  

Today's guest on Economics Detective Radio is Nolan Gray. Nolan is a writer for Market Urbanism and the host of the recently launched Market Urbanism Podcast. Market urbanism is the synthesis of classical liberal economics and an appreciation for urban life. Market urbanists are interested in economic issues specific to cities, such as housing affordability and urban transportation. Nolan wrote an article titled "Reclaiming 'Redneck' Urbanism: What Urban Planners Can Learn From Trailer Parks." As Nolan points out, trailer parks are remarkable in that they achieve very high densities with just one- and two-story construction. They do so while providing remarkably low rents of between $300 and $500, or $700 to $1,100 per month to live in brand new manufactured homes. They are also interesting in that the park managers provide a form of private governance to their tenants. A century ago, there were many kinds of low-income housing available to people of lesser means. Low-quality apartments, denser housing, and boarding houses have largely been regulated out of existence. The remarkable thing about trailer parks is that they haven't been made illegal or untenable by regulation. The one thing trailer parks don't have is a mixture of uses, but they get around this by locating close to business areas. Cities in Europe and Japan, which didn't adopt American-style zoning, have much higher density and more mixed-use neighbourhoods. Houston, which has taken steps to de-regulate, has seen more development of this sort recently. It seems like dense, mixed-use neighbourhoods pass the market test whenever they are allowed. Sonia Hirt, in her book Zoned in the USA, explains why city planners became focused on separating uses. When these rules were first being adopted, industry polluted much more than it does today, so there was a health justification for separating them. But there were also superstitions, such as the idea that having children close to groceries would spread disease. William Fischel's homevoter hypothesis states that local homeowners engage in political activism to prevent development, thus protecting their home prices. They may justify their opposition to development in terms of environmentalism or preserving local character, but homeowners stand to gain or lose a significant portion of their life savings depending on the price of their homes. This makes local politics particularly hostile to new development and denser, more affordable housing. Meanwhile, people blame everything except land use restrictions for high housing prices. Foreign buyers have been a recent scapegoat in Vancouver, which adopted a tax on foreign buyers, thus popping its housing bubble. Airbnb is also blamed for high housing costs, though its effect is certainly negligible. While housing is important because it is many households' largest expense, inelastic housing supplies prevent people from moving for labour opportunities. Autor, Dorn, and Hanson (2016) show how many local labour markets in America never really recovered from a trade shock with China in the early 2000's. Much of this may have been due to America's inelastic housing supply. When industries like the furniture industry were outcompeted by Chinese imports, the people who owned homes in furniture-producing towns lost both their jobs and the value of their homes. With home prices elsewhere being so high, many of these people chose to spend the rest of their lives on welfare rather than moving to find work. Ed Glaeser has written more on the costs of subsidizing home ownership. Home ownership is a bad investment. Having a single, large asset take up a large part of one's portfolio is just bad investing, particularly when that asset's value is correlated with your labour earnings. While one can hedge one's home value against futures markets based on the Case-Shiller index, but few people do this. Errata: I accidentally referred to The Simpsons character Frank Grimes as Rick Grimes. Rick Grimes is from The Walking Dead. Also, I wrongly said that the paper on the China shock was by Angus Deaton. Somehow I mixed him up with David Autor. Same initials, just reversed? Other Links: Jane Jacobs as Spontaneous Order Theorist with Pierre Desrochers The California exodus to Texas is reflected in market-based, one-way U-Haul truck rental prices

Om en ständigt friare handel, som skulle göra alla rikare. Men har det blivit så? Hör röster från Degerfors, Chicago och Kumla om jobb på export, prylar på import och stoltheten i att tillverka en TV. Vi börjar i USA, med Rick, en pensionerad fabriksarbetare som Konflikts Ivar Ekman träffade utanför hans forna arbetsplats, kakfabriken Nabisco i utkanten av Chicago tidigare i år. Vi träffade också Donald Trump-väljare som är arga på Kina, som de menar rånar USA. Dessa väljare uttrycker kärnan av den fräna kritik som riktas mot frihandel i den amerikanska presidentvalskampanjen - en kritik som tog ett stort steg mot att omsättas i protektionistisk politik när Donald Trump blev Republikanernas enda presidentkandidat.Men USA - det är ju ett land som ju länge varit helt centralt i att driva på en öppnare världshandel. Varför har kritiken där blivit så hård? Har kritikerna en poäng med sin kritik? Ja, enligt helt färsk forskning från en grupp ekonomer ledda av den respekterade professorn David Autor på Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Politikerna har helt enkelt lovat något som inte varit sant. David Autor intervjuades av Brett Ascarelli.Vad säger då den amerikanska politiska ledningen om det här misslyckandet? Häromveckan fick Sverige storfint frihandelsbesök i form av Michael Froman, som är amerikansk USTR, US Trade Representative - en post som närmast kan översättas som handelsminister. Froman var framförallt i Stockholm för att träffa Cecilia Malmström på en konferens om frihandelsavtalet TTIP i LO-borgen, men gjorde också ett snabbt besök på ett företag i Hammarby Sjöstad, där vi fångade honom för ett kort samtal.Hur ser det då ut i Sverige? Vi kan inte garantera ett jobb i en specifik fabrik, men däremot måste vi garantera jobb, med hjälp av omställning och utbildning så säger den svenska handelsministern Ann Linde. Och få länder i världen sjunger frihandelns lov som man gör här. Men hur går det i praktiken? Är folk mer förbannade än vad etablissemanget här intalar sig? Konflikts Kristian Åström åkte till bruksorten Degerfors i Värmland.Gäster i studion är Christofer Fjellner, EU-parlamentariker för Moderaterna, och ekonomen och författaren Stefan de Vylder, som länge och på djupet betraktat och skrivit om världsekonomin.Programledare och producent: Ivar Ekman ivar.ekman@sverigesradio.seProducent: Kristian Åström kristian.astrom@sverigesradio.se 

David Autor of MIT talks with EconTalk host Russ Roberts about the fundamentals of trade and his research on the impact on workers and communities from trade with China. Autor's research finds large and persistent effects on manufacturing jobs and communities where those jobs once were. Autor and Roberts discuss whether these results capture the full impact of increased trade with China and what the policy response might be that could help workers hurt by trade.

Social Europe Editor-in-Chief Henning Meyer talks to MIT economist David Autor about the digital revolution and its limits on the transformation of work. In this episode you will learn why washing machines won't fly to the moon and why the digital revolution poses a much bigger challenge to emerging economies than to rich countries.

David Autor of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology talks with EconTalk host Russ Roberts about the future of work and the role that automation and smart machines might play in the workforce. Autor stresses the importance of Michael Polanyi's insight that many of the things we know and understand cannot be easily written down or communicated. Those kinds of tacit knowledge will be difficult for smart machines to access and use. In addition, Autor argues that fundamentally, the gains from machine productivity will accrue to humans. The conversation closes with a discussion of the distributional implications of a world with a vastly larger role for smart machines.

David Autor of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology talks with EconTalk host Russ Roberts about the future of work and the role that automation and smart machines might play in the workforce. Autor stresses the importance of Michael Polanyi's insight that many of the things we know and understand cannot be easily written down or communicated. Those kinds of tacit knowledge will be difficult for smart machines to access and use. In addition, Autor argues that fundamentally, the gains from machine productivity will accrue to humans. The conversation closes with a discussion of the distributional implications of a world with a vastly larger role for smart machines.

If you experience any technical difficulties with this video or would like to make an accessibility-related request, please send a message to digicomm@uchicago.edu. MIT’s David Autor examines what effect the amount of time that applicants for Social Security disability benefits spend waiting for their benefits to be approved has on applicants’ subsequent employment.

The Social Security disability program has seen a significant increase in costs and enrollment in recent years. The Trustees project that the program will be insolvent as early as 2016. This recent growth and the program’s looming insolvency have brought it increased attention and added urgency to calls for solutions. Cato senior fellow Jagadeesh Gokhale, Social Security Administration chief actuary Stephen Goss and leading scholars David Autor from MIT and Harold Pollack from the University of Chicago will provide their insights into the problems with the program’s current structure, causes of recent program growth, and prospects for reform. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Over the past several decades, advanced economies, especially the United States, have seen a striking rise in inequality. David Autor of MIT, argues that trend is driven by rapidly developing technology, which has made highly educated workers much more valuable, and which is pushing others out of jobs.

David Autor of MIT talks with EconTalk host Russ Roberts about the Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) program. SSDI has grown dramatically in recent years and now costs about $200 billion a year. Autor explains how the program works, why the growth has been so dramatic, and the consequences for the stability of the program in the future. This is an illuminated look at the interaction between politics and economics and reveals an activity of government that is relatively ignored today but will not be able to be ignored in the future.

David Autor of MIT talks with EconTalk host Russ Roberts about the Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) program. SSDI has grown dramatically in recent years and now costs about $200 billion a year. Autor explains how the program works, why the growth has been so dramatic, and the consequences for the stability of the program in the future. This is an illuminated look at the interaction between politics and economics and reveals an activity of government that is relatively ignored today but will not be able to be ignored in the future.