Podcasts about faculty research fellow

Vertical merger review has long rested on the principle that competitive harm is most likely when a merged firm has both the ability and incentive to foreclose rivals, yet courts and enforcers often struggle to establish that harm empirically. But can potentially anticompetitive vertical integrations be screened in advance using observable market characteristics? Charles Hodgson, Assistant Professor of Economics at Yale University and Faculty Research Fellow at the NBER, and Shilong Sun, Senior Economist at Compass Lexecon, join Anora Wang and Panos Dimitrellos to discuss how evidence from the Chinese film industry sheds light on when vertical foreclosure is likely to emerge, why downstream concentration and upstream product substitutability matter, and how these findings may inform modern merger review across industries ranging from movie theaters to digital platforms. Listen to this episode to learn more about how a practical screening framework for vertical mergers could help identify when foreclosure concerns are most likely to arise and provide enforcers and practitioners with a more evidence-based approach to assessing competitive harm. With special guests: Charles Hodgson, Professor, Yale and Shilong Sun, Dr., Compass Lexecon Related Links: Charles Hodgson bio Shilong Sun bio  Heterogeneity in Vertical Foreclosure: Evidence from the Chinese Film Industry  Hosted by: Panos Dimitrellos, Secretariat Economists and Anora Wang, Arnold & Porter

For many people, the FDA-approved drug class called GLP-1s has been a game changer for managing type 2 diabetes and weight loss. An estimated one in eight US adults is using this type of drug, which mimics a natural gut hormone to regulate blood sugar, slow stomach emptying, and suppress appetite. Researchers and the public have been scrutinizing the pros and cons of taking these drugs for many years. One critical question that remains is does the use of GLP-1s translate into lower medical expenses for consumers, healthcare providers, insurance companies, and the government? Today, we're speaking with Duke University health economist Jonathan Zhang on the answer to these questions from his multi-year study of veterans who use GLP-1s. The results are surprising. Interview Summary Jonathan, first, let's talk broadly. Would you briefly describe the kinds of health benefits people are experiencing with GLP-1s, particularly in terms of changes in behavior and overall health? Yes. So GLP-1s are medications that manage body weight and improve metabolic health. The primary health benefits are via better blood sugar regulation and weight loss via reducing appetite. But there's larger health benefits that are much broader. So, trials have also shown that they lower blood pressure, reduce strokes and heart attacks, among other cardiovascular benefits. Overall also improves, so things like obstructive sleep apnea, improvements in inflammation-related measures. And recently it was FDA approved to treat MASH, which is a form of fatty liver disease. Finally, people also report feeling less hungry. They get full faster, fewer cravings, and reduction in what is often called food noise, which can potentially help people make a range of better behavior decisions and changes relating to food and perhaps even beyond food. However, the evidence on that seems to be promising, but new and less strong. Thank you for sharing those. I know a lot of our listeners have heard some of those issues and some of those points about how GLP-1s could change the way we behave, and some of the health outcomes. So, let's dig into your particular study. In your working paper for the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) you and your co-authors describe a natural experiment involving patients and doctors in the Department of Veteran Affairs, and their access to and use of GLP-1s. Would you lay out the general parameters of your study for our listeners? Yes, absolutely. So, like many medications, what we know about GLP-1s primarily comes from randomized controlled trials, which have small sample sizes and often select for quite sick patients. As GLP-1s reach a broader population, the population becomes less pro-comparable to those in trials, so the real-world impacts become less obvious. Moreover, there are some outcomes such as healthcare utilization or spending costs that are incredibly important for policy but not directly studied in trials. We were interested in studying in a very large healthcare system, that is the VA, the Veterans Health Administration, the real-world impacts of GLP-1s using readily collected data from the healthcare system and a quasi-experiment. So that is we try to emulate a real experiment where some patients get GLP-1s from their primary care doctor and others do not. And the reason one patient might get it while the other doesn't is because their doctors differ in their likelihood or propensity to prescribe these drugs. And we focus on the Veterans Health Administration, the VHA, because the veteran population is quite diverse, at least in terms of comorbidities relative to the trials per se and also in age, say, compared to Medicare. And GLP-1s are provided in the VA to eligible patients at a pretty affordable cost. So, sort of a nice policy playground for us to think about what outcomes might look like when GLP-1s become readily available and affordable to all Americans. Great. Thank you for sharing that because now we have a good sense of the quasi experiment that you all were able to exploit. That there were providers who had a high tendency to prescribe GLP-1s versus those who didn't. And looking at that difference, you were able to see how GLP-1s may have affected the outcomes that you were interested in. So now tell us a bit about the findings, and I think there's some surprising results here. So, first we replicate many of the findings from the randomized trials for this diverse, veteran population. We see reductions in body weight, we see hemoglobin A1C blood glucose levels improve and blood pressure improvements as well. Even a reduction in heart attacks and strokes for patients with existing cardiovascular conditions, and even a small reduction in moderate drinking risk as well. The trial evidence seems to hold up in this large and diverse population of we have 1.4 million patients that we're studying. Second, despite these improvements though, we do not see a reduction in healthcare spending. This is actually excluding the cost of the medication, the GLP-1. It's not because GLP-1s are expensive. We're taking that out of the equation. Over four years, this is how long we're able to track these patients for, we're able to rule out reductions of more than 7% in healthcare spending. And we see no reductions in whether that's outpatient clinic or in inpatient hospitalization. We also don't see any reductions in emergency department visits more generally, despite seeing a reduction in heart attack and strokes for those patients with existing cardiovascular condition. Jonathan, that sounds great, but it's a little hard to understand. So why is it that you're seeing no real changes in the consumer healthcare spending? What's going on? Yes, we were a little surprised as well. We think there could be a myriad of potential reasons. But first, I want to note that there's also at least three other studies that use real-world data to look at a similar question, and all the studies find no statistically significant spending reductions. And in fact, all of us, we all find a slight positive increase. I think the first explanation is that while heart attacks and strokes are very expensive and obviously, very serious events, they are still thankfully quite rare and thus are not very common in our three to five-year period in which these studies are looking at. But perhaps over ten or twenty years, you could start seeing some healthcare spending materialize. I think that's totally possible. Most cost projection models, whether that's from the CBO or other organizations, they project healthcare spending reductions to accumulate over time. But these models also project immediate spending reduction, which is not yet supported by the data. Another potential explanation is what I would call these behavioral responses. So, you can imagine that a patient sees some improvement in their health, and that changes their expectation of, "Oh, wow, I could actually make some changes to my health." And they actually go and get some more care. This can also be driven by the physician as well. So, sort of, "Look, things are working. This patient's seeing improvements. Maybe we should treat some of your other health problems and issues." This is what I would call sort of a behavioral response. A third explanation could be that some of these patients have conditions that have progressed to be irreversible even with metabolic health gains. So, for example, late-stage kidney disease would be a good example. We find some suggestive evidence that this might be happening in our study. In other words, for these patients where they have some potentially irreversible health conditions, the metabolic health improvements - that's not a primary reason for their healthcare spending. This is helpful. That explains why we're seeing some of these challenges with healthcare spending. And I appreciate your point of taking a longer view may actually reveal some differences. And also, the responses of doctors and patients to the benefits that they gain and how that might expand opportunities for healthcare. So, thank you for sharing that. I want to shift focus a little bit. And it is taking a step beyond the paper, but I think it's a natural extension of the work. As you know, I'm an agricultural economist, and I've been interested in obviously food policy issues. And the fact that we're seeing weight loss, the fact that we're seeing better management of A1C suggests that there's something probably happening with food consumption and food patterns. I'd be interested to learn from you if you have any ideas about what this work suggests about the impact of GLP-1s on consumer food choices. Yes, I think there's a fair amount of both trial and real-world grocery purchase evidence that GLP-1s are impacting consumer food choices. In the randomized trials, GLP-1s reduce, calories consumed, reduce the desire to eat sweet, salty, and savory foods and high fat fast foods in their meals. For example, these trials will look at what people eat for lunch. In real world data, there's a study out of Denmark that found that after patients' first GLP-1 prescription, their grocery store purchases went on to have fewer calories, sugars, saturated fats, carbohydrates, and more protein over the one-year period after they initiate GLP-1s. The share of ultra-processed foods also decreased. The effects were actually quite modest, so there was only about a one percent reduction in calories and a four percent reduction in sugar and a five percent increase in protein in the year after versus the year before in this Danish study. In the US, there's a similar study using kind of this transactional level data as well. And they find that households after they start GLP-1s also reduce caloric intake, fast food consumption, caloric dense processed foods. And there it's a little larger in the US by about five to ten percent. Then the question is, you know, are they shifting towards healthier foods or is it sort of a uniform reduction in calories across all different food classes? And there the evidence is a little less strong. There's some evidence that consumers are shifting towards healthier foods, but if that is the case, the shift is quite small. In both the Danish and the US study, it's roughly looking like a level shift for all different categories. And this is also in terms of not food so much anymore, but there's also been studies looking at alcohol consumption, which has been very interesting and promising. There's a phase two study pilot trial with only forty-eight participants, but the randomized control trial found that among patients with existing alcohol use disorder GLP-1s led to a reduction in the average number of drinks per day. No change in the number of days drinking, but conditional on drinking, the average number of drinks per day declines in the treatment group that get GLP-1s. And then for out of the 48 patients that are also smokers, there's also a reduction in smoking as well in that population. So, very promising early evidence there as well. Jonathan, this is critical information, and I know some colleagues in the Ag econ profession, folks like Brian Roe, Tim Richards and Glenn Townsend have also worked in this space, and some of the work is showing some issues around the quality of protein or overall food spend is going down. And the choices or the responsiveness of people to prices when it comes to proteins. There's some evidence, some causal evidence to suggest GLP-1s are changing the way people are even looking at food markets. And so that raises a really important issue. If consumers are changing when they're exposed to GLP-1s, I have got to imagine that the food industry, grocery stores, food manufacturers, restaurants are making some adjustments. What have you to say on that particular point? So, we're both economists, right? We both, of course, believe that producers and grocery stores are adjusting to demand. We do know a lot less about how the supply side is adjusting compared to the demand, and that's because there's just less data and fewer studies on patients. There's more data and more studies on patients and consumers than on grocery stores and restaurants. I've seen a lot of anecdotal evidence, often reported in the mainstream media or reports from various market research agencies that GLP-1s are having this large impact on the food industry. I've seen claims like GLP-1s are hurting Walmart sales or why are beer company sales down, like AB InBev, and range into things like why restaurants are reducing their portions or recently I actually also saw over the past couple weekends claims of why Coachella portions are smaller because everyone's on GLP-1s. So, the best estimates from last year are that one in eight Americans are using GLP-1s. And if each of these users are cutting back in consumption by 5% to 10%, as in those studies, it's totally plausible this leads to a large population reduction that the food industry just cannot ignore, right? I think it's important to note a couple things. First is that the long-term adherence of GLP-1s is generally quite low, with more than 50% discontinuing within a year in most of the studies I've seen in the US. And after discontinuation, most of these patients will gain back a large fraction of their weight. And in that US groceries transactional study I told you about, they find that after discontinuation, purchases at fast food, grocery, restaurants, et cetera, they go up beyond baseline, in fact. So, beyond six months prior to when they were on GLP-1s. It's still an open question to whether these 5% to 10% individual consumption reductions will become long-term and manifest in the population level, especially if adherence is not very high. Second is that up until very recently, there's been a very strong demographic and socioeconomic profile of these GLP-1 users, right? So, they tend to skew near elderly and also a little bit more female, and generally fall in the middle- or higher-income brackets because previously Medicaid, for example, did not cover GLP-1s, right? Until earlier this year. And it still does not cover it for many states. So, any food industry changes will likely be concentrated in the restaurants and the food chains that sort of have these consumer demographic and economic base. That's something to keep in mind. Certainly, there are examples like, you know, Smoothie King has introduced a GLP-1 smoothie. But even in these clear-cut cases where the producer is clearly trying to appeal to this demand shock, it's still very difficult to disentangle the producer's stated intent from general industry market trends, right? So, general trends like rising cost of living. There's been more demand for protein. You can see protein in everything now, right? Even water. Rise in sort of small plates or family-style tapas at restaurants. Feels like every restaurant's doing this now. Or for example, a decline in alcohol consumption or interest in alcohol consumption, especially among young people around the world. I think some of this is certainly happening. Producers are listening, but it's hard to disentangle the general trends from a specific GLP-1 impact. I'm grateful for you taking some of the hype out of this and thinking through carefully what the economic implications are of this change and recognizing that there's some real important context that people don't stay on these drugs for long. Or there are certain types of folks who are more likely to use them, and therefore we can't assume that there's this massive wave of change that's going to happen, but that there are some responses. These are important ways of framing this discussion. I have one final question. Based on what you're seeing now with the use of GLP-1s and considering their use over time, what would you say is the key takeaway for policymakers? I think there are a few takeaways. Most importantly, I think policy makers should think about the rapid change in profile of patients who are using this drug. Just because it's beneficial for sick patients doesn't necessarily mean it's going to be equally as beneficial for patients who are less sick. One of the findings in our paper is that as the veteran population that starts to initiate GLP-1s in the more recent years, these patients actually are healthier, so their treatment effects are not quite as strong as those who were initiated in the very early period who in our setting were among the sicker veterans. Policy makers shouldn't extrapolate the potential benefits to a broader population since there's so much demand for this drug, right? This also means that some of the downstream improvements like cost savings or even improved labor outcomes like absenteeism or being able to return to work, while these things might seem logical, it's not fair to assume that it's going to be automatic, especially at a population level. Related to that last point, we should encourage additional research on important socioeconomic outcome that might completely change the calculus of the cost benefit of these drugs, right? So, labor force participation, earnings, use of government transfer programs like disability insurance, even some interesting patterns of household formation and fertility. These are all fascinating and important questions. However, it is imperative to note that GLP-1s already have incredible health benefits for many people. While it's possible that these benefits might spill over to broader societal benefits, these benefits should not be presumed. And at the same time, we shouldn't be holding GLP-1s to a higher standard, say, to reduce healthcare spending or increase earnings just because we know that it does a bunch of wonderful things for a range of conditions. So, maybe it does this and this as well, and suddenly we're less excited if there's no evidence of that and that, right? These things have incredible health benefits. Let's appreciate them for that, and we shouldn't be holding them up to a higher standard just because it appears to do so many wonderful things. BIO Jonathan Zhang is a health economist at the Sanford School of Public Policy at Duke University and the Margolis Institute for Health Policy. He is a Faculty Research Fellow at the National Bureau of Economic Research and an evaluator at the Department of Veterans Affairs. He researches how policy can improve mental health and substance use outcomes using quasi-experimental methods.

In this episode, we talk with Tal Gross about new teaching techniques. Tal is a Professor in the Department of Markets, Public Policy & Law at Boston University. He is also a Faculty Research Fellow at the National Bureau of Economic Research. His research focuses on health insurance and household finance.In this book, Tal shares about his new book “Better Health Economics”, which you can buy through Bookshop.org, Amazon, or the publisher's website.They are also giving out slides, exams, and active-learning exercises to instructors. If you are teaching health economics – or know someone who is – they can provide the materials.Tal talked about his latest publication in economics just appeared in AER: Insights, and it's joint work with Tim Layton and Daniel Prinz.We talked about how to structure our day and refer to this article on Non-technical summary of decision fatigue.We also talked about how interruptions affect your work, and here is the George Mason study on interruptionsWe also talked about how writing is important and references the article: “One learns through the act of writing itself.”The Elite IllusionWe also talked about an easy way to improve student evaluations: Cookies improve student evaluationsAnd two articles that argue against student evaluations One and TwoHere is a Great summary of active-learning methods in STEM classesAwesome PNAS paper: active-learning method is more effective but feels less effectiveIn addition, Tal has put together A list I put together of resources on active-learning exercisesWe talked about ModLab, which provides a number of great active learning resources.Tal's recommendation of the week is to get a stopwatch, which is useful for setting a time to work, cooking, and many other things!Alex's recommendation of the week is the book “Teaching Statistics: A bag of tricks” by  Andrew Gelman  (Author), Deborah NolanSebastian's recommendation of the week is Ommwriter, a minimalist and relaxing writing appSebastian Tello-Trillo is an Assistant Professor of Public Policy and Economics at the Frank Batten School of Leadership and Public Policy at the University of Virginia.Alex Hollingsworth is an Assistant Professor of Economics at the O'Neill School of Public and Environmental Affairs at Indiana University.Henry Morris is our main editor. He is a student at the University of Virginia studying computer science and mathematics.

Using AI in healthcare comes with a lot of promise - but access to data, lack of clarity about who will pay for these tools and the challenge of creating algorithms without bias are holding us back. In 2023, TIME named Dr. Ziad Obermeyer one of the 100 most influential people working in AI. As a professor at UC Berkeley School of Public Health, and the co-founder of a non-profit and a startup in the AI healthcare space, his work centers on how to leverage AI to improve health and avoid racial bias. We discuss:The idea of a safe harbor for companies to discuss and resolve AI challengesHow his company Dandelion Health is helping solve the data log jam for AI product testingWhy academics need to spend time “on the shop floor”The simple framework for avoiding AI bias he shared in his recent testimony to the Senate Finance Committee Ziad says without access to the right data, AI systems can't offer equitable solutions: “I think data is the biggest bottleneck to these things, and that bottleneck is even more binding in less well-resourced hospitals… When we look around and we see, ‘well, there are all these health algorithms that are in medical journals and people are publishing about them'. The majority of those things come from Palo Alto, Rochester, Minnesota [and] Boston. And, those patients are wonderful and they deserve to have algorithms trained on them and learning about them, but they are not representative of the rest of the country – let alone the rest of the world. And so, we have these huge disparities in the data from which algorithms are learning. And then those mirror the disparities and where algorithms can be applied.”Relevant LinksDr. Obermeyer's profile at UC Berkeley School of Public HealthZiad Obermeyer's testimony to the Senate Finance Committee on how AI can help healthcareMore about Nightingale Open ScienceMore about Dandelion HealthArticle on dissecting racial bias in algorithmsArticle On the Inequity of Predicting A While Hoping for B. AER: P&P 2021 (with Sendhil Mullainathan)About Our GuestDr. Ziad Obermeyer is the Blue Cross of California Distinguished Associate Professor of Health Policy and Management at UC Berkeley School of Public Health. His research uses machine learning to help doctors make better decisions, and help researchers make new discoveries—by ‘seeing' the world the way algorithms do. His work on algorithmic racial bias has impacted how many organizations build and use algorithms, and how lawmakers and regulators hold AI accountable. He is a cofounder of Nightingale Open Science and Dandelion Health, a Chan Zuckerberg Biohub Investigator, a Faculty Research Fellow at the National Bureau of Economic Research, and was named one of the 100 most influential people in AI by TIME. Previously, he was...

In June 2023, Sharat Ganapati, an Assistant Professor of International Economics at Georgetown University and a Faculty Research Fellow at the National Bureau of Economic Research, and Woan Foong Wong, Assistant Professor of Economics at the University of Oregon, wrote a research paper that was published in the Journal of Economic Perspectives. Titled How Far Goods Travel: Global Transport and Supply Chains from 1965-2020, the paper takes a new look at global transportation. Unlike traditional trade metrics, which often fail to reflect the role of distance, they examine transportation usage worldwide by weight and value as well as distance.  In this episode of the Art of Supply podcast, Kelly Barner takes on the rewarding challenge of digesting the key findings expressed in this highly relevant academic paper:   How transport use has changed since 1965 How transport costs have changed What the combination of the two, and other associated factors, mean for the future of supply chain efficiency and resilience Links: Read: How Far Goods Travel: Global Transport and Supply Chains from 1965–2020 Kelly Barner on LinkedIn Art of Supply LinkedIn newsletter  Art of Supply on AOP Subscribe to This Week in Procurement  

Economist and Harvard Kennedy School Professor Joe Aldy says  possibly the most complex—and one of the most existentially important—problems facing humanity is how to pull out the roots of fossil fuel infrastructure that are so deeply embedded in the global economy. The work is complex and the scale is immense; In fact it's been said that transitioning the global economy from fossil fuels to sustainable sources will require the largest reallocation of capital in human history. Meanwhile Russia's invasion of Ukraine and its willingness to weaponize oil and natural gas distribution was a sign to many that the green energy transition will be bumpy and buffeted by geopolitical crises and the domestic politics of countries around the world. Joe Aldy is here to help us swap our rose-colored glasses for a clear-eyed vision of what the future holds for the economics of climate.Joe Aldy is a Professor of the Practice of Public Policy at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, a University Fellow at Resources for the Future, a Faculty Research Fellow at the National Bureau of Economic Research, and a Senior Adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. He is also the Faculty Chair for the Regulatory Policy Program at the Mossavar-Rahmani Center for Business and Government. His research focuses on climate change policy, energy policy, and regulatory policy. In 2009-2010, Aldy served as the Special Assistant to the President for Energy and Environment, reporting through both the National Economic Council and the Office of Energy and Climate Change at the White House. Aldy was a Fellow at Resources for the Future from 2005 to 2008 and served on the staff of the President's Council of Economic Advisers from 1997 to 2000. He also served as the Co-Director of the Harvard Project on International Climate Agreements, Co-Director of the International Energy Workshop, and Treasurer for the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists before joining the Obama Administration. He holds a PhD in economics from Harvard University, a Master of Environmental Management degree from the Nicholas School of the Environment, and a BA from Duke University.Ralph Ranalli of the HKS Office of Public Affairs and Communications is the host, producer, and editor of HKS PolicyCast. A former journalist, public television producer, and entrepreneur, he holds an AB in Political Science from UCLA and an MS in Journalism from Columbia University.The co-producer of PolicyCast is Susan Hughes. Design and graphics support is provided by Lydia Rosenberg, Delane Meadows and the OCPA Design Team. Social media promotion and support is provided by Natalie Montaner and the OCPA Digital Team. 

Johanna Bard Richlin, Anthropology and 2020–21 Faculty Research Fellow. Why do migrants become more deeply evangelical in the United States and how does this religious identity alter their self-understanding? In the Hands of God examines this question through a unique lens, foregrounding the ways that churches transform what migrants feel. Drawing from her extensive fieldwork among Brazilian migrants in the Washington, DC, area, Johanna Bard Richlin shows that affective experience is key to comprehending migrants' turn toward intense religiosity, and their resulting evangelical commitment. The conditions of migrant life—family separation, geographic isolation, legal precariousness, workplace vulnerability, and deep uncertainty about the future—shape specific affective maladies, including loneliness, despair, and feeling stuck. These feelings in turn trigger novel religious yearnings. Evangelical churches deliberately and deftly articulate, manage, and reinterpret migrant distress through affective therapeutics, the strategic “healing” of migrants' psychological pain. Richlin offers insights into the affective dimensions of migration, the strategies pursued by evangelical churches to attract migrants, and the ways in which evangelical belonging enables migrants to feel better, emboldening them to improve their lives. Looking at the ways evangelical churches help migrants navigate negative emotions, In the Hands of God sheds light on the versatility and durability of evangelical Christianity.

A Faculty Research Fellow at the Harvard Graduate School of Education, Eric S. Taylor, joins Paul E. Peterson to discuss Taylor's latest research, which demonstrates how evaluation programs that reward teachers for student performance leads to higher performing teachers. The paper, "Employee Evaluation and Skill Investments: Evidence from Public School Teachers," is available at NBER.org. https://www.nber.org/papers/w30687

This episode of the Matrix Podcast features an interview with Adriana D. Kugler, the World Bank Group Executive Director for the United States. Dr. Kugler was appointed by President Biden and confirmed by the Senate in May 2022. She is the first Latinx person and first Jewish woman to be appointed to this position since the foundation of the World Bank in 1944. She is also a proud UC Berkeley alumna who graduated with a PhD in 1997. Prior to joining the WBG Board, Dr. Kugler had a long and distinguished career in research and policy as a development and labor economist. Her contributions on the impact of government policies and regulations on labor markets were recognized with the 2007 John T. Dunlop Outstanding Scholar Award from the Labor and Employment Relations Association, and with the 2010 First Prize for Best Contribution in the area of “Globalization, Regulations and Development” from the Global Development Network. Dr. Kugler has also served in high-level leadership roles in the public and private sectors. She was Chief Economist at the U.S. Department of Labor between 2011-2013. Dr. Kugler was Professor of Public Policy and Economics (2016-2022), and Vice Provost for Faculty (2013-2016) at Georgetown University. She was Chair and Chair-elect of the Business and Economics Statistics Section of the American Statistical Association in 2020 and 2019, respectively; was a member of the Board on Science, Technology and Economic Policy (STEP) of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (2019-2022); and served in the Technical Advisory Committee of the Bureau of Labor Statistics (2016-2019). She was an elected member of the Executive Committee of the European Association of Labor Economists (2003-2009) and of the Executive Committee of the Latin American and Caribbean Economic Association (2015-2019). Dr. Kugler serves on the Audit Committee (AC) and Committee on Development Effectiveness (CODE). Kugler received her Bachelor of Arts degree from McGill University in 1991, graduating with first class joint honors in economics and political science. This interview was conducted by Danny Yagan, Associate Professor of Economics at UC Berkeley, who is on leave as Chief Economist of the Office of Management and Budget. Yagan was a Faculty Research Fellow of the National Bureau of Economic Research, a Faculty Associate of the Berkeley Burch Center for Tax Policy and Public Finance, and Faculty Co-Director of the Taxation and Inequality Initiative of the Berkeley Opportunity Lab. Learn more about Social Science Matrix at https://matrix.berkeley.edu.

Protecting and preserving competition are the key objectives of U.S. antitrust laws, which are all phrased as prohibitions: on agreements "in restraint of trade," of mergers and acquisitions where the effect "may be substantially to lessen competition, or to tend to create a monopoly," and on "unfair methods of competition." In a July 2021 Executive Order, the Biden Administration directed agencies to pursue 72 specific initiatives to tackle what are seen as our most pressing competition problems. Will these initiatives enhance the role of competition, or are they instead initiatives that would replace the outcomes of competitive markets with regulatory requirements? Both views have strong champions and well-articulated views. A distinguished panel joined us to lay out the arguments and implications of these important policy choices.Featuring:- Neil Averitt, Opinion Columnist, FTC:Watch- Howard Beales, Professor Emeritus of Strategic Management and Public Policy, School of Business, The George Washington University- Robert Bork, Jr., President, Antitrust Education Project- Ioana Marinescu, Associate Professor, School of Social Policy & Practice, University of Pennsylvania and Faculty Research Fellow, National Bureau of Economic Research- [Moderator] Jane Luxton, Managing Partner - Washington, D.C., Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLPVisit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

In this episode, we talk with Julian Reif about setting up a research project folder for best replications purposes. Julian is an Assistant Professor of Finance and Economics at the Gies College of Business at the University of Illinois. He is also a Senior Scholar at the Institute of Government and Public Affairs and a Faculty Research Fellow at the National Bureau of Economic Research. His research focuses on health policy evaluation and the value of health and longevity. Professor Reif received his Ph.D. in Economics from the University of Chicago and his BA from Vanderbilt University. In this episode, we go over how to set up a research project folder structure. We follow the guide that Julian has on his page. [https://julianreif.com/guide/#folder-structure]. This is a great guide to follow for structuring all your projects. I usually have an "empty" project folder, and every time I start a new project, I copy and rename that folder for my new project. We also have a companion video tutorial on how to do this, in which you can follow step-by-step how to do it. [https://youtu.be/KUtxJyauQ-o] Sebastian Tello-Trillo is an Assistant Professor of Public Policy and Economics at the Frank Batten School of Leadership and Public Policy at the University of Virginia. Alex Hollingsworth is an Assistant Professor of Economics at the O'Neill School of Public and Environmental Affairs at Indiana University. During the episode, we talk about Julian's paper on teenage driving and mortality risk. You can find that paper here https://julianreif.com/research/reif.wp.driving.pdf Recommendations of the week Julian's recommendation of the week is to listen to a podcast while you exercise! His two recommendations are (1) Conversations with Tyler and (2) Mindscape. https://conversationswithtyler.com and https://www.mindescapepodcast.com Alex's tip of the week is to use code snippets when writing in latex and sublime text. Basically ways of automating annoying tasks. You can check out examples here: http://www.peterhaschke.com/workflow/2013/05/08/SLT2-Snippet.htmlFor example, you can type `fig` then hit tab and all the code to create a figure with a centered graphic will replace the `fig` text you typed, with your cursor in the place to add the appropriate file path. Sebastian's recommendation of the week is to use the text-replacement app Autohotkey. This app allows you to map any keyboard combination to an action or other words. For example, I type "-zoom" for my personal zoom link, and my zoom link appears. https://www.autohotkey.com --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/hidden-curriculum/message

Right now, 26.3 million workers are either on unemployment or waiting to be approved for unemployment benefits. But for many of these jobless workers, the clock is running out on their eligibility to receive unemployment — and with no stimulus bill in sight, we could be entering a grim new phase of this recession. What will happen to the economy when unemployment insurance runs out? What will happen to the people who rely on those benefits? Economist Ioana Marinescu helps Nick and Goldy understand what the near-future of unemployment benefits looks like in the U.S.  Ioana Marinescu is an assistant professor at the University of Pennsylvania School of Social Policy & Practice, and a Faculty Research Fellow at the National Bureau of Economic Research. She studies the labor market to craft policies that can enhance employment, productivity, and economic security.  Twitter: @mioana Show us some love by leaving a rating or a review! RateThisPodcast.com/pitchforkeconomics  Further reading: Emergency unemployment programs will expire at year’s end, putting millions at risk: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/11/business/emergency-unemployment-programs-will-expire-at-years-end-putting-millions-at-risk.html  Policy Basics: How many weeks of unemployment compensation are available?: https://www.cbpp.org/research/economy/policy-basics-how-many-weeks-of-unemployment-compensation-are-available  30 weeks into the COVID-19 pandemic and workers desperately need stimulus: https://www.epi.org/blog/30-weeks-in-to-the-covid-19-pandemic-and-workers-desperately-need-stimulus/  Unemployment insurance and job search behavior: http://www.marinescu.eu/publication/marinescu-unemployment-2020/  You can’t afford to live anywhere in the United States solely on unemployment insurance: https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/news/2020/09/10/490265/cant-afford-live-anywhere-united-states-solely-unemployment-insurance/  With millions of people out of work, the Senate’s inaction is not only cruel, it’s bad economics: https://www.epi.org/blog/with-millions-of-people-out-of-work-the-senates-inaction-is-not-only-cruel-its-bad-economics/  Scraping by on benefits and part-time work, but a cutoff looms at year’s end: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/29/business/scraping-by-on-benefits-and-part-time-work-but-a-cutoff-looms-at-years-end.html  How America gave up on fighting the pandemic and saving the economy: https://www.vox.com/21523204/coronavirus-unemployment-stimulus-economy  8 million have slipped into poverty since May as federal aid has dried up: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/15/us/politics/federal-aid-poverty-levels.html  Pelosi sends letter to Secretary Mnuchin on areas still awaiting responses from White House: https://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/102920  Slowdown in jobs added means we could be years away from a full recovery: https://www.epi.org/press/slowdown-in-jobs-added-means-we-could-be-years-away-from-a-full-recovery/  Exclusive: America’s true unemployment rate: https://www.axios.com/americas-true-unemployment-rate-6e34decb-c274-4feb-a4af-ffac8cf5840d.html  Young workers hit hard by the Covid-19 economy: https://www.epi.org/publication/young-workers-covid-recession/  Website: http://pitchforkeconomics.com/ Twitter: @PitchforkEcon Instagram: @pitchforkeconomics Nick’s twitter: @NickHanauer

Tune in this week for a deep dive into the Organizational Behaviour and Human Resource Management Department at Rotman. Professor Nouman Ashraf is an award-winning faculty member whose expertise intersects innovation, inclusion, and strategy within organizations, and is the Director of Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion at Rotman. Professor Kang is a Canada Research Chair in Identity, Diversity, and Inclusion at the University of Toronto Mississauga with a cross-appointment at Rotman, a Faculty Research Fellow at the Institute for Gender & the Economy, and is the Chief Scientist at Rotman's Behavioural Economics in Action.

As the nation struggles to get back to some type normalcy, the reality is that we will see further shutdowns as we head into the winter months.   It’s impossible to forecast the full economic and financial impact of the pandemic, but we do know that many people are unlikely to return to normal work and economic consumption patterns anytime soon.  It’s also anticipated that  household and business defaults will likely increase and negatively affect the financial sector.   Joining the podcast to explain the federal government’s response and potential future intervention is Angela Vossmeyer, Assistant Professor of Economics at Claremont McKenna College and a Faculty Research Fellow at the National Bureau of Economic Research.  Dr. Vossmeyer’s research interests include econometrics, simulation-based inference, financial economics, financial crises, and economic history.

Sport in the Royal Dockyard in this week's podcast brought to you by the British Society of Sport History in association with the Institute of Historical Research with Dr Melanie Bassett, who is a Research Fellow at the University of Portsmouth, where she manages the PTUC (port Towns & Urban Cultures) website. Mel talked to Geoff about a paper she gave at the IHR that was based on her PhD research into the sport and leisure activities of civilian employees in the Royal Dockyard in Portsmouth in the Edwardian period, including the incorporation of female workers during World War 1. Mel's work means that she is very active in public history, acting as a consultant on projects at Portsmouth City Museum, as well as helping to set up other public history projects in Portsmouth, and she talks about the judgements one has to make being an academic historian working in a public history environment. As part of this work she talks about the Portsmouth contribution to Supernatural Cities and DarkFest, whose app was going live on the day that the podcast was recorded. Dr Melanie Bassett is a Faculty Research Fellow at the University of Portsmouth. She manages the PTUC website and social media outputs alongside undertaking her own research on port towns. Her PhD research, 'The Royal Dockyard Worker in Edwardian England: Culture, Leisure and Empire' re-examined the concept of a monolithic imperial identity and tracked the nuances of working-class imperialism.

Christian Catalini is Chief Economist of the Libra Association, on leave from MIT, and a Faculty Research Fellow at NBER. Dante Disparte is vice chairman and Head of Policy and Communications at the Libra Association, and currently serves as an appointee on the FEMA National Advisory Counsel. Matthew Davie is the Chief Strategy Officer at Kiva, a non-profit organization dedicated to financial inclusion for the world's most vulnerable populations, where he oversees corporate strategy, emerging tech development, and policy and regulatory engagements. He is also a board member of the Libra Association.

Physician economist Anupam B. Jena advances the understanding of what works and what does not work in health care by using “natural experiments” and big data. He studies phenomena such as the economics of physician behavior and the physician workforce, health care productivity, and the economics of medical innovation. Bapu is the Ruth L. Newhouse Associate Professor of Health Care Policy at Harvard Medical School, an internist at Massachusetts General Hospital, and a Faculty Research Fellow at the National Bureau of Economic Research. He is the 2007 recipient of the Eugene Garfield Award by Research America for his work demonstrating the economic value of medical innovation in HIV/AIDS. In 2013, he was the first social scientist to win the NIH Director's Early Independence Award. His research and editorials have been featured in the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Freakonomics, and NPR. He is also co-host of the podcast, Tradeoffs, which aims to make sense of the complicated, costly, and often counterintuitive world of health care. He spoke at TEDMED 2020 in Boston. Kali D Cyrus holds a BA in Psychology from Stanford University, an MPH in health policy & management from Emory University and an MD from the University of Illinois at Chicago. She completed her adult psychiatry residency training and served as a public psychiatry fellow at the Yale School of Medicine. Kali is currently an assistant professor in the Department of Psychiatry of Johns Hopkins School of Medicine. She worked on Capital Hill from 2017- 2018 as a health policy fellow in the Office of Senator Chris Murphy and was a Jeanne Spurlock congressional fellow.  View her recent work: How Racism is Causing Black and Latinx Communities to Die of COVID-19 at Higher Rates on NowThis News  

Do traditional biometric screening and incentive-based wellness programs have any meaningful effect on the physical health of employees? Today’s guest, Julian Reif, Associate Professor of Finance and Economics at the University of Illinois, is a principal investigator on the Illinois Workplace Wellness Study and is here to discuss the study’s answer to that question. In addition to his associate professorship, Julian is also a Senior Scholar at the Institute of Government and Public Affairs and a Faculty Research Fellow at the National Bureau of Economic Research. His research has been supported by the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation. This episode breaks down their research findings based on a two-year randomized controlled trial. Julian explains the set up of the study, including why randomized control trials are preferable to observational research design, which many other wellness studies are based on. He walks us through the study’s primary findings in the second year of data collection and the most important concepts for us to take away. This episode is sponsored by Workplace Money Coach. The effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on employees’ financial lives has been dramatic. It runs the gamut from severe hardship as a result of job loss to excessive cash flow surpluses due to limited spending opportunities.  Whatever our employees’ financial situation might be during these uncertain times, Workplace Money Coach is here to help them stay on track to meet their financial life goals.  In order to serve your employees in a safe and healthy way, Workplace Money Coach has launched the Living Paycheck to Purpose program as a virtual option with a focus on maintaining the group discussions and thought-provoking activities that make their program dynamic.  Now, your employees can engage in your wellness offerings and stay on top of their financial goals from the safety and convenience of their home office.  As a bonus to their Living Paycheck to Purpose virtual program, Workplace Money Coach is offering Redesigning Wellness listeners a complimentary coaching session for all participants of the program so employees can get individualized attention for their financial situation. Just mention that you heard about the program through the Redesigning Wellness Podcast.  You can learn more about Workplace Money Coach’s financial empowerment program at www.workplacemoneycoach.com. Schedule a call to see if the Living Paycheck to Purpose program is right for your employees. For links mentioned in today's episode visit: http://bit.ly/Redesignpod To join the Redesigning Wellness Community visit: https://www.facebook.com/groups/rdwellnesscommunity/

Prof. Amanda Starc, Associate Professor of Strategy at the #Kellogg School of Management and a Faculty Research Fellow at the National Bureau of Economic Research (#NBER) inaugurates the first ever IIMA-CMHS Virtual Healthcare Research Seminar Series 2020-21 with a seminar on her paper on “Mortality Effects and Choice Across Private Health Insurance Plans”. Session moderated by #IIMA #ICICIBank Chair, Chairperson of #CMHSIIMA, Prof. Chirantan Chatterjee.

Most of us like to think that we use data to inform our decision-making process and path forward, but there's one challenge. It's possible and quite common that we seek out data to validate what we already believe. That's called confirmation bias. In speaking with Alex Edmans, a TED and Davos speaker, rigorous academic researcher and Professor of Finance at the London Business School, he argues that confirmation bias can lead us down the wrong path in business and in life, and provides ways to counteract this automatic human tendency. Alex’s research has been covered by the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, and The Economist, among others and he was interviewed by some of the most respected television channels like Bloomberg, BBC, CNBC, and CNN just to name a few. In addition, as the author of Grow The Pie: How Great Companies Deliver Both Purpose and Profit, Alex outlines actionable and evidenced-based ways for organizations to upgrade their leadership and drive the company into an empowering growth paradigm where everyone wins. Tune in to learn about: What is confirmation bias How you can effectively deal with confirmation bias as to elevate your leadership skills What the next era of business will look like (hint: all stakeholders win) The importance of learning soft skills in school and in business About the book Grow The Pie: How Great Companies Deliver Both Purpose and Profit   Connect with Alex Edmans: Linkedin Twitter Website TED Talk Alex Edmans' biography: Alex Edmans is Professor of Finance at London Business School and Academic Director of the Centre for Corporate Governance. Alex graduated from Oxford University and then worked for Morgan Stanley in investment banking (London) and fixed income sales and trading (New York). After a PhD in Finance from MIT Sloan as a Fulbright Scholar, he joined Wharton in 2007 and was tenured in 2013 shortly before moving to LBS. Alex’s research interests are in corporate finance (corporate governance, executive compensation, investment/growth/innovation, and M&A), behavioural finance, corporate social responsibility, and practical investment strategies. He has published in the American Economic Review, Journal of Finance, Journal of Financial Economics, Review of Financial Studies, and Journal of Economic Literature. He is Managing Editor of the Review of Finance, Associate Editor of the Journal of Financial Economics, a Research Fellow of the Centre for Economic Policy Research, and a Fellow of the European Corporate Governance Institute. He was previously Associate Editor of the Review of Financial Studies and a Faculty Research Fellow of the National Bureau of Economic Research. He won the Moskowitz Prize for Socially Responsible Investing, the FIR-PRI prize for Finance and Sustainability, the Investor Responsibility Research Centre prize, and the WRDS Award for Best Empirical Finance Paper at the WFA; was a finalist for the Smith-Breeden Prize for best paper in the Journal of Finance; and was named a Rising Star of Corporate Governance by Yale University and a Rising Star of Finance by NYU/Fordham/RPI. Alex’s research has been covered by the Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, New York Times, The Economist, and The Times; and interviewed by Bloomberg, BBC, CNBC, CNN, ESPN, Fox, ITV, NPR, Reuters, Sky News, and Sky Sports. Alex has spoken at the World Economic Forum in Davos, testified in the UK Parliament, presented to the World Bank Board of Directors as part of the Distinguished Speaker Series, and given the TED talk What to Trust in a Post-Truth World and the TEDx talk The Social Responsibility of Business. He has written op-eds for the Wall Street Journal and Financial Times, writes regularly for Harvard Business Review, Huffington Post, World Economic Forum, and CityAM, and runs a blog, Access to Finance, that aims to make complex finance topics accessible to a general audience.

We're featuring a series this month called “2019: A Look Ahead” and continue with a look at the real estate markets. Mortgage interest rates are easing after rates passed five percent in 2018 for the first time in eight years, making consumers uncertain about either buying a new home or refinancing an existing loan. But at the same time, changes in the tax law hit mortgage interest deductions, home equity loans, and property tax deductions with a new state and local tax limit of $10,000. To further examine these effects, host Dan Loney talks with Susan Wachter, Professor of Real Estate and Finance at The Wharton School and Co-Director of the Penn Institute for Urban Research, and Benjamin Keys, an Assistant Professor in Wharton’s Real Estate Department, as well as a Faculty Research Fellow at the National Bureau of Economic Research. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Business Radio Special: The Great Recession: What's Changed in 10 years Part 1On September 15, 2008, Lehman Brothers declared bankruptcy which sent the stock market tumbling. The problems that started in the US soon spread to Europe. Several European nations, including Greece, Italy, Portugal and Spain, faced austerity to deal with their debt, and still face issues today. Wharton Finance Professor, JOAO GOMES, and ERIK JONES, Director of European and Eurasian Studies, Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies, join us to discuss how the European Union dealt with the recession and its lasting impact. Then, Iceland was the textbook case of the global banking crisis. Back then, the three biggest banks in Iceland had assets that were 14 times the national economic output of the country. At the height of the crisis Iceland's debt was close to 100% of GDP. Today that number is 24.1%. We look at how the country recovered and the risks it still faces with PHILIP NICHOLAS, Wharton Professor of Social Responsibility in Business and Professor of Legal Studies in Business, and THORVALDUR GYLFASON, a University of Iceland Economics Professor. Next, after Lehman Brothers collapsed and the stock market plunged, Congress passed a $700 billion bailout bill to save the US financial system. Corporations deemed "too big to fail" got help. President George W Bush and, after his inauguration in January. 2009, President Barack Obama worked with Congress on new regulations for financial institutions, including the Dodd-Frank Act. Wharton Legal Studies and Business Ethics professors PETER CONTI-BROWN and DAVID ZARING join us to discuss how the banks recovered from the recession and where things stand now with regulations. Finally, one of the most significant parts of the financial crisis in the US was the housing bubble. Banks were making home loans often without down payments to people who couldn't afford them. When the bubble burst, millions ended up in foreclosure and various metropolitan areas around the country, like Las Vegas, Modesto and Fort Meyers, found themselves in dire economic times. Rules were changed to make it a lot more difficult to qualify for a mortgage, with more stringent requirements on down payments. We look at the housing crisis and how things look today with SUSAN WACHTER, Wharton Professor of Real Estate and Finance, and BENJAMIN KEYS, Wharton School Real Estate professor and Faculty Research Fellow at the National Bureau of Economic Research. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Since we are starting the week with a holiday, I thought we could do something a little different. I have interviewed a lot of fascinating guests over the years ranging from the CIO of IBM to the Chief People Officer at McDonald’s to the CHRO at Allstate and many, many others. And towards the end of most of my interviews I ask the guest to give us some advice in the area of their expertise. We have received a lot of great advice over the years and so I thought it would be fun to compile a full episode of advice from past podcast guests. I hope you find it interesting and helpful, there are some great tips and thoughts in these clips. The first clip is from my interview with bestselling author Jon Gordon. Our conversation for this episode revolved around his newest book, The Power of Positive Leadership. The section that I chose from this interview was when Jon gave us 3 key principles to focus on from his book in order to help us be more positive leaders and transform our organizations. His three key points were, talk to yourself instead of listen, focus on the fact that we create our world inside out, not outside in, and the importance of grit.   The second clip I chose for this week is from David Deming, the Professor of Public Policy, Education and Economics at the Harvard Graduate School of Education and a Faculty Research Fellow at the National Bureau of Economic Research. In our conversation we talked a lot about the future of education, the current economy and skills needed for employees of the future. He had advice for both leaders and entry level employees. One piece of advice he gave to leaders was, “don’t be afraid to take a chance on somebody who doesn’t come from the standard background but who could potentially be a good fit for a position that you’ve got going on. Because I do think that in this world of constant technological change and uncertain measures of employee productivity, it’s easy for good people to fall through the cracks” One topic that is really timely at the moment is privacy and security in our increasingly connected world. So I chose a clip from my interview with Dr. Alissa Johnson (aka Dr. J), the Chief Information Security Officer at Xerox. In the clip you will hear her tips and tricks on how to protect ourselves in this connected world. As she mentions in the clip, the advice may seem simple, but they are all things most people are not currently doing. I also chose a few clips with advice on people analytics because it is another hot topic nowadays. The two clips that I chose are from Natalie McCullough, the General Manager of Workplace Analytics and My Analytics at Microsoft and David Green, the global director of people analytics solutions at IBM Kenexa Smarter Workforce. Part of Natalie’s advice was to, “really start on this journey with a sense of transparency and growth mindset. So, approach the data with the very open question of “what can I learn from this data?”. A bad way to start is to start with a fairly defensive mindset, which I’ve also seen.” David gave some advice that was simple and straight to the point. “In terms of how can organizations get on with this...I mean honestly, just start”, David said, “Read up on it, be inspired by what other people are doing, don’t copy them necessarily, but be inspired.”    When I interviewed Seth Godin, author of 18 bestselling books, speaker and founder of altMBA he gave us advice on what entry level employees can do to bring more passion into their careers and be more successful at work. He said, “I think it’s really important that we get this perspective and begin to take responsibility, that we never, ever say, “Well, I have student loans and a family to support and bills to pay, therefore, I will sacrifice my life and my future by doing braindead work that I don’t believe in, half-assed and waiting it out”. Because what are you waiting it out for? When will you stop waiting it out?” Other clips that I included in this podcast mashup are from the Chief People Officer at McDonald’s, the Co-CEO at Gensler, the Senior Economist and Team Leader of the Labor Market Trends and Policy Evaluation Unit at the ILO, author of The Coaching Habit, and author of MegaTech: Technology in 2050.

David Deming is the Professor of Public Policy, Education and Economics at the Harvard Graduate School of Education and a Faculty Research Fellow at the National Bureau of Economic Research. His research focuses broadly on the economics of education, with a particular interest in the impact of education policies on long-term outcomes other than test scores. Before becoming a professor at Harvard, David attended Berkeley and Ohio State University where he was trained as an economist. He has always been motivated by policy oriented questions and how economics can affect the real world. When asked if there is a skills gap, Deming indicated that if you look back to the job market 30 years ago organizations would hire people with few skills but then they would invest in those people to train them on the job. They were willing to take a chance on the new graduates. Now, the jobs are more fluid, employers don’t want to pay to train employees and then have the employees leave a short time later. So we have people graduating from school without skills but people aren’t willing to invest in them - we don’t have the ‘connective tissue’ to pull the two together. One idea, Deming pointed out, is to develop a European style of building durable partnerships between universities and employers to bridge the skill gaps. They can share the cost and effort. On the topic of Universal Basic Income, Deming said it has some ‘appealing aspects’, and it is transparent and easy to understand. He also maintains that it does not discourage work and in fact, has some appealing aspects. People talk about it as a solution of the ‘technological unemployment’ (which Deming does not think will happen). Everyone gets the base amount of money – so if you want to earn a lot of money then this won’t help. It is different than welfare. Welfare is a work disincentive because we only will give it to you if you are poor. Universal Basic Income goes to everyone regardless of the amount of money they have. Deming gave some advice to organizations. He says, don’t be afraid to take a chance on somebody who doesn’t come from the standard background - but might be good a fit for you. His advice for individuals is to try to be good at two things that are not common together. For example, a good coder who is also good social skills will be in demand and provide more opportunities.     What you will learn in this episode: What David sees for the future of higher education and whether or not traditional education institutions will exist in the future The 90/10 gap in incomes The role of AI and its impact on future jobs Future job skill sets needed What schools should be doing and whether or not they should look like a workplace What skills should we learn in school and how quickly will they be obsolete David’s view on the skills gap

In this War on Poverty Conference presentation, Sarah Reber discusses the history and legacy of Title 1, the 1965 legislation which sought to improve academic achievement among disadvantaged youth. The Center for Poverty Research hosted the conference at UC Davis on Jan. 9 and 10, 2014. Reber is an Associate Professor of Public Policy in the UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs and a Faculty Research Fellow at the National Bureau of Economic Research.

In this War on Poverty Conference presentation, Douglas Miller discusses research on Head Start and evaluates some recent study findings. The Center for Poverty Research hosted the conference at UC Davis on Jan. 9 and 10, 2014. Miller is an Associate Professor of Economics at the University of California, Davis, a Faculty Affiliate of the UC Davis Center for Poverty Research and a Faculty Research Fellow for the National Bureau of Economic Research.