POPULARITY
2 episodes with u curve
2 episodes with u curve
3 episodes with u curve
2 episodes with u curve
Success leaves clues, and today we dive deep into the mindset of Art Lewin, a renowned bespoke tailor and entrepreneur who built his empire from the ground up.
On this episode, Ted and Patrick discuss Manchester United firing manager Erik ten Hag. They run down why he had to be fired, Ruud van Nistelrooy as interim manager, and potential names for the job. Then, Ravi joins Patrick to discuss Barcelona's 4-0 victory over Real Madrid over the weekend. They talk about Barcelona's high line causing problems for Madrid, Madrid lacking a holding striker, and if Barcelona can maintain this form for the rest of the season. Enjoy!Subscribe to our FREE newsletter: https://www.thetransferflow.com/subscribeJoin Variance Betting: https://www.thetransferflow.com/upgradeFollow us on our Socials:YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCe1WTKOt7byrELQcGRSzu1QX: https://x.com/TheTransferFlowInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/thetransferflow/TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@transferflowpodcastTimestamps:00:00:00 - Intro00:00:47 - United sack Erik ten Hag00:01:31 - Ruud van Nistelrooy interim manager00:01:45 - Manchester United's recent form00:04:14 - Trends for United00:04:39 - Could they be better with a better coach?00:05:39 - What a good and bad manager change process looks like00:07:24 - The U Curve of coaches00:10:18 - Could ten Hag's hurt United?00:10:56 - Dan Ashworth's limited early influence00:11:53 - Who should United hire?00:12:39 - Pochettino and Tuchel already have jobs00:13:28 - Could van Nistelrooy stay on?00:14:29 - Gareth Southgate00:15:27 - Ruben Amorim00:15:54 - How do budgets play into the new hire decision?00:17:51 - Xavi as next United manager?00:20:05 - Luis Enrique00:21:12 - Graham Potter00:23:09 - Eddie Howe00:24:24 - Mourinho was the most pragmatic of recent United coaches00:25:05 - Michael Carrick00:28:44 - Adi Hutter00:30:57 - Bournemouth manager Andoni Iraola?00:31:47 - Thomas Frank00:34:08 - The ability of a manager to get player buy-in00:35:41 - Roger Schmidt and his pressing style00:37:44 - Julian Nagelsmann00:39:44 - Should United settle for the least costly option?00:40:53 - The stress of managing/working for a team00:41:38 - Ravi joins to talk El Clasico00:42:46 - The game was closer than the score and Barca's impressive workload00:44:33 - Madrid's gameplan was to be direct00:45:19 - Was Fermin Lopez the correct choice?00:46:06 - The technical ability on display00:46:46 - Substitutions settled the game for Barca00:47:55 - Casado's line-breaking pass for Goal #100:48:52 - The high line was very impressive00:50:11 - Lucas Vazquez struggled00:53:14 - Who should be blamed for Madrid?00:54:46 - Madrid struggle with a pivot and where was Endrick?00:56:52 - Bellingham's lack of forward threat00:58:52 - Can Barcelona sustain this performance?01:02:06 - Mbappe moving to the right side?#manchesterunited #realmadrid #barcelona #manutd #eriktenhag #elclassico #football #soccer #podcast Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
The word most associated with midlife is crisis, but this week I suggest a new word – chrysalis. I delve into the challenges and opportunities of midlife and how we can see our middle years as something more than a crisis to navigate. I speak about the ‘U-Curve of Happiness,' make the case for pro-aging and how mid-life gives us an opportunity to explore an encore career, a chance to harness our experience and align our profession with our passions.
Mike C-Roc welcomes Bernie Borges, the founder of the Midlife Fulfilled Podcast, for an insightful discussion on navigating midlife and finding fulfillment. Bernie shares his journey of discovering the difference between happiness and fulfillment, drawing from his own experiences and the findings of the U-Curve of Happiness Study The conversation delves into the misconception surrounding midlife, with Bernie offering his perspective on the three midlife seasons and how each stage presents unique opportunities for growth and fulfillment. He emphasizes the importance of self-awareness and confronting personal challenges head-on to avoid succumbing to a midlife crisis. As Bernie discusses his vision for the future, including his upcoming Midlife Fulfilled Report 2024 and plans for speaking and consulting, Mike highlights the significance of Bernie's insights and supports Bernie's endeavors. Listeners are encouraged to explore Bernie's Midlife Fulfilled podcast and connect with him on LinkedIn and Instagram to continue learning and engaging with his valuable insights on midlife fulfillment. Join Mike C-Roc and Bernie Borges as they unravel the complexities of midlife and inspire listeners to embrace the journey toward fulfillment. Website: https://midlifefulfilled.com/ Social Media Links/Handles: https://www.instagram.com/bernieborges/ https://www.linkedin.com/in/bernieborges https://www.linkedin.com/company/midlife-fulfilled-podcast
Home Designs for Life: Remodeling ideas to increase safety, function, and accessibility in the home.
Jeff Weiss, founder and CEO of Age of Majority, discusses the power of active agers in his TEDx talk. He emphasizes the importance of embracing aging and living a vibrant, active life. Jeff dispels misconceptions in marketing campaigns targeted at older adults and highlights the value they bring to various sectors, such as the workforce and community service. He also emphasizes the significance of focusing on physical and mental health for overall well-being. Jeff encourages individuals, including the younger generation, to prepare for aging and remove the fear of getting older.TakeawaysEmbrace aging and live a vibrant, active life.Challenge misconceptions in marketing campaigns targeted at older adults.Focus on physical and mental health for overall well-being.Prepare for aging and remove the fear of getting older.Chapters00:00 Introduction00:29 About Age of Majority01:21 Inspiration for the TEDx Talk04:30 The U-Curve of Happiness08:35 Learning New Things and Acquiring Experiences15:39 Misconceptions in Marketing21:38 Importance of Physical and Mental Health25:31 Productivity of Active Agers29:29 Preparing for Aging35:37 Embracing Aging41:17 Future TalksTed X Talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P07DPDptUvQSupport the showwebsite: https://homedesignsforlife.com/Email: homedesignsforlife@gmail.com
Today's guest is Dr. Tobias Esch. He is a primary care physician, pioneer in holistic general medicine, and expert in the neurobiology of happiness. He shaped mind-body medicine and integrative health in Germany and as Visiting Professor at Harvard Medical School. He has published more than 300 scientific works. His background is in primary care, neurobiology, and positive psychology and his work focus has been on promoting good health, patient activation and behavior change. In this interview we dive into his Happiness Model, and what he calls the U Curve of happiness which is both surprising and fascinating. The good news is that happiness can be shaped through practice. Life satisfaction and happiness are both deep feeling states, but he defines them differently. His wisdom is cultivated through a rich blend of neuroscience, medicine, positive psychology, mindfulness, gratitude, stillness, and acceptance. He believes in listening deeply and connecting with his patients to uncover what might be beyond the obvious.
Lecture by Swami Tyagananda, given on April 16, 2023, at the Ramakrishna Vedanta Society, Boston, MA.
Part 11 of 12, of Season 5: ‘The Myth of Failure an Re-framing of Risk.' The first time we've discussed ‘The U-Curve of Certainty', a theory about nature, chance, risk, truth, predictions, generalisations and prescriptions, which helps us cut through the b.s. of life and wasteful planning. In contrast, we get clarity about what we can control and believe in. For the write up of this idea go to the blog: https://withjoewehbe.com/2022/11/11/explaining-the-u-curve-of-certainty/ For the rest of the series head to Youtube, Spotify, Apple or wherever you get your podcasts. FOR IMPORTANT UPDATES JOIN THE DOORMAN NEWSLETTER: https://thedoorman.substack.com/ only highly important updates, at this rate 4-5 emails per year. I hate email newsletters. For more on me check out https://withjoewehbe.com/everything-joe/ I ENCOURAGE YOU TO REACH OUT FOR A CONVERSATION: If you're open for a no-agenda conversation, for no particular reason, submit a bit about yourself to The Constant Student: https://www.constantstudent.com.au/ EPISODE SUMMARY: 0:00 The U-Curve Idea 12:00 The importance of long-term, open-ended dreams 16:00 Why there are no degrees in investing 20:00 Apply to Complex Systems, Don't Control. 27:00 Using the U-Curve without living in your head 32:00 Apply fundamentals, not tactics 42:00 Using U-Curve to find romance, learn sales, learn anything
Dr. Katharine Esty has had a long and distinguished career as a social psychologist, psychotherapist, consultant, and author of four books, including Eightysomethings: A Practical Guide to Letting Go, Aging Well, and Finding Unexpected Happiness. She joins us this week to share more of her personal story and the wisdoms she has gained over her 87 years, much of which informed the accessible and important content of this book. You can learn more about Katharine at https://www.katharineesty.com/ Support the showHave comments or questions for us? Interested in sharing your story on Aging Well? Please send your information and questions to Hugh via email at willowwaycreations@gmail.com or through any of our social media links on our website, findingbeautyinthegray.com. We'd love to hear from you and appreciate your feedback. Leaving feedback on your podcast host site (Apple, Spotify, etc.) is the single most important and effective way for us to stay viable and to continue to bring you great stories and helpful resources. And if you are enjoying the show and getting value from our topics and guests, we would most welcome your financial support. Producing a quality resource does require appreciable financial investment. Thank you!
Here's another gem from the podcast archives in our summer season. Ashton Applewhite is an author, speaker and anti-ageism activist. I discovered her work about six years ago and have been quoting her daily ever since. Ashton got a standing ovation when she did a main stage Ted talk called Let's end ageism. She was invited to speak at the UN. Her book is amazing: This Chair Rocks, A Manifesto Against Ageism. She's my ultimate mentor when it comes to everything I now believe about ageing and gendered ageism. In this amazing interview we talk about: How Ashton never had a life plan or knew what she wanted to be Why we worship youth in Anglo-Saxon cultures The lack of products and services for older people How we often don't like to identify as being in midlife or older How facing the ageing monsters is useful How fears about ageing are totally out of proportion to reality Our attitudes towards ageing affect how we age The U-Curve of Happiness How midlife is a time of reckoning How ageism starts between our ears How we need to be more generous towards each other and ourselves When we compete to stay young we reinforce ageism, sexism and the patriarchy How raising consciousness about ageing and ageism is key Why we should be able to compete for 100% of the seats at any table How to stop reinforcing the shame associated with ageing Being aware of intersectionality when considering prejudice The importance of language relating to age Ashton's knees and not blaming non-age-related issues on age Continuing the movement And more! If you enjoyed this episode, please subscribe, share it and leave us a 5* review on iTunes or wherever you're listening. Order the ebook or audiobook (narrated by Rachel) versions of Rachel's book, Magnificent Midlife: Transform Your Middle Years, Menopause And Beyond at magnificentmidlife.com/book The paperback can be purchased on Amazon or other online retailers: UK US & Canada Australia You can listen to other episodes and get the show notes to every podcast at magnificentmidlife.com/podcast. The podcast is recommended by the Sunday Times and we're #3 in best midlife podcasts worldwide on Feedspot. You'll find strategies, support, and resources to help make your midlife magnificent at magnificentmidlife.com. Check out Rachel's online Revitalize Experience, a 6-week intensive small group mentoring experience or find out about 1-1 Midlife Mentoring on your schedule. You can also join our monthly online Membership which is packed full of courses and workshops to help you get the messy stuff sorted, so you can thrive not just survive in midlife and beyond. Follow Rachel on: Facebook | Instagram | Linkedin | Twitter | Pinterest | Youtube | Tiktok
This is part 2 of 2 of the two-part series with Professor Andrew Oswald. You will find Part 1 in our list of episodes. In this episode, you'll learn about: What the happiness U-Curve is. How comparison negatively impacts happy people. The importance of normalizing the psychological low experienced in middle age. Our favourite quotable moment: “It is normal to feel low, and you will recover.” Andrew Oswald (9:18) “Investing in friendship networks is surprisingly powerful in helping well-being.” Andrew Oswald (15:56) --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/virginactiveaustralia/message
Trigger warning: The episode contains content about suicide. Please contact your local suicide prevention or emergency services if you need to talk to someone. Is the "mid-life crisis" a real thing? In this engaging episode with Andrew Oswald, he shares insights from his many years as a Professor of Economics and Behavioral Science and researcher of what it means to be happy. He has been at the forefront of studying human happiness for over 30 years. Tune in as we discuss the psychological low in middle age and the art of happiness throughout the lifespan. In this episode, you'll learn about: What the happiness U-Curve is. How comparison negatively impacts happy people. The importance of normalizing the psychological low experienced in middle age. Our favourite quotable moments: “Even for the regular citizen, they can experience a low period of life in the mid to late forties, though it will get better.” Andrew Oswald (8:18) "Colleagues and I have shown that great apes also exhibit evidence of a mid-life low." Andrew Oswald (16:32) Resources: Andrew Oswald - Website *This is part 1 of a two-part series. Once released, you will find Part 2 in our list of episodes right next to this one. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/virginactiveaustralia/message
Dr. Ellen Albertson, podcast & radio host, and author of Rock Your Midlife: 7 Steps to Transform Yourself and Make Your Next Chapter Your Best Chapter is with us to talk all things midlife and how to successfully deal with our own unraveling during this time.She shares so many great pieces of wisdom and advice including:What midlife for women actually is.. The meaning of self-compassion and why it's important.The difference between the midlife crisis for men and women.What the midlife breakdown looks like for women and why.How the world used to view midlife vs. how the world looks at it now.Why some women choose to stay comfortably uncomfortable.What we need to do to start rocking our midlife.An explanation of the U-Curve of happiness.The importance of why you should treat yourself like a good friend.Where the changes need to happen.I hope you have enjoyed this episode today. Remember to go out and get a copy of Ellen's book to get starting on rocking your midlife and tune into her show on Radio America every Wednesday from 2-3 EST or at a later time on all podcast streaming platforms.She can be found on instagram: http://www.instagram.com/the_midlife_whispererOn Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ellenralbertsonOn the internet: https://themidlifewhisperer.com/Her Book: https://www.amazon.com/Rock-Your-Midlife-Transform-Yourself/dp/1956592016/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1653078770&sr=8-1&_encoding=UTF8&tag=llmcshane-20&linkCode=ur2&linkId=89b9710d33d643a0f7671ef7ff515a68&camp=1789&creative=9325You can find me here:Website & Blog: https://llmcshane.comInstagram: http://www.instagram.com/lesleylmcshaneTNOY Private Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com/groups/thenewoldyou/Join my newsletter: https://landing.mailerlite.com/webforms/landing/d9l0z0Make sure to head to this link to RATE and/or REVIEW this podcast: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-new-old-you-with-lesley-mcshane/id1549596974And don't forget to check out Laura Leigh's podcast "Joyfully Raising Grands" on all streaming platforms. https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/joyfully-raising-grands-light-love-laughter/id1582666293?i=1000538745845Till next week - Care care of each other and especially of yourself!LLM
In this episode, Prof. Vincent Geloso of George Mason University discusses historical US income inequality, the "U-Curve", and whether our thinking about income inequality should be reconsidered in the face of new evidence.
Hola Masala, in this episode, we discuss the culture shocks (U-curve model) we faced in our time in the US. We talk about the feelings we had in the different phases of being in a foreign country. In this season, we will share our experiences of being in the US, the CCI Program, and more. We hope you find value and tag along with us for more such episodes on Relationships, Cultures, and our experiences in Life! Head over to our YouTube channel for Spanish subtitles; Instagram & TikTok for cool social content; and email us with your comments or just to say Hi! through this link: https://linktr.ee/masalaofcultures Nandri, Vanakkam! :)
Welcome to Season 2 of our podcast! We're excited to kick off new episodes of our podcast with amazing guests and more great information about caregiver wellness and well home design. For 2022, Caregiving Club has chosen a theme of “The Year of Living Colorfully.” This theme connects to the 7 elements of our Me Time Monday Wellness Edit and as always we have another wellness hack at the end of our podcast episodes with this episode focused on the 7 Yellow Brick Roads to Happiness. We also have two great guests on this episode: 1. Since we're talking about happy new year and creating happiness in life – author and clinical psychologist, Joan Neehall, PhD is here to talk about her new book, “Happy Is the New Healthy”. Joan shares insights from her book including: time affluence and how to use it for caregiver self-care; how to bookend your day with happiness, the Matthew Effect, how to avoid the social media scorecard and how happiness is about what we manufacture not about what we acquire. 2. Our second guest is a national expert on financial wellness and since January is Financial Wellness Month we could not think of anyone better than Cindy Hounsell of WISER (Women's Institute for a Secure Retirement) to tell us how we can achieve wellness in our financial lives. Cindy also talks about a new tool from WISER for caregivers called the Caregiver Financial Hub – you won't want to miss this important information. Caregiving Club On Air podcast host, Sherri Snelling, also reports on Caregiver Wellness News including: Gallup's Annual Survey on Global Happiness, the U-Curve of Happiness research, the merger of Headspace and Ginger to form a $3 billion mental health company, the Viagra-Alzheimer's connection, and the Blue Zones of Happiness book ending with some pop culture happiness news. She also reports on the latest in Well Home Design news and costs of care at home for Financial Wellness Month as well as the 2022 Home Design Trends that make sense for caregivers and older adults.
A wise approach when we want to adopt a new methodology, technology or simply a new practice in a project team, is to identify and compare in advance the advantages and disadvantages of its use. Every time such analysis shall be carried out taking into account the context in which it will be adopted. "Which are the benefits of implementing the practice X in my team?", "What are the main risks for my project in the conditions of implementing the methodology Y?", "Which is the learning curve of the technology Z and how will it impact the deadlines?" - these are just a few examples of questions we ask ourselves (together with our team) prior to making a decision. The unexpected trap of this process is that we usually try to fully benefit from the advantages of the methodology/technology/practice we implement and most of the time we exaggerate in this respect. The Yerkes-Dodson law (known also as "Inversed U Curve theory") gives an interesting perspective in approaching all these practices. Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDdizZdS1Kc (Software Project Management | S2E01 | Inverted U Curve and Agile Development)
Studies have shown that happiness over the course of life is shaped like the letter U.
This podcast is about making the most of the collective gap year that we’re all living through right now. It's a topic that applies to anyone, of any age, but our focus is on those in midlife and older. So today, to kick off 2021, Debbie talks to the perfect guest, Ashton Applewhite. Ashton is an author, speaker and activist on the topic of ageism, which can be defined as discrimination on the basis of age (no matter how old or how young you are). She's been called a pro-aging radical and the "Malcolm Gladwell of ageism." She and Debbie really get into it in this wide-ranging conversation with Ashton poking and prodding at some of Debbie's assumptions. The topic of ageism (or any -ism) brings up a lot of emotion. Fear is generally at the top of the list so they talk about the fear of getting old and what that means in America. They talk about the value of human lives and why older people are often seen as less valuable or even invisible. And they delve into how the pandemic has revealed the deep well of ageism in our society. They also talk about the irony of being ageist yourself, of unconsciously accepting the notion that old is ugly. (Debbie is 69 and Ashton is 68.) Ashton reminds us that studies like the U-Curve of Happiness show older people are happier. They end the conversation with Ashton offering one thing you can do to combat ageism: become aware of when you’re using the word “old” as a negative vs. “young” as a positive. Think about that while you're listening to this provocative episode. Mentioned in this episode or useful:Ashton’s website: This Chair RocksHer book: This Chair Rocks: A Manifesto against Ageism by Ashton Applewhite (Celadon Books 2019)Ashton’s website challenging the stereotypes that segregate us by age: Yo, Is This Ageist?Ashton’s Anti-Ageism Clearinghouse: https://oldschool.info/Ashton on Twitter: https://twitter.com/thischairrocksAshton’s 2017 TED talk: Ashton Applewhite: Let's end ageismDefinition of intersectionalityAge justice requires disability justice—and vice versa by Ashton Applewhite (Changing Aging, August 18, 2020)Rather than identifying as old, young or middle-aged, be an “old person in training” instead by Ashton Applewhite (TED Ideas, April 26, 2019)Robert Butler, the gerontologist who coined the term “ageism”Anne LamottThe World Health Organization: A global campaign to combat ageism Note from DebbieI hope you enjoyed this podcast! We are asking our loyal listeners (and new ones too) to show their support by leaving a short review on Apple Podcasts. It takes less than sixty seconds, and it really makes a difference in attracting new listeners and upcoming guests. I might read your review on my next episode!How to learn more about the podcastSign up for my newsletter (you'll also get my free writing guide) at http://eepurl.com/qGTPConnect with me:Twitter: @debbieweilInstagram: @debbieweilFacebook: @debbieweilLinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/debbieweilEmail: thegapyearpodcast@gmail.com- Debbie WE ARE LOOKING FOR A SPONSORIf you are interested in reaching a smart and thoughtful audience of midlife, and older, listeners, contact Debbie Weil. Media PartnersNext For MeEncore.orgMEA Support this podcast:Leave a review on Apple Podcasts: it will help us find a sponsor! If you are interested, contact Debbie WeilSubscribe via Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Stitcher or Spotify Credits:Host: Debbie WeilProducer: Far Out MediaPodcast websiteMusic: Lakeside Path by Duck Lake
We want to thank our listeners for the feedback they’ve provided. It’s helped us make the show we have today and we’re working to make each show count. In this first part of Episode 4, Kevin surprises Eric with a personal note on why he’s creating the Felt Pod. We discuss the amazing Midnight Gospel on Netflix and the Duncan Trussell Family Hour podcast created by Duncan Trussell, a comedian from LA. We get deep into discussing grief including how Eric dealt with it earlier in his life. Kevin provides a perspective based on the love and nurturing his family gave him growing up. There’s a lot to unpack. Midnight Gospel on Netflix https://www.netflix.com/title/80987903 Duncan Trussell Family Hour Podcast https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/duncan-trussell-family-hour/id350580455 The Real Roots of Mid-Life Crisis (this is a good overview of the U-Curve of Satisfaction we discuss) https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/12/the-real-roots-of-midlife-crisis/382235/ Psychoanalysis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychoanalysis Lyra Health https://www.lyrahealth.com/ Psychology Today https://www.psychologytoday.com/us
Though there is a lot of talk about diversity in the workplace, “age diversity” is often overlooked. Might there even be an emerging mission-critical role for wise elders in the world’s most cutting-edge tech companies? Hospitality maverick and Airbnb Strategic Advisor Chip Conley joins Igor and Charles to discuss the U-Curve of happiness, the surprises and challenges of mentoring billionaire CEOs and State Governors, the potential of intergenerational housing, the emergence of a new generation of wisdom workers, and his new project to build the world’s first midlife wisdom school - The Modern Elder Academy. Igor seeks new solutions for the stressed 'sandwich generation', Chip highlights the importance of curiosity at work and how mentoring and interning often go hand-in-hand, and Charles picks Chip’s brain on how to make wisdom more hip and sexy. Welcome to Episode 27. Special Guest: Chip Conley.
Today we’re talking about what a midlife crisis might teach us. I had a great, and uplifting, conversation with Jacqueline Kerr. We talk about conscious parenting, why the question “what do I want?” is so difficult, and how her relationships improved after a midlife crisis. We also talk about why it’s important that our kids see us struggle and the prevalence of gender bias, especially in academia. Jacqueline has some interesting advice for anyone dealing with a loved one with Alzheimer’s that left me a bit teary. Jacqueline Kerr has lived all over the world and attended boarding school from the age of 10. She started her career in advertising, but wanted to use her persuasion skills for something with more purpose, so she got a PhD in physical activity promotion. She came to the US in 2004 for a postdoc, with no intention to stay, but ended up meeting her husband. She got her first professor job after writing a successful grant while on maternity leave. Jacqueline became a full professor in 2017 and got a $10 million grant, but it felt meaningless at the age of 45 and she left it all a just over a year later. Jacqueline is currently running a grant writing consultancy, hosting a midlife podcast, looking after her two kids who are 6 & 11, and taking improv classes – she’s still on the journey, but is not tethered to a life that was no longer working for her. For similar episodes, check out: #27 - My friend Jo felt like she wasn’t where she expected to be at 40. #30 - Catherine Schweikert said the traumas in her life caught up with her body in midlife. #21 – Barb Dvoracek realized that she was no longer having “firsts” and talks about the U-Curve. Be sure to connect with me on social media to stay abreast of everything coming in 2020. I’d love to know how I can support you on your journey, so send me an email or leave a comment on any the episode on the website, which you can find at www.fortiesstories.com. I’ll also tell you how to connect with Jacqueline and find her podcast in the show notes. If you are enjoying the show, please share it with a friend and get a conversation started. Thanks for listening and your support!
Episode 105 - the U curve of sadness
Vi befinner oss visst i uppåtkurvan på the happy U-curve, bara att njuta nu då?!... Vi får också en lektion i människans fortsatta utveckling och egogubbar i tyska bilar från heeeelt säkra källor. Och en ny programpunkt, en riktig aha-upplevelse!
Ryan Pfieffer - Mark 10:46
Do you feel stuck in life? Trials are small and in the short term whereas, the Wall is more macro within your life. The Wall is the bottom of the U-Curve, and it can feel overwhelming. We all will hit our walls in our lives, but how we work through them is important. We have three options, 1. Give up and walk away. 2. Fake it and act like we have it “together.” 3. Allow God to carry you through the Wall. Key Insights You can't break through The Wall on your own. God will carry you through it. Christianity is God’s pursuit of us. He shapes us but shaping can hurt at times. On the other side of the wall is your true self in Christ.
Are you ready for God to move in your life and shape who you are today? Having a good community in your life can make or break how well you receive the U-Curves that come to your life. The process to find mentors that will bring guidance in your life is essential. Key Insights God’s primary goal is not happiness and success - it’s a Christlike you. Reshaping can be painful. A life-changing shift will most likely happen through a human being. Who are a good mentor and a lousy mentor for you? Evolution of discipleship: Parenting to Modeling to Partnering
Have you felt lost in life and not know what God is trying to do with your life? The U -Curve is your happiness, and we all will go through good times and hard times throughout our life. The power of God is the ultimate Renewable Energy. Do you want Renewal from God through your U curve? We break down each decade of life. Key Insights -Lifelong renewal does not happen without lifelong discipleship. -Build a powerful and lifelong discipleship eco-system. If you would like to stay in the loop. Text "MYTRIBE" to 444-999 Follow us on Facebook: https://tinyurl.com/yyx39vpc
Ashton Applewhite is an author, speaker and anti-ageism activist. Rachel discovered her work about three years ago and has been quoting her daily ever since. Ashton got a standing ovation when she did a main stage Ted talk called Let’s End Ageism. She was invited to speak at the UN. She’s recently republished her book This Chair Rocks, A Manifesto Against Ageism. In this amazing interview we talk about: How Ashton never had a life plan or knew what she wanted to be Why we worship youth in Anglo-Saxon cultures The lack of products and services for older people How we often don’t like to identify as being in midlife or older How facing the ageing monsters is useful How fears about ageing are totally out of proportion to reality Our attitudes towards ageing affect how we age The U-Curve of Happiness How midlife is a time of reckoning How ageism starts between our ears How we need to be more generous towards each other and ourselves When we compete to stay young we reinforce ageism, sexism and the patriarchy How raising consciousness about ageing and ageism is key Why we should be able to compete for 100% of the seats at any table How to stop reinforcing the shame associated with ageing Being aware of intersectionality when considering prejudice The importance of language relating to age Ashton’s knees and not blaming non-age related issues on age Continuing the movement And lots more! Resources Ashton's website where you can find out about her appearances, how to set up a conscious raising group and lots of other great stuff. You can watch her Ted talk here. Ashton's Book
Studies have shown that the trajectory of happiness over the course of one’s life resembles a U. But Roy and I think that it might also be possible that it looks like a J or even a W. In our beer segment, we are excited to try a brand new beer style – a brut ipa which is dry and effervescent - as close to champagne as beer can get. Sorry Miller High Life
WordLive from Scripture Union is a free, online guide, helping you meet with God devotionally through the Bible. www.wordlive.org
Jonathan Rauch, a Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institute in Washington, is the author of six books and many articles on public policy, culture, and government. He is the contributing editor of The Atlantic, and recipient of the 2005 National Magazine Award, the magazine industry’s equivalent of the Pulitzer Prize. His latest book is The Happiness Curve: Why Life Gets Better After 50. Key Takeaways: [1:08] Marc welcomes you to episode 78 of the Repurpose Your Career podcast. Marc invites you to share this podcast with like-minded souls. Please subscribe, share it on social media, write an honest iTunes review, or tell your neighbors and colleagues. [1:39] Next week, Marc will discuss the next steps the Millers will be taking in their move to Mexico planned for early 2019. [1:48] In this episode, Marc interviews Jonathan Rauch, author of The Happiness Curve: Why Life Gets Better After 50. Before the interview, Marc announces plans for another “Can You Repurpose Your Career?” series, similar to Episodes 48-51 from October 2017. [2:20] If you would like to go through this process anonymously with Marc on the podcast, please email Marc at Podcast@CareerPivot.com. [2:49] Marc gives an introduction for Jonathan Rauch and welcomes him to the podcast. [3:39] How do you measure happiness? How satisfied are you with your life? [4:22] Since the 1950s, millions of people in virtually every country have been surveyed about how contented they are with what’s going on in their lives. People are reliable in gauging their happiness. There is amazingly good data on life satisfaction. [4:43] What is the U-shaped happiness curve? Jonathan explains what the data means. As we age, our outlook changes. We cope with stress better. We focus more on family relationships. We feel more contented. [8:37] What is the difference between a mid-life reboot and a mid-life crisis? Jonathan tells a personal story about his own dissatisfaction in his mid-forties. In his book, Jonathan shares stories from many people he interviewed. The experience is normal but it is not something to confront alone. [11:05] Marc refers to Episode #075, with Dr. Joel Dobbs, who climbed the ladder of success, to find it was against the wrong building. Jonathan talks about the mid-life feedback trap. Find out where your unhappiness originates before making a change you won’t like. (It might not be the building that makes you unhappy.) [12:54] Jonathan endorses the idea of a career pivot for the second half of life. We should expect to want change. As we get older, we age out of the standard ambition and we age into mentorship and giving back. [13:30] Jonathan likes the CareerPivot concept. You keep one foot on the ground. Marc looks back at his seven career changes by half-steps. [15:55] Society is not prepared to adapt to our 20 additional years of active life on the upswing of the U-Curve. There needs to be social and institutional change. [17:42] Marc has no intention of retiring. [18:03] What everybody wants is freedom. They all know they need to keep working, but it’s probably not punching in and out for a paycheck. [18:32] Jonathan suggests institutional and intellectual changes that would help, such as different workplace roles not working toward advancement. People don’t want to retire, become pathetic, and then die. Change the way we think of elders. [22:04] Marc talks about an interview he had last year where the discussion turned to the kinds of work we will do in our 70s, and how we need to start preparing for those roles in our 50s. [23:24] Jonathan’s book looks at the Transition Network of professional women age 50 and up who help women coming along behind them to prepare for repurposing their lives. It’s so much easier to transition with a support network. [23:54] Marc has an interview coming up with Carol Fishman Cohen, the CEO of IRelaunch. They help people who have big career gaps. [24:34] What about people who want to have everything continue as is? Portfolio careers are becoming normal. Many jobs are going away. There is not a job that is not affected by technological changes of the present and future. [26:32] If you’re a highly-successful, achievement-oriented person; life has been good to you, you’ve hit mid-life and you can’t figure out why you’re dissatisfied, don’t be alarmed or ashamed. There is nothing wrong with you. You are preparing for more satisfaction than you have known before. The best thing to do is wait it out. [27:28] This is a ‘we’ issue, not just a ‘me’ issue. There is likely somebody in your life right now who is going through the trough of the U-Curve. Be the support for someone going through it. [28:54] Marc really enjoyed this book and learned a lot about his own life. Marc highly recommends this book to you. [30:51] Check back next week, when Marc will be talking about next steps in their move to Mexico. Mentioned in This Episode: Careerpivot.com The Happiness Curve: Why Life Gets Better After 50, by Jonathan Rauch CareerPivot.com/Episode-48 “Can Tim Repurpose His Career? Part 1” CareerPivot.com/Episode-49 “Can Tim Repurpose His Career? Part 2” CareerPivot.com/Episode-50 “Can Tim Repurpose His Career? Part 3” CareerPivot.com/Episode-51 “Can Tim Repurpose His Career? Part 4” Del Webb IRelaunch iPhone Amazon HappinessCurveBook.com Please pick up a copy of Repurpose Your Career: A Practical Guide for the 2nd Half of Life, by Marc Miller and Susan Lahey. The paperback, ebook, and audiobook formats are available now. When you have completed reading the book, Marc would very much appreciate your leaving an honest review on Amazon.com. The audio version of the book is available on iTunes app, Audible, and Amazon. Marc has the paid membership community running on the CareerPivot.com website. The website is alive and in production. Marc is contacting people on the waitlist. Sign up for the waitlist at CareerPivot.com/Community. Marc has three initial cohorts of 10 members in the second half of life and they are guiding him on what to build. He is looking for individuals for the fourth cohort who are motivated to take action and give Marc input on what he should produce next. He’s currently working on LinkedIn, blogging, and book publishing training. Marc is bringing someone in to guide members on how to write a book. The next topic will be business formation and there will be lots of other things. Ask to be put on the waiting list to join a cohort. This is a unique paid membership community where Marc will offer group coaching, special content, mastermind groups, and a community where you can seek help. CareerPivot.com/Episode-78 Show Notes for this episode. Please subscribe at CareerPivot.com to get updates on all the other happenings at Career Pivot. Marc publishes a blog with Show Notes every Tuesday morning. If you subscribe to the Career Pivots blog, every Sunday you will receive the Career Pivot Insights email, which includes a link to this podcast. Please take a moment — go to iTunes, Stitcher, Google Play, or Spotify through the Spotify app. Give this podcast an honest review and subscribe! If you’re not sure how to leave a review, please go to CareerPivot.com/review, and read the detailed instructions there. Email Marc at Podcast@CareerPivot.com. Contact Marc, and ask questions at Careerpivot.com/contact-me You can find Show Notes at Careerpivot.com/repurpose-career-podcast. To subscribe from an iPhone: CareerPivot.com/iTunes To subscribe from an Android: CareerPivot.com/Android Careerpivot.com
Today’s Mindful Expat Guest is Sundae Schneider-Bean! Sundae is an intercultural strategist and solution-oriented coach, and – as she says –she’s on a mission to help expats make the most of their lives abroad! Sundae is originally from the United States, from the state of North Dakota. Even before meeting her Swiss husband and launching on a series of international moves with him, Sundae had a thirst for international adventure. In her early 20s, she traveled extensively throughout south-east Asia, where she met her husband in Vietnam – which then led her to move to Switzerland. After a number of years together there, they then moved to Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso, where they stayed until in 2016 when the political situation and lack of security in the region made it no longer safe to remain – at which point they relocated to South Africa, where they now live with their 2 children. Sundae has her masters in Intercultural Communications and is a Certified Coach with the International Coaching Federation. Her experiences of living and working across cultures, being in an intercultural marriage, and raising bicultural TCK children makes her no stranger to the challenges – and opportunities – of expat life. As an intercultural strategies and coach, she works to help other expats navigate these challenges and learn to thrive in their lives abroad and make the most of their experiences. What you’ll hear in this episode: • Debunking some common myths about the cultural adjustment process and how believing these myths can be detrimental to our wellbeing and adjustment as we adapt to a new culture. • How there is no one “right” way to move through the the process of cultural adjustment and some of the factors (personal and contextual) that can impact what this process looks like. • How our expectations can shape our experience — for example, by making us either more or less patient with ourselves as we move through the cultural adaptation process. • How “culture shock” isn’t necessarily a bad thing — and how we can use it as an opportunity to increase our own self-awareness. • The importance of self-acceptance and self-compassion (rather than being harsh and critical toward ourselves) as we adjust to a new culture. Resources mentioned in this episode: • We mentioned the U-Curve and W-Curve Models of cultural adjustment. To learn more about these models, you can check out this blog post or listen back to Episode 5. • Sundae mentioned sleep expert Christine Hanson. To learn more about her and her work, you can check out her website, www.sleeplikeaboss.com. • Sundae mentioned the website Culture Connector, where you can take a free assessment to learn more about your own cultural preferences as well as the cultural preferences of the country in which you’re living. As we discuss, this can be a great way to become aware of some potential differences so that when you run into them in your daily life, you can understand the source of the disconnect. • Sundae recommended two Facebook groups as helpful resources: I Am a Triangle (mentioned back in Episode 10 with the founder of this group, Naomi Hattaway) and Grumpy Expat. • Sundae also recommended two blogs focused on expat issues: Kirsty Rice’s blog, 4 Kids, 20 Suitcases, & a Beagle, and Jerry Jones’ blog The Culture Blend. More about Sundae and how to follow up with her: To learn more about Sundae, you can visit her website, www.sundaebean.com. There you will find information about Sundae’s coaching and consulting services (which she describes in more detail toward the end of the episode) as well a blog with great articles on a number of helpful topics — from couples issues to resiliency to expat vacations! On the website, you’ll also find Sundae’s podcast, Expat Happy Hour, where she covers topics related to expat adjustment and offers practical solutions to help you more effectively navigate the cultural adaptation process. You can also find Sundae on Facebook or Twitter, and you can email her directly at sundae@sundaebean.com. Stay in Touch! To make sure you don’t miss future episodes of Mindful Expat, you can subscribe to the podcast through iTunes, Stitcher, or your favorite podcasting app. To receive monthly summaries of podcast episodes and stay up to date on other announcements and resources, sign up for the Mindful Expat Podcast Newsletter! (When you sign up, you’ll also receive a free mp3 guided mindfulness exercise to practice on your own!) And, finally, if you’d like to get in touch and leave me a voice message with a question or comment that may be played in a future episode, you can do so here!
What follows is an edited transcript of my conversation with Vincent Geloso. Petersen: My guest today is Vincent Geloso of the Free Market Institute at Texas Tech University. Vincent, welcome to Economics Detective Radio. Geloso: It's a pleasure to be here. Petersen: So the paper we'll be discussing today is titled "A U-curve of Inequality? Measuring Inequality in the Interwar Period" which Vincent has co-authored with John Moore and Phillips Schlosser. The paper casts doubt on the claim from, most notably, Thomas Piketty and others that inequality fell from the 1920s to the 1960s and rose thereafter. So, Vincent let's start by discussing the inequality literature prior to this paper. What is this U-curve and where did it come from? Geloso: The U-curve is probably the most important stylized fact we have now in the debate over inequality and the idea is that, if you look at the twentieth century, there's a high point of inequality in the 1910s, 1920s and then from the 1930s onwards up to 1970s, it falls dramatically to very low levels and re-increases thereafter, returning to 1920s-like levels of inequality. So the U-curve is the story of inequality in the twentieth century. It's mostly a U.S. story because for other countries it looks less like the U-curve than an inverted J. So it's higher in the 1920s, it still falls like in the U.S. but really increases much more modestly than the United States in places like Sweden, or France, or Canada. But the general story is that there was a high level of inequality at the beginning of the century well up to the mid-second-half of the twentieth century and it re-increased in the latter years and then we have been on a surge since then. Petersen: So, a lot of this is coming from Thomas Piketty, who of course wrote the surprising bestseller "Capital in the Twenty-First Century." Could you talk a little bit about where his data came from? Geloso: Okay, by the way, this is where there's a failing on my part which I think I always find funny; an anecdote to tell about Piketty. I'm originally from Quebec, so I am a French-Canadian, I speak fluent French. His work started coming out in French first and I initially started to write elements of the paper we're discussing today back when it was only in French. And then I told myself, "There's no point, it's only a French book, nobody reads French. What's the point of writing a paper about a book that no one will read?" Biggest mistake of my career, I guess, not writing that paper before. But anyways, besides that, his entire argument is based largely on his most influential paper---which I think was published in 2003 in the Quarterly Journal of Economics---which was using tax data. So, the records, the fiscal statistics to create measurements of income inequality in the United States and the advantage of that is that since the income tax started in 1910s you've got a long, long period of measurement of income inequality with the same source. So it's a great advantage because a lot of the people before like Kuznets, like others had to use residual estimates, different sources, they were amalgamating different sources together and it was always a problem because you couldn't create one homogeneous time-series of inequality. You could get a rough idea and there's a few papers---for those who read economic history stuff---there was a paper by Lindert and Williamson in the 70s in research in economic history and you can see their first graph in that paper was a series of different measures of inequality. They were all pointing to the general similar shaped curve but they were all from massively different statistics, different sources. So one was the 50:10 ratio of earnings, another one was a measure of income, the other was wages and they are all different measures, they are not perfect. You can get a good idea, a rough idea but you cannot have a continuous time estimate which is what Piketty innovated by using the tax-wealth with Emmanuel Saez, recreating this long continuous trend in data from 1917 to the modern day. And they keep updating it regularly to include the new data on a yearly basis. Petersen: So tell me about tax avoidance. How does that affect things? Geloso: Okay, this is where the existing data that all the different sources had---Piketty made advancement. Rather than having variance across different sources, he was eliminating that variance. But there's still an issue of variance within a source. So it's not because you have used a homogenous source that the quality of the data contained within the source is consistent. There's actually quite a lot of variance in data quality because of the way the tax system was done. So a lot of the debate today for the data for today has been---has there been such a large increase in inequality as Piketty and Saez and Atkinson and others have been pointing out? And the reason for that was largely because, as Alan Reynolds, as Joel Slemrod, and a few others have pointed out, the tax changes of the 1980s were so large that people shifted the way they reported income. They changed the way they reported tax liability. What used to be classified as corporate income became classified as individual income, and so you get an artificial increase because of a way the tax system has changed. And this is why a lot of people say, as soon as you correct for the effect of changes in tax reporting behavior, you actually get a much more modest increase of inequality. But that's from 1980 to today with a massive tax change in the 1980s. If you go back further in time, to the interwar period the tax changes are much more dramatic. In 1913, the tax rate was 7%, went up to 15% in 1916 to 73% until 1921, went back down to 24% by 1929, went back up to 79% by 1939. Imagine, that's a lot of movements in the way taxes will affect behavior and it will affect reporting behavior. So, will you report, will you be as honest as you would be when you're filing taxes at 79%, as you are when you're filing taxes at 24%? So you're getting---because of these massive changes in tax regimes that are happening over very short periods of time---these massive changes affect the quality of the data set that Piketty is using for the left side of his U-curve. The left side of the U-curve is probably inaccurate to a very high level because of tax avoidance, and this is where the economists in general failed to talk to historians because there's a few papers out there that did measure---especially in the Journal of Economic History---that did measure changes in reporting. So changes in tax avoidance occur basically to a large level by the top incomes, as Gene Smiley argues in the Journal of Economic History, for example, which Piketty has never cited neither Saez, neither anyone in the debate. And he did corrections, so he checked: Okay, when a tax rate went down from 73% to 24%, did people change their reporting behavior? Did more rich people start to report incomes? And the answer is 'yes.' And as soon as he started doing corrections for that to control the "artificialness"---if that's a word---of the tax changes on affecting the level of inequality, he actually finds that the 1920s have a much lower level of inequality because of the reduction in tax rates and there was very little upward trend, especially when we're comparing with the Piketty, with the Mark Frank data, with the Kuznets data and it shows that as soon as you adjust for tax avoidance the left side of the U-curve flattens dramatically and it looks more like an L---an inverted L---or a J, but it doesn't look at all like a U-curve and that's just tax avoidance for the 1920s. The increases in the 1930s in tax rates would have had the opposite effect where people would have reported less income. So, the level of inequality in the 1920s is overestimated in Piketty and it's underestimated for the 1930s. So you're kind of flattening the entire interwar period as soon as you consider the one issue of tax avoidance. And there are estimates out there in the Essays in Economic and Business History by Gene Smiley and Richard Keehn. Smiley's article in the JEH, which has been ignored in the literature, but which did check that people at the top of the income distribution are generally very sensitive to changes in tax regime in the way they report their tax liability. Petersen: So, today they would do that by maybe registering---having their money in the Cayman Islands or Ireland or the Isle of Man, their tax shelters abroad. Was the avoidance different in the 1920s? I expect it would be harder to enforce taxes given that the income tax was so new and there were all these changes and they didn't have electronic records, or how did it work? Geloso: You're thinking of avoidance in a very negative term which is the illegal part, which is what has somewhat permeated the public debate and I have this reflex myself. I think of avoidance always in that way. But avoidance is sometimes just planning your taxes, your sources of income, differently. One example would be---and it's not really applicable to our case---parents can put their kids on company payroll because it's cheaper dollar for dollar relative to giving them an allowance from after-tax personal income. So, people can change their behavior in their way to get money, in the way they report their income. So you can pass corporate income as a personal income or personal income as corporate income. You can deduct expenses one way or another. And one way or another it comes to affecting the quality of the data set. And it does matter, because if you look at the 1980s when there was a rapid change in the income tax rate, which was much more important a change than the change in the corporate tax rate, it led people to change the type of incorporation they were in, so they became S corporations, so corporations that were not subjected necessarily to the corporate income tax. So, it affected the way people reported, classified their income and it appears artificially the income inequality statistics. The 1920s' equivalent was municipal bonds. Municipal bonds were assets that delivered incomes but they were not subjected to taxes so this was like a tax shelter that was completely legal and that rich people used in dramatic amount to reduce their tax liability. So, when people think of tax avoidance it's generally this idea that people just reorganized their classification of income to make sure they have the smallest liability possible and in a situation like that, what you get is a much different level and trend of inequality because of the changes in tax regimes that induce changes in tax reporting behavior. Petersen: So is Piketty not adjusting for this at all? He's just taking the tax data at face value? Geloso: He's trying some stuff but he gets a lot of the tax history quite wrong and what alerted us to this is that Gene Smiley's paper, which is not in an obscure journal, it's in the Journal of Economic History which is considered a top tier journal in the profession of economics---it's not AER, it's not QJE, but it is a very respectable journal. And Smiley's article is also very cited. There's a large number of citations of that paper and Piketty just ignores it. And you skim through his book and the discussion is always brushed aside and these effects of changes in tax regimes is always minimized as if it was not important. But tax avoidance is only like a fraction of the problem, because if you look, there's another issue that's much more dramatic than tax avoidance. Alone the issue of tax avoidance, if you take Smiley's stuff, changes the narrative dramatically but that's just our first shot in this debate with me, John, and Philip. It's our first shot, the second shot is that filing requirements were nowhere close to what they are like today. And actually this is something funny, the idea of Piketty is that you can create a series assuming tax compliance for a country that was founded on a tax revolt which is---for a historian---kind of a weird assumption built in the way he does his history part. And if you look at it, one of the example is that you look at the changes in wages of people---wages for unskilled workers, wages for mining workers, for agricultural workers---they do not evolve at all like his bottom 90% of income behaves, it behaves actually very differently. So, in our paper we show that the quality of what's at the bottom of the income distribution is dramatically different, so wages go up much faster than the income of the bottom 90%. And this is wages. So, you think what, maybe hours are going down? No they're not in the 1920s and 30s---well in the 30's they're going down---but in 1920s hours are actually staying stable and in some industries are actually slightly increasing. So you should not see what Piketty's data suggest, which is that there was stagnation in the income of the bottom 90%. There was declining unemployment, there was rising wages and hours remaining relatively stable. It's impossible to reconcile these facts with those of Piketty without considering that there might be problems in the way people filed their taxes. And this is where the entire thing breaks down and you look at, for example, the number of tax filers that were actually there. And you look at that as a percentage of the American population, up to the 1930s---so until the Second World War---there's never more than 6 or seven 7 percent of population that files in tax reports. Petersen: And you'd expect it to be the wealthier people too, who are filing right? Because you have people below a certain income, they don't file income tax, right? Geloso: Exactly. This wouldn't be a problem if your distribution of people behaved equal to the distribution of the general population and the movements were the same. It wouldn't be a problem. The thing is when you look at the number of adjusted tax returns which is what Piketty and other people like Estelle Sommeiller or Mark Frank do. They try to re-correct this issue of a very small number of tax reports that were actually filed in and they get an idea---and this is figured too, I think, in our paper. There's a steady upward trend in the number of adjusted tax units but when you look at the actual number of tax units it moves so much. It goes up and down and it doubles in the span of two years, then it reduces by half in the span of another two years and these are such large movements in the number of tax units that it's hard to see that this might be a representative sample of the American population. Differences in reports and such changes in our reporting---and the number of reports I should say---suggest that there is actually a problem in the quality of the data. And this is where we're saying that if you combine this with the observation that wages were increasing, unemployment was falling, and that hours were more or less stable, and that you add this fact of the massive changes in tax returns, you can easily question the quality of the data from the 1920s and the 1930s. This is where we're coming in and we're saying, no, the people who reported taxes were very volatile. They were rich people who reacted to changes in income taxes. Lower income individuals also were very much tax resisters. There's an entire story told by David Beito. I think it's with University North Carolina Press. He has a book on tax resistance in the United States during the 1920s and 30s and there's actually a large documentation of anti-tax leagues that have massive memberships of common individuals who are resisting filing taxes at that time. So it's quite plausible to say that, if there's such a difference in wages, in hours, in unemployment what they and these massive changes in the number of tax returns filed, it suggests that probably the poor people just didn't file in their taxes. So, any movement at the bottom of the distribution does not exist according to Piketty's data. But there were movements at the bottom. There were people who moved from poor Kansas to Illinois. They were still in the bottom 90% but by moving from farming Kansas to Chicago to work in a garment industry, they get a gain in income but that is not captured in Piketty's data because it's highly likely that poor individuals tended to file fewer tax returns and were probably more hostile to filing them, and the rich were just reacting to changes in tax regimes. So, the tax filing requirements would actually lower the level of inequality overall from the 1920s and 1930s. So, the tax avoidance issue would change the trend and the issue of tax filing requirements would drop the level because we're not capturing bottom incomes properly. So you're changing the U-curve progressively as each of our critiques is embedded in the argument you actually progressively bring down the left side of the U-curve and it looks more and more like a J, or an L, or a hockey stick. Petersen: I remember in 2012 Mitt Romney got in trouble for pointing out that 47% of the population doesn't pay income tax. So if Mitt Romney were running for president in the 1920s, I guess he would have said something like 94% of people are not filing and paying income taxes. Is that right? Geloso: Exactly. That would be a very accurate. Well it's 94% of people. The taxes were based on households, but still 6% and then later on after the Second World War it jumped above 40%. So there's a massive change not only in tax regimes in terms of rates, but filing requirement regimes, which will also change the tax behavior of individuals. And not only that, this is something that actually, it was buried in a footnote of Smiley's article which is---still I will point out not cited by Saez and Piketty---but it's so rigorous and it contains so many pieces of information that are crucial. Until 1938 public sector employees were not mandated to file in taxes. This is an unknown fact. Until 1938 they did not have to file in taxes. So this is actually a very very big factor. So in terms of wage earners, so not everyone, it excludes farmers, but all wage earners, 12% of them were government workers. This is a substantial share of the workforce and not only that, their earnings are slightly above the rest of the workforce and the increase in their earnings is above those of the other workers in the United States in that period. But they're just not considered in the tax distribution. So until the public salary Act of 1939---which was debated in the Senate in 1938-1939, the 1.2 million federal employees---this is a large number---were drawing large wages and they're just not included in the statistics based on tax data. This has a massive impact on the level of inequality. Public workers were not in the top 1%, they were not the richest, they were not poor and they were earning much more over time. I'm not trying to debate whether it was efficient government spending or if they were paid at actually providing public goods that people actually did want. But set that issue aside, they had higher wages than the average representative of a sizeable share of the workforce and their wages increased much more importantly than other ones. So you're affecting the trend. You're affecting the level and you add this other issue and then look again, imagine the U-curve in your head. Tax avoidance, it changed the trend. It made it less, it made it much lower in the 1920s than it was. It increased it relative to the Piketty data in the 1930s. The entire level then is reduced by adjusting for tax filing problems and then if you tried to adjust the issue of public sector employees who didn't have to file in their taxes you drop the level again, so it's looking less and less like a U-curve than what Piketty claims. So, we haven't made all these adjustments, we're just stating facts that should be known in the inequality debate. Our goal is later on to test each of our points. We're sending such a large number of criticisms that there's bound to be one that sticks in terms of the data quality. Because these are such huge data quality that it effects a major stylized fact about inequality: the U-curve. If today we believe that the U-curve---there's a debate over whether or not there's been such a large increase---everybody agrees that there's been an increase, but there's a massive debate over how big this increase is today. Imagine how crucial it would be to correctly debate the level of inequality and the trend of the left side of the U-curve. And if we're having all these debates with all the survey data, all the census data, all the private big data stuff that we have out there for the modern era and we still have high level of uncertainty, imagine anything with all the points I've mentioned for the interwar period, the left side of the U-curve. Everything seems to indicate that's probably much lower. I'm not saying there's not a U-curve, maybe it looks like a ball, a very modest ball, or there's a slight decrease, there's a slight increase, but it's not Piketty's U-curve, it's not the same stylized fact. And it changes the narrative we should have about inequality. Petersen: Yeah, I'll never forget one experience I had. It was the original Occupy movement and I went down to see the protests going on in Victoria B.C. where I was at the time and one guy just had a big sign where he had printed off a graph. You know, an inequality graph of the 1% versus the 99% from Piketty and Saez. I'm not sure if it went all the way back to the 1920s but really, that's sort of a very clear sign that these debates are expanding beyond academia and having a big effect on the public and their perception of the world we live in, the ideal policies that we should be pursuing. A big part of the U-curve narrative is to say look at how successful the policies in the 40s and 50s were at reducing inequality and of course if we do away with this U-curve then maybe those policies, all they did was bring more people into the data set. Geloso: Yes, and it changes who reports in the data set. I know Phil Magness, who is joining our team with me and John Moore and Bill Schlosser. Phil Magness has been working on showing that a lot of the changes in our tax regime actually just mimic the entire movement of the income share of the top 1%. It follows what share of taxes they're asked to pay and it leads to changes in reporting and basically it's a story of tax regimes and it changes the entire narrative. But what I find much more depressing---and this is a depressing fact---if just one of our criticisms lands and sticks, the U-curve doesn't look like a U. Let's say it looks like a J. So there's a mid-point in the 1920s and we've been increasing since then at a relatively high rate since the 1970s. So it fell from 1920 to 1970 and then it re-increased. If you look at what caused the leveling from 1920 to 1970, a lot of it has nothing to do with state intervention, with the efforts at redistribution. There's probably a sizable share of it that has to do with that. But there's also a sizable, and probably the larger share, that comes from poor regions catching up with rich regions. If you look at for example the history of inequality in the United States you would see that if you decompose the variance---so what caused the inequality---for most of American history a large share of inequality was caused by differences between states rather than differences between individuals. One way to see it, and I'm making a caricature here to get the point across, but you could have the same shape of distribution in income in Kansas and New York. But since the average in New York is much higher than in Kansas, you average the two in, you get a much higher level of inequality, so you can get like a Gini coefficient for the two of them of .4 but in each of them individually taken the level inequality is like .2. And this is what happens for most of US history. There are massive gaps between regions rather than gaps between skills, between levels, so Mississippi is poorer than New York for a long period of time. But in the 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s this gap basically volatilized, it began to disappear. One of the massive story of the twentieth century---some economists are aware---is this massiveness of convergence between regions. So the South gets richer. Poor black people move from poor states in the South where they're sharecroppers, they move to the North where they become wage earners in garment factories, in manufacturing and their earnings grow dramatically. So there's a massive convergence during that period. But, if you think about it for a second, it means that the gap between regions and the gap between races is actually a big driver in the leveling part of the U-curve, but that has nothing to do with tax redistribution. It has nothing to do with this. So, as soon as we integrate our criticism into the tax data, and we show that the U-curve looks less and less like a U, the left side of it makes it look less and less like a U. And you consider these two economic history facts that I've just mentioned, it's incredibly depressing to consider in the inequality narrative, to say well a lot of it is just stuff that would have happened anyways. There would have been a decline in inequality regardless of how much the state intervened to redistribute income because there was this convergence. And not only that, the leveling of inequality was not as great as we say it was. So it changes the entire story. We have inequality and how to address the issue and, not only that, I will point out that across the same period the one thing that goes up relatively steadily is government spending to GDP. If you were to account for all our criticism and then consider which part of inequality was reduced by government redistribution, it becomes more and more depressing because it seems like the effect is much smaller than people believe. This is where we're trying to disentangle all these elements to tell the correct story of inequality in the United States and it starts with getting the shape of inequality right. But look at the story I have just told you. As soon as we make this small change of properly assessing things, the entire narrative we have then changes. And this is why it's a dramatic fact to get right and which is why we're somewhat disappointed with Piketty's stuff because he's not making the right level of methodological discussion. Petersen: Right. Piketty uses his narrative to push for large-scale taxes and redistribution. Geloso: Yes. I'm not saying that what he does is bad. It was a massive improvement relative to what was there before. But his story has flaws, and these flaws tend to support his narrative. We point out the flaws that would support a different narrative, that point out that probably inequality is not as high as we say. It probably would have fallen up in the 1970s because of very natural forces and if you think about the fact that since the 1970s there's been a slight divergence---so, imagine the leveling of inequality between regions in the United States. The divergence fell until the 1970s, but it has increased modestly since then because of regulation on housing, things that limit mobility across states that the depress income growth in some areas. So you end up with a slight divergence since then and it is caused by states. It's not caused by anything that the government is doing. It's really an issue of very regionalized factors and each time you consider each of these nuances in, the narrative changes. And it changes dramatically against the story Piketty's telling and it shows that the flaws are biased in favor of the conclusion he supported. Petersen: Right. And I know Phil Magness has really criticized him on this, that he makes a lot of decisions where you could go one way or the other and they always seem to turn out his way. Which is maybe a coincidence, or maybe it's not really the best way to do social science. You point out that there were big price differentials between regions so how does that play into the regional inequality story? Geloso: So, we're basing our discussion on this part of a longer series of papers where each of the points we've discussed will basically be one paper in itself. Here we're just stating this entire case for skepticism, then we'll see how big the impact is. Regardless, even if they're all minor, they will all change the narrative. And prices, regional price differences are an issue in that. So, when you compare nominal income across a country you are getting an idea of inequality but---you will agree with me. So, you're in Vancouver. I'm originally from Montreal. If I give you a dollar income in Vancouver and I give myself a one-dollar income in Montreal you think that dollar will go as far in Vancouver as it does in Montreal? Petersen: I think it probably won't. Geloso: Exactly. So you would expect that regional price differences will affect the level of inequality. And there's actually a lot of people that do that. Each time you make controls for the level of price differences, you actually find that the level of inequality falls modestly. But it falls. But the thing is, the price differences that we have today between Vancouver to Montreal or between New York and the region of Mississippi are not at all what these gaps used to be in 1920 or in 1925. In 1925 the gaps would have been much, much, much larger and from 1925 to the 1940s there's been a convergence of prices across regions. So for the first 50 years, roughly, of the twentieth century you get a convergence of prices across regions. So if you just took nominal income without correcting for regional price differences, you would get a massive drop in inequality. However, if you were to correct for an increasingly smaller mistake because, if you think about it, if the wage gaps used to be on average 25% in 1890, let's say, and they used to be 5% in 1950, the error is decreasing over time. So you're getting the level off by a smaller and smaller quantity over time. So it means that the trend changes. The smaller your measurement error caused by regional price differences falls, the less pronounced the fall in inequality becomes. So you get a massive drop in inequality as measured by nominal income, which is not what it is when you correct the regional price differences, so you put this in real dollars adjusted for purchasing power parity. And not only that, the errors caused by regional prices actually also follow a U-curve. So the errors that would be caused by price level differences across regions declined up to 1950 but since then they've re-increased. So if before you're getting a lower and lower trend---a lower trend by a diminishing amount of error---that means the right side of the curve, that means the increasing disparity in prices across regions since 1950. It means that you're actually increasing nominal prices using nominal income across the country. You will underestimate the increase in inequality since then. So there are actually massive measurement errors caused by this issue of regional prices. When I say massive, I shouldn't say massive because it's dishonest but it affects both the level and the trends. So it affects the shape of the curve and remember we're making all these criticisms to the U-curve story piece by piece. Each one of them has a small prickly effect on the shape of the curve. As soon as one or more starts sticking---and they're all documented otherwise for other periods---not prior interwar period, not a sufficiently as we'd wish to, which is why we're doing this project of massive data collection. It changes the narrative, changes the story, changes the way the curve looks and it's not much of a U-curve anymore and the proper measurements get you a very different story of the evolution of inequality. And that different story forces you to change interpretations and solutions and the entire structure of the debate must change to reflect the higher level of precision that is required for that debate. Petersen: So. I'm trying to think of why these prices between regions might fall in the first half of the twentieth century and rise thereafter. I suppose a lot of it would be real estate, housing? Geloso: Exactly. So housing markets in the U.S. are more or less freer in the first half of the twentieth century than they are today. So most prices, if you can trade a good across borders it will arbitrage out price differences minus transport, right? So if goods are movable more or less as well, and you find it for food, for TVs, for durable goods, you tend to find that there's actually still convergence. But housing, you can't really move a house. There's actually movable houses but they're not a massive share of the market. So you'd expect less ability---and I'm saying this as a euphemism---but you'd expect less ability for arbitrage with housing. The only way you can do arbitrage for housing is by moving around. So I am in Mississippi and I see super high wages in New York. I move from Mississippi to New York. So in Mississippi there's one more housing unit available and in New York there's one less housing unit available. I've driven up housing prices in New York and I've got higher wages but housing is a little more expensive in New York and then it falls in the region where I left in terms of housing, so that real wages in that region converged. So there's a convergence in real wages by people moving around. The problem now is that, there is very, very, very little ability to move around in the United States because zoning restrictions actually make it harder for people to come and exploit the productivity of large cities like New York. So it prevents this convergence in real terms across regions. So a large part of the increase in inequality needs to be corrected for regional price differences, which is the argument about housing. And this is where it's probably that the soundest part of our argument is that the Rognlie papers that attack Piketty state that a large part of inequality was driven by rents towards housing, so the fact that income derives from housing is increasing importantly as a share of total income and has nothing to do with capital itself. It's really the artificial restrictions on housing. And this is largely the problem the inability of people to move to where wages are the most important. This changes the narrative. So that's why the story of regionally correcting price differences is crucial and it's rarely done over a long time series data set. But given the evolution of prices in the United States since 1900, it will affect the trend dramatically. It will affect the level, the shape, and this is not integrated in the argument. And this is why we're saying in this paper, each time you make a correction to get a higher level of precision, it's getting more and more plausible that the curve of inequality doesn't look like a U, it looks probably like an L, probably like a J, but not a U. So the early period of the twentieth century is not as high as people have claimed and there's probably been an increase since the 1970s. Not as much as some would claim, but the increase seems to have happened. The U-curve is probably just fictional. It is the result of poor controls or variations in equality of the taxes. Petersen: We've discussed the housing issue on other episodes of this podcast but it's sort of a one-two punch to inequality, where the people who, you know, maybe have bought a house in the San Francisco Bay area in the 1980s, have seen the value of that house skyrocket. And so of course that would contribute to the upper end of that wealth distribution. And the people who live in Mississippi and might like to move to the San Francisco Bay area and work for Google, can't afford to do it because of the extremely high price of rent there. So, that's reducing mobility and exacerbating these regional differences and also directly increasing the wealth of people who own homes who are, of course, already on the wealthier side. Geloso: Yes, in a static term, correcting for price differences across region. So if you were to take a picture of the economy right now and you make a picture of inequality based only on nominal incomes across the country---just using U.S. dollars---you'll get a higher level than if you correct for regional price differences. However, it's quite likely that if you were to make a movie of how inequality evolved, the housing restrictions---and this is a comment that's outside our paper and it's just something I think it's worth commenting on---if you make it so that it's impossible to move from low-income Mississippi to high-income California, you're going to make sure that inequality stays high and probably increases. If, let's say, there's a shock to international trade and Mississippi area tended to be manufacturing and people can't move from manufacturing to higher productivity jobs in San Francisco. So in dynamic terms, housing restrictions by preventing mobility prevent a strong equalizing source of income. So in static terms you get the level wrong, but in a dynamic term you're preventing the powerful force of mobility across the country---and this is something I like to point out---if you look for example, you bring someone from Italy to Canada in 1890, his income increased 300% as soon as he got to Canada. He was much richer the minute he set foot in Canada. You probably increased inequality in Canada---I don't know about if you decrease it or increase it in Italy---but when you move that guy away, you probably reduce global inequality. So by moving people to where the incomes are higher you level off inequality. In the United States it's the same narrative, you prevent this equalizing force from working through housing restrictions and making adjustments for---this is beyond the scope of our own research---but making adjustments for the increasing restrictiveness of housing that prevents mobility, you will probably get a large part of increasing inequality in the United States or even in England, which is also a situation like that, and in France, is not the result of terrible market forces responding to terrible government policies. Petersen: My guest today has been Vincent Geloso. Vincent thanks for being part of Economics Detective Radio. Geloso: It was a pleasure.
Lecture by Swami Tyagananda, given on February 1, 2015, at the Ramakrishna Vedanta Society, Boston, MA
© 2020-2025 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
