Edward Conard

Top Ten New York Times Bestselling Author

  • “…a must-read for serious students of economic policy.” - Glenn Hubbard, Dean, Columbia Business School, and former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers
  • “…reminds us that inequality sends a signal of what society lacks most, in America’s case, entrepreneurship and risk taking.” - Lawrence Lindsey, CEO, The Lindsey Group, former Director of the National Economic Council
  • “Unintended Consequences provides a provocative interpretation of the causes of the global financial crisis and the policies needed to return to rapid growth. Whether you agree or not, this analysis is well worth reading.” - Nouriel Roubini, New York University; Chairman, Roubini Global Economics
  • “…serious thinking for serious thinkers. …a thought-provoking blueprint for growing middle- and working-class incomes.” - Mitt Romney, former Governor of Massachusetts
  • “Unintended Consequences represents the most cogent and persuasive analysis of the Financial Crisis to date.” - Andrei Shleifer, 1999 John Bates Clark Medal Winner
  • “…a fresh argument for the productive value of inequality.” - David Autor, Professor of Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
  • “…challenges misconceptions that distort our economic debates.” - Arthur Brooks, President of the American Enterprise Institute
  • “Unintended Consequences is far smarter and more thought-provoking than most economics written for the general public” - Greg Mankiw, Harvard University, Former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors
  • “Unintended Consequences is full of substance, it is one of the must-read books of the year, and once I finish it I will be giving it a second read through right away.” - Tyler Cowen, Professor, George Mason University
  • “There are an amazing number of good ideas and interesting points made in Unintended Consequences. The thinking underlying it, and the obvious depth of understanding of the author, are very impressive.” - Steven Levitt, coauthor of Freakonomics; 2004 John Bates Clark Medal
  • “Unintended Consequences offers deep and well-argued analyses on almost every issue.” - The New York Times
  • “…a fresh argument for the productive value of inequality.” - David Autor, Professor of Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Upside of Inequality Oxford Unintended Consequences

Macro Roundup


Tuesday, December 2, 2014

AI Summary. Analyses find no clear relationship between inequality and economic performance, and the evidence that inequality reduces growth is less robust than conventional wisdom assumes. The authors argue policymakers should look beyond simple correlations to more nuanced factors shaping both growth and equity.

Paul Krugman Krugman Blog
Date Posted:
Is Database:
Database

Inequality-growth relationship challenges orthodoxy: @PaulKrugman analysis finds no clear correlation btw economic performance and income gaps. Key finding contradicts traditional inequality-growth trade-off theory.

Does inequality reduce economic growth?

Core argument: The evidence that inequality harms economic growth is weaker than conventional wisdom assumes, with analyses finding no clear relationship between inequality and economic performance.

The relationship between inequality and economic performance is complex and not as straightforward as conventional wisdom suggests. While some argue that inequality negatively impacts growth, the evidence supporting this claim is not as robust as often assumed. Recent analyses indicate that the absence of a clear relationship between inequality and economic performance marks a significant shift from traditional views. It is crucial to move beyond simple correlations and explore more nuanced factors that might influence this dynamic. Understanding these complexities can help policymakers design more effective economic strategies that consider both growth and equity.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. The evidence that inequality harms economic growth is weaker than conventional wisdom assumes, with analyses finding no clear relationship between inequality and economic performance.
  2. The absence of a clear relationship between inequality and economic performance marks a significant shift from traditional views.
  3. Moving beyond simple correlations to more nuanced factors would help policymakers design economic strategies that consider both growth and equity.

"...I’m actually a skeptic on the inequality-is-bad-for-performance proposition..."Inequality and Economic Performance

Krugman, Paul. "Inequality and Economic Performance," Krugman Blog, December 2, 2014. Available at:http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/12/02/inequality-and-economic-performance/?module=BlogPost-Title&version=Blog Main&contentCollection=Opinion&action=Click&pgtype=Blogs&region=Body

I’m actually a skeptic on the inequality-is-bad-for-performance proposition — not hard line against it, but worried that the evidence for some popular stories is weaker than I’d like. It’s important to realize that even the absence of a relationship is a big change from conventional wisdom; but how much do we really know for the opposite case?

I’m at a Columbia conference on that topic, giving a talk tonight; my slides arehere(pdf). My basic point is that we need to get beyond reduced-form correlations between inequality and growth, and a few samples of things we might do.

Tuesday, January 27, 2015

AI Summary. Data on American time allocation show hours worked increased among higher-income workers while lower-income workers gained leisure time, indicating a divergence in how work and leisure are distributed across income groups.

Mark Aguiar & Erik Hurst Springer Nature
Date Posted:
Is Database:
Database

Higher income workers increased hours worked from 1965 to 2005, while lower income workers saw an increase in leisure time, highlighting a growing disparity in work-life balance btw income groups.

Do higher-income Americans work more hours while lower-income workers gain leisure?

Core argument: Higher income U.S. workers increased their hours worked between 1965 and 2005, while lower income workers saw their leisure time rise, a divergence in time allocation across income groups.

From 1965 to 2005, a notable shift in time allocation emerged across different income levels in the U.S. Higher income workers experienced an increase in hours worked, reflecting a trend where affluent individuals are dedicating more time to their careers. Conversely, lower income workers saw an increase in leisure time, suggesting a divergence in work-life balance between income groups. This trend highlights a growing disparity in how time is valued and utilized across economic strata, with potential implications for productivity, economic inequality, and social well-being. The data underscores the need for policy considerations that address these disparities, as they may influence broader economic outcomes and labor market dynamics.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. Higher income U.S. workers increased their hours worked between 1965 and 2005, while lower income workers saw their leisure time rise, a divergence in time allocation across income groups.
  2. The divergence in U.S. time allocation from 1965 to 2005 carries potential implications for productivity, economic inequality, and social well-being across income strata.

This paper is the one that shows that leisure time for lower income workers has gone up http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11205-008-9362-0and the Kuhn/Lozano paper shows the hours worked.http://www.nber.org/papers/w11895here’s an economist piece that is a pretty good literature review in case we can’t find the posthttp://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21600989-why-rich-now-have-less-leisure-poor-nice-work-if-you-can-get-out


Send me that we could add the link to the Kaplan Paper/your blog post that outlines how higher income workers work way more hours. or save it in case you get a response.