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


Friday, December 29, 2017

AI Summary. About 1 in 7 Americans live in rural counties, where populations are aging, bank lending and business startups lag urban areas, and fewer residents hold bachelor's degrees. Rural areas also show higher poverty and disability rates, rising deaths by suicide and maternal mortality, and shrinking healthcare services including maternity care.

Paul Overberg Wall Street Journal
Date Posted:
Is Database:
Database

Rural America faces significant challenges, with 1 in 7 Americans living in rural counties where populations are aging & economic opportunities are dwindling @poverberg @WSJ.

How wide is the economic gap between rural and urban America?

Core argument: About 1 in 7 Americans live in rural counties, where populations are aging, economic opportunities are shrinking, and bank lending and business startups lag urban counterparts.

The economic divide between urban and rural America is stark, with rural areas facing significant challenges. Approximately 1 in 7 Americans live in rural counties, where populations are aging, and economic opportunities are dwindling. Rural areas have seen a rise in deaths by suicide and maternal mortality, while bank lending and business startups lag behind urban counterparts. The recession exacerbated these issues, with rural net worth declining as urban areas rebounded. Education gaps persist, with fewer rural residents holding bachelor's degrees, limiting job prospects and income growth. Rural poverty rates remain higher than urban areas, compounded by higher disability rates among older, less-educated workers. The decline in rural healthcare services, including maternity care, further widens the gap. Meanwhile, urban areas benefit from better healthcare outcomes and economic opportunities, highlighting the growing urban-rural divide.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. About 1 in 7 Americans live in rural counties, where populations are aging, economic opportunities are shrinking, and bank lending and business startups lag urban counterparts.
  2. Rural areas have seen rising deaths by suicide and maternal mortality alongside declining healthcare services including maternity care, while urban areas show better healthcare outcomes.
  3. Rural net worth declined during the recession as urban areas rebounded, and rural poverty rates remain higher than urban ones, compounded by fewer bachelor's degrees and higher disability rates among older, less-educated workers.

Paul Overberg, "The Divide Between America’s Prosperous Cities and Struggling Small Towns—in 20 Charts,"Wall Street Journal, December 29, 2017, https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-divide-between-americas-prosperous-cities-and-struggling-small-townsin-20-charts-1514543401

The Divide Between America’s Prosperous Cities and Struggling Small Towns—in 20 Charts

About 1 in 7 Americans lives in rural parts of the country—1,800 counties that sit outside any metropolitan area. A generation ago, most of these places had working economies, a strong social fabric and a way of life that drew a steady stream of urban migrants. Today, many are in crisis. Populations are aging, more working-age adults collect disability, and trends in teen pregnancy and divorce are diverging for the worse from metro areas. Deaths by suicide and in maternity are on the rise. Bank lending and business startups are falling behind. Here is the data that tells the story.

The Divide Between Americas Prosperous Cities and Struggling Small Townsin 20 Charts: Extended Excerpt Image 1


For decades, as migration to America’s small towns rose and fell, they barely managed to keep growing. Rural families formed and had just enough children to offset losses from those who left and those who died.

The Divide Between Americas Prosperous Cities and Struggling Small Townsin 20 Charts: Extended Excerpt Image 2


More recently, fewer young adults stayed or returned home after college or from distant jobs. That meant fewer marriages and fewer children. City-weary arrivals dwindled as well, meaning populations have shrunk.

The Divide Between Americas Prosperous Cities and Struggling Small Townsin 20 Charts: Extended Excerpt Image 3


In the 1990s, a few rural areas began to record more deaths than births. Then the deep recession of 2007-2009 lowered U.S. birthrates and slowed migration and immigration. Collectively, all of rural America now faces the grim prospect of natural decrease, meaning more deaths than births over time.

The Divide Between Americas Prosperous Cities and Struggling Small Townsin 20 Charts: Extended Excerpt Image 4


Few immigrants are moving to rural areas. Most seek work and neighbors in places that are familiar, which largely means urban areas. This has opened a cultural gulf between diverse, growing cities and mostly white, aging small towns.

The Divide Between Americas Prosperous Cities and Struggling Small Townsin 20 Charts: Extended Excerpt Image 5


Social trends have weakened rural families. Couples marry earlier in rural areas, but marriages can founder in a shaky economy. Among women ages 20 to 34 who live in rural areas, 6.5% are divorced, compared with 3.6% of their counterparts in large cities. One reason is that almost two-thirds of city women in that age group have never been married, compared with just half of rural women. Later marriage means fewer opportunities for divorce.

The Divide Between Americas Prosperous Cities and Struggling Small Townsin 20 Charts: Extended Excerpt Image 6


A continuing public-health campaign to limit teenage births has produced a related urban-rural gap. The campaign includes education programs and access to contraceptives. While teen births are falling around the U.S., they are falling much faster in urban areas, where the campaigns have been more effective.

The Divide Between Americas Prosperous Cities and Struggling Small Townsin 20 Charts: Extended Excerpt Image 7


One factor behind falling teen birthrates: Rising college attendance by women. In 2015, for the first time, the share of women ages 25 and older who held at least a bachelor’s degree topped that of men. Women earn 57% of new bachelor’s degrees. This tide has risen most sharply in large cities and their suburbs.

The Divide Between Americas Prosperous Cities and Struggling Small Townsin 20 Charts: Extended Excerpt Image 8


Education gaps have long-term consequences. More jobs—especially full-time jobs with benefits—require a bachelor’s or advanced degree. Without a larger share of college graduates, small towns have little hope of closing the income gap.

The Divide Between Americas Prosperous Cities and Struggling Small Townsin 20 Charts: Extended Excerpt Image 9


The recession hammered Americans’ net worth, which had been slipping for years in rural areas. For many families, the bulk of their net worth is in home equity. The housing-market boom and collapse hit fast-growing suburbs hardest but didn’t spare small towns.

The stock-market boom and resurgent urban-home prices have largely benefited upper-income households, widening the urban-rural gap in family net worth.

The Divide Between Americas Prosperous Cities and Struggling Small Townsin 20 Charts: Extended Excerpt Image 10


The violent crime rate for major cities has fallen enough to match that of small towns, wiping out much of the “safety premium” that rural America once enjoyed. This shift weakens one of the motives to move from urban to rural areas, especially for families with children.

The Divide Between Americas Prosperous Cities and Struggling Small Townsin 20 Charts: Extended Excerpt Image 11


Circumstances behind rural poverty vary—for instance, among American Indian reservations, migrant-worker settlements and small towns that lose employers. Rural poverty has persistently run higher than urban poverty.

The Divide Between Americas Prosperous Cities and Struggling Small Townsin 20 Charts: Extended Excerpt Image 12


Men in rural areas are working less. They are typically older and less educated than their urban counterparts, reducing the number of jobs they are eligible for and the pay they can secure.

The Divide Between Americas Prosperous Cities and Struggling Small Townsin 20 Charts: Extended Excerpt Image 13


Rates of disability among small-town workers have long been higher, partly due to such physically taxing jobs as farming and mining. The rates are rising faster, too, in part, because rural workers tend to be older.

The Divide Between Americas Prosperous Cities and Struggling Small Townsin 20 Charts: Extended Excerpt Image 14


Rural areas have seen their share of business establishments shrink along with their share of the population.

The Divide Between Americas Prosperous Cities and Struggling Small Townsin 20 Charts: Extended Excerpt Image 15


One cause is the lack of capital for new or small businesses. Adjusted for inflation, loans by banks of less than $1 million haven't recovered in rural areas since the recession.

The Divide Between Americas Prosperous Cities and Struggling Small Townsin 20 Charts: Extended Excerpt Image 16


In the past couple of decades, better prevention and treatment have produced gains against heart disease, the nation’s No. 1 killer. The biggest improvements occurred in large cities, thanks to lower smoking rates, widespread cholesterol-lowering drugs and better emergency care, among other factors.

The Divide Between Americas Prosperous Cities and Struggling Small Townsin 20 Charts: Extended Excerpt Image 17


The same pattern appears in death rates from cancer, the No. 2 killer in the U.S. Rates have fallen sharply in major cities and barely in rural areas. (Rates are adjusted to cancel effects due solely to some groups being older and more likely to be diagnosed with cancer.) The best gains stem from prevention, screening and treatment. That requires good primary care, advanced surgical treatments and drug trials at specialized hospitals.

The Divide Between Americas Prosperous Cities and Struggling Small Townsin 20 Charts: Extended Excerpt Image 18


Diabetes rates indicate an ominous long-term problem for rural areas. They are higher than in urban areas and rising faster.

The Divide Between Americas Prosperous Cities and Struggling Small Townsin 20 Charts: Extended Excerpt Image 19


One grim measure of the quality of rural life is the rising maternal death rate. More pregnant women have high blood pressure, diabetes, obesity or a history of drug use. Yet rural care for pregnant women is slipping. From 2005 to 2014, 15% of rural hospitals closed or ended maternity services. In suburban and urban areas, 5% did. Closures can prompt obstetrician/gynecologists to move, eroding health care for rural women.

The Divide Between Americas Prosperous Cities and Struggling Small Townsin 20 Charts: Extended Excerpt Image 20


The nation’s suicide rate is worst in small towns. Suicide is often traced to untreated clinical depression or other mental-health troubles.

Monday, November 26, 2018

AI Summary. The National Climate Assessment estimates that a 9°F rise in global average temperatures would reduce U.S. gross domestic product in 2090 by 4%, plus or minus 2%, relative to a world without human influence on the climate. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change puts a 5°F rise at roughly 3% of global output in 2100.

Steven Koonin Wall Street Journal
Date Posted:
Is Database:
Database
Is Important:
Important

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change a global temperature rise of 5°F would reduce annual GDP growth by 0.05 percentage point.

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change a global temperature rise of 5°F would reduce annual GDP growth...

How large is the projected economic cost of rising temperatures?

Core argument: The National Climate Assessment's final chapter estimates that a 9°F rise in global average temperatures, beyond the 1.4°F recorded since 1880, would reduce U.S. GDP in 2090 by 4% plus or minus 2% relative to a no-human-influence baseline.

The National Climate Assessment's numbers, uncertain as they are, turn out not to be all that alarming. The final figure of the final chapter shows that an increase in global average temperatures of 9 degrees Fahrenheit (beyond the 1.4-degree rise already recorded since 1880) would directly reduce the U.S. gross domestic product in 2090 by 4%, plus or minus 2%—that is, the GDP would be about 4% less than it would have been absent human influences on the climate. That “worst-worst case” estimate assumes the largest plausible temperature rise and only known modes of adaptation. Buried in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s 2014 report is a chart showing that a global temperature rise of 5 degrees Fahrenheit would have a global economic impact of about 3% in 2100—negligibly diminishing projected global growth over that period to 385% from 400%. To put it another way, the projected reduction in the average annual growth rate is a mere 0.05 percentage point. The U.S. economy in 2090 would be no more than two years behind where it would have been absent man-caused climate change.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. The National Climate Assessment's final chapter estimates that a 9°F rise in global average temperatures, beyond the 1.4°F recorded since 1880, would reduce U.S. GDP in 2090 by 4% plus or minus 2% relative to a no-human-influence baseline.
  2. That 4% figure is a "worst-worst case" assuming the largest plausible temperature rise and only known modes of adaptation, leaving the U.S. economy in 2090 no more than two years behind where it would otherwise have been.
  3. A chart in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's 2014 report shows a 5°F global temperature rise producing a global economic impact of about 3% in 2100, trimming projected growth to 385% from 400%—0.05 percentage point off average annual growth.