Edward Conard

Top Ten New York Times Bestselling Author

  • “A full-throated defense of economic dynamism.” - The Wall Street Journal
  • “…a fresh argument for the productive value of inequality.” - David Autor, Professor of Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
  • “…a fresh argument for the productive value of inequality.” - David Autor, Professor of Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
  • “…serious thinking for serious thinkers. …a thought-provoking blueprint for growing middle- and working-class incomes.” - Mitt Romney, former Governor of Massachusetts
  • “Unintended Consequences should be read by anyone who takes for granted the superiority of progressive taxation and has not thought carefully about the trade-offs involved.” - The New Republic
  • “…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
  • “…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
  • “…a comprehensive explanation of the modern economy.” - Julian Robertson, Founder, Tiger Management
  • “…a very valuable contribution.” - Larry Summers, former Secretary of the Treasury and director of the National Economic Council, president emeritus, Harvard 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
  • “…a must-read for serious students of economic policy.” - Glenn Hubbard, Dean, Columbia Business School, and former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers
Upside of Inequality Oxford Unintended Consequences

Macro Roundup


Monday, April 29, 2019

AI Summary. 67% of US counties are projected to have fewer prime working age adults (25-54) by 2037 than in 1997, even as the national total of prime age adults grows by 24.1m. About half of US counties lose population annually, affecting over 50m people, or 15% of the population.

Adam Ozimek, Kenan Fikri and John Lettieri Economic Innovation Group
Date Posted:
Is Database:
Database

By 2037, 2/3 of US counties will have fewer prime age adults than they did in 1997, despite a national increase of 24.1m prime age adults.

Are most US counties losing prime working age adults despite national growth?

Core argument: 67% of U.S. counties are projected to have fewer prime working age adults in 2037 than in 1997, even as the nation adds 24.1m prime age adults and 98.8m people overall.

The U.S. is experiencing a significant demographic shift, with 67% of counties projected to have fewer prime working age adults by 2037 compared to 1997, despite an overall national increase of 24.1m prime age adults and 98.8m people in total. This trend is underscored by the fact that 80% of counties lost population ages 25 to 54 over the last decade, affecting areas home to 149m Americans in 2017. The national growth rate has decelerated, with the share of counties falling below it rising from 64% in 1990-2000 to 86% in 2010-2017. Currently, about half of U.S. counties are losing population annually, impacting over 50m people, or 15% of the population. These demographic challenges highlight the need for innovative solutions like the proposed Heartland Visa to revitalize struggling regions.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. 67% of U.S. counties are projected to have fewer prime working age adults in 2037 than in 1997, even as the nation adds 24.1m prime age adults and 98.8m people overall.
  2. 80% of U.S. counties lost population ages 25 to 54 over the last decade, in areas home to 149m Americans in 2017, while the share of counties growing below the national rate rose from 64% in 1990-2000 to 86% in 2010-2017.
  3. About half of U.S. counties are losing population annually, affecting more than 50m people, or 15% of the population, a trend cited in support of a proposed Heartland Visa to revitalize struggling regions.

"....The recent slowdown in U.S. population growth thus understates the problem in many places. Even as the national growth rate has decelerated, the share of all counties falling below it has increased steadily from 64% from 1990 to 2000, to 73% from 2000 to 2010, to 86% from 2010 to 2017. About half of U.S. counties are now losing population outright each year—an historically high proportion. Over 50 million people, or 15% of the U.S. population, live in counties that have shrunk over the past decade, and another 11 million live in counties with largely flat populations.... The story for prime working age population is even more dramatic, with 80% of counties losing population ages 25 to 54 over the last decade. Together these counties were home to 149 million Americans in 2017. The proportion of counties losing prime working age population annually has been well above historic highs since 2000, where Moody’s Analytics forecasts it to remain into the next decade. These projections mean that, by 2037, 67% of U.S. counties will contain fewer prime working age adults than they did in 1997, even though the United States as a whole will add 24.1 million prime working age adults and 98.8 million people in total over that same period...."

Adam Ozimek, Kenan Fikri and John Lettieri, "From Managing Decline to Building The Future Could A Heartland Visa Help Struggling Regions?" Economic Innovation Group, April 2019, https://eig.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Heartland-Visas-Report.pdf

AI Summary. Census and survey data show the Southeast and Rust Belt have lost highly educated residents to states along the Boston–Washington corridor and the West Coast, with Massachusetts, New York, California, and Washington retaining and attracting talent while Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Alabama experience high net brain drain. Top-performing states improved their brain-gain measures while many Southeast and Rust Belt states declined.

Scott Winship Joint Economic Committee
Date Posted:
Is Database:
Database

The Southeast and Rust Belt regions have experienced significant brain drain, losing highly-educated individuals to dynamic states along the Boston-Washington corridor and the West Coast, according to @SWinshi @JointEconCommittee.

Which states gain and lose highly educated residents?

Core argument: Census data for 1940–2000 and surveys for 2010–2017 show the Southeast and Rust Belt losing highly educated residents to states along the Boston–Washington corridor and the West Coast.

The Southeast and Rust Belt regions have experienced significant brain drain, losing highly-educated individuals to dynamic states along the Boston-Washington corridor and the West Coast. Data from the 1940-2000 censuses and 2010-2017 surveys show that states like Massachusetts, New York, California, and Washington excel in retaining and attracting talent. In contrast, states such as Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Alabama struggle with high gross and net brain drain. From 1970 to 2017, top-performing states improved their brain gain metrics, while many Southeast and Rust Belt states saw declines. This trend highlights regional disparities in economic opportunities and the ability to attract skilled professionals, impacting local economies and growth potential.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. Census data for 1940–2000 and surveys for 2010–2017 show the Southeast and Rust Belt losing highly educated residents to states along the Boston–Washington corridor and the West Coast.
  2. Massachusetts, New York, California, and Washington excel at retaining and attracting educated talent, while Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Alabama show high gross and net brain drain.
  3. From 1970 to 2017, top-performing states improved their brain gain metrics while many Southeast and Rust Belt states saw declines.

basically documents the southeast and "rust belt" getting hollowed out in terms of talent

"...This report describes what this so-called “brain drain” looks like across the 50 U.S. states. We use data from the 1940 through 2000 decennial censuses and the 2010 and 2017 American Community Surveys to measure brain drain in each state. We define a highly-educated “leaver” as someone in the top third of the national education distribution who resides in a state other than her birth state between the ages of 31 and 40. We then analyze brain drain using two measures: “gross” brain drain and “net” brain drain. Gross brain drain is defined as the share of leavers who are highly educated minus the share of adults who remain in their birth state (“stayers”) who are highly educated. Net brain drain is the share of leavers who are highly educated minus the share of entrants to a state who are highly educated. We find that brain drain (and brain gain) states tend to fall along regional lines, although there are a number of exceptions to this general rule. Overall, dynamic states along the Boston-Washington corridor (Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, and Maryland), on the West Coast (California, Oregon, Washington), and in other parts of the country (Illinois, Texas, Colorado, Arizona, and Hawaii) are the best at retaining and attracting highly-educated adults. Meanwhile, states in northern New England (New Hampshire and Vermont), the Rust Belt (Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Missouri), the Plains (North and South Dakota and Iowa), and the Southeast (West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, South Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana), as well as Delaware, fare the worst on both counts.We also find that most of the top-performing, brain gain states experienced improvements in terms of gross drain, net drain, or both from 1970 to 2017. On the other hand, many brain drain states, especially in the Southeast, have seen declining fortunes on one or both of these measures during this period. Others, including most of the Rust Belt states, have consistently faced high gross drain and net drain over the past half-century...."

Scott Winship, "Losing Our Minds: Brain Drain across the United States," United States Congress Joint Economic Committee, April 24, 2019, https://www.jec.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/republicans/2019/4/losing-our-minds-brain-drain-across-the-united-states

Wednesday, May 1, 2019

AI Summary. A study of Louisiana's private school voucher program estimates statistically significant negative effects on student English and math achievement across most years and samples, with initial large negative impacts diminishing after the first year but persisting through the fourth. College enrollment rates for voucher students were statistically indistinguishable from the comparison group.

J. Wolf, Jonathan N. Mills, Yujie Sude, Heidi H. Erickson and Matthew L. Lee Louisiana Scholarship Program Evaluation Policy Brief School Choice Demonstration Project
Date Posted:
Is Database:
Database

The Louisiana Scholarship Program (LSP) has shown statistically significant negative impacts on student achievement in ELA & math across most years & samples, including the fourth year.

Do private school vouchers lower student achievement and college enrollment?

Core argument: The Louisiana Scholarship Program produced statistically significant negative impacts on English Language Arts and math achievement across most years and samples, with large initial losses diminishing by Year 2 but remaining significant through Year 4.

The Louisiana Scholarship Program (LSP) has shown statistically significant negative impacts on student achievement in English Language Arts (ELA) and math across most years and samples, including the fourth year. Initial large negative impacts diminished by Year 2 but remained significant in Year 4. The effects varied based on test alignment with public school curricula, with less negative impacts when using the iLEAP test. African American students experienced less negative impacts compared to non-African American students. Students attending larger, higher-tuition schools with longer days saw more favorable outcomes. College enrollment rates for LSP participants were similar to the control group, with a 0.5 percentage point difference that was not statistically significant. Despite lower test scores, LSP students enrolled in college at comparable rates, suggesting private schools may teach skills not measured by state tests.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. The Louisiana Scholarship Program produced statistically significant negative impacts on English Language Arts and math achievement across most years and samples, with large initial losses diminishing by Year 2 but remaining significant through Year 4.
  2. College enrollment for Louisiana Scholarship Program participants differed from the control group by 0.5 percentage points, a gap that was not statistically significant, suggesting private schools may teach skills state tests do not measure.
  3. Negative effects of the Louisiana Scholarship Program were less pronounced for African American students than non-African American students, less pronounced on the iLEAP test, and more favorable for students at larger, higher-tuition schools with longer days.

"....We determine the impact of LSP voucher use on student achievement by comparing students who received vouchers through randomized lotteries. The LSP was oversubscribed in the first year of the program and used a matching algorithm to allocate open seats in private schools to students. When LSP applicants exceeded the number of seats available in a given school, the program awarded voucher placements to that specific school by lottery. Our analysis focuses on this subset of eligible applicants whose voucher receipt was determined randomly so that any differences in outcomes between LSP awardees and non-awardees can be attributed to the program....We examine how the LSP effects vary over time for two samples of students: a sample restricted to students with baseline test scores (BA) and a larger sample that is not limited to students with baseline test scores (NBA). Our prior research indicates large negative impacts on ELA and math in the first year of participation that appear to diminish somewhat by Year 2 and are not statistically significant by Year 3. Figures 1 and 2 present regression estimates for ELA and math LSP effects for Years 1 through 4 for consistent samples of students in the study. Figure 1 presents results for students in the BA Sample and Figure 2 focuses on students in the larger and broader NBA Sample..... Overall, participating in the LSP had a statistically significant negative impact on student English Language Arts (ELA) and math scores across most years of the evaluation, including the fourth year, and across most samples of students studied.....The achievement impacts of the LSP varied significantly based on the specific criterion-referenced test used and the accountability stakes attached to it. The negative test score impacts of the LSP were half as large in Year 1 when the test taken was the iLEAP, which is less aligned to the public school curriculum, than when it was the LEAP, which is more aligned. The impacts were not statistically significant in the third year of the evaluation, when no accountability stakes were assigned to the test scores......The achievement effects of the LSP varied based on student characteristics. African American students experienced significantly less negative impacts of voucher usage after four years relative to non-African American students......The achievement effects of the LSP varied based on the characteristics of the chosen schools. Students whose most-preferred schools were larger, charged higher tuition, and had longer school days experienced more favorable achievement impacts from participating in the LSP relative to their LSP peers who did not list such schools as their first choice. In some cases, test score impacts were positive and statistically significant for students choosing schools with these characteristics.... The effects of the LSP on college enrollment rates were neutral. Students who participated in the LSP in grades 7-12 starting in the fall of 2012 enrolled in college by 2018 at a rate of 60.0 percent compared to a rate of 59.5% for members of the experimental control group. The difference of 0.5 percentage points between the two groups is not statistically significant. The results were similar for students enrolling in 2-year or 4-year colleges.....Students applying to the LSP were disproportionately African American and low-income, compared to non-applicants. No consistent evidence indicates that the LSP is “cream skimming” or “pushing out” students based on their family social status or initial test scores. However, among LSP applicants, students with disabilities are less likely than students without disabilities to use a voucher initially....Moreover, in spite of scoring lower than their control group peers, especially in math, students who participated in the LSP were accepted to and enrolled in college at a rate that was statistically similar to the students who lost their LSP placement lottery. One possible explanation for those divergent results is that private schools in the LSP are teaching students content and skills that help them get accepted to college but are not measured by the state test....."

Patrick J. Wolf, Jonathan N. Mills, Yujie Sude, Heidi H. Erickson and Matthew L. Lee, "How has the Louisiana Scholarship Program Affected Students? A Comprehensive Summary of Effects after Four Years," Louisiana Scholarship Program Evaluation Policy Brief School Choice Demonstration Project," April 24, 2019, http://www.uaedreform.org/wp-content/uploads/LSP4-Policy-Brief-SCDP.pdf