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
  • “…a fresh argument for the productive value of inequality.” - David Autor, Professor of Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
  • “…a comprehensive explanation of the modern economy.” - Julian Robertson, Founder, Tiger Management
  • “Unintended Consequences offers deep and well-argued analyses on almost every issue.” - The New York Times
  • “…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
  • “…serious thinking for serious thinkers. …a thought-provoking blueprint for growing middle- and working-class incomes.” - Mitt Romney, former Governor of Massachusetts
  • “…challenges misconceptions that distort our economic debates.” - Arthur Brooks, President of the American Enterprise Institute
  • “…a fresh argument for the productive value of inequality.” - David Autor, Professor of Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
  • “A full-throated defense of economic dynamism.” - The Wall Street Journal
  • “…serious thinking for serious thinkers. …a thought-provoking blueprint for growing middle- and working-class incomes.” - Mitt Romney, former Governor of Massachusetts
  • “…a very valuable contribution.” - Larry Summers, former Secretary of the Treasury and director of the National Economic Council, president emeritus, Harvard University
Upside of Inequality Oxford Unintended Consequences

Macro Roundup


Thursday, February 20, 2020

AI Summary. Germany's minimum wage increase raised wages 6.7% for workers previously paid below the new floor and is associated with higher productivity as employment shifted toward larger firms, without significant effects on unemployment or the employment rate. About 25% of the productivity gain is attributed to that shift, while the number of very small firms fell in the most affected regions.

Delphine Strauss Financial Times
Date Posted:
Is Database:
Database

Germany’s minimum wage increase in 2015 boosted productivity as employment shifted to larger firms, but hit small businesses, causing some to close. @DelphineStrauss

Does a higher minimum wage raise productivity by shifting workers to larger firms?

Core argument: Germany’s 2015 minimum wage introduction raised wages 6.7% for workers previously earning below the minimum and boosted productivity as employment shifted toward larger firms, without significantly affecting unemployment or the employment rate.

Germany's minimum wage increase in 2015 led to a 6.7% rise in wages for workers previously earning below the minimum, boosting productivity as employment shifted to larger firms. This shift occurred without significantly affecting unemployment or the employment rate. Approximately 25% of the productivity gain was attributed to workers moving to larger companies offering higher wages, more full-time jobs, and a skilled workforce. However, the policy adversely impacted small businesses, causing some to close and potentially reducing consumer choice. In regions most affected, the number of small firms with fewer than three employees decreased, while the share of larger companies grew. Larger firms were better positioned to absorb the wage increase, contributing to overall productivity gains during a period of economic growth.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. Germany’s 2015 minimum wage introduction raised wages 6.7% for workers previously earning below the minimum and boosted productivity as employment shifted toward larger firms, without significantly affecting unemployment or the employment rate.
  2. About 25% of the productivity gain from Germany’s minimum wage is attributed to workers moving to larger companies that offer higher wages, more full-time jobs, and a skilled workforce.
  3. In the German regions most affected by the minimum wage, the number of small firms with fewer than three employees fell while the share of larger companies grew, with some small businesses closing and consumer choice potentially reduced.

FT reports on A study of the impact of an uptick in the minimum wage in Germany. Study found it had a positive impact on productivity as employment shifted to larger firms, without a substantial effect on either unemployment or the employment rate; but the increase hurt small business and may have reduced consumer choice. However lead author notes this played out in a hot economy.

“…Germany’s introduction of a minimum wage in 2015 drove workers from small businesses to larger, more productive companies, helping to boost overall productivity at the expense of smaller organisations, Research has shown. Thepolicy led to a 6.7 per cent increase in wages for workers who had previously been paid below the minimum…without any substantial effect on either unemployment or the employment rate….Abouta quarter of the increase could be explained by workers moving to larger companies that paid higher average wages, with more full-time jobs, a more skilled workforce and a lower level of staff turnover, according to the research, which was based on administrative data and published on Tuesday. But it also suggested thatthe minimum wage caused some small companies to go out of business — potentially leading to reduced competition and less choice for consumers. In the regions most exposed to the policy, the number and share of companies with fewer than three employees fell in the years after it took effect, while the share of larger companies increased, the researchers found. Larger companies were more likely to be able to afford to pay the higher wage, they suggested. “ led to increases in average productivity,” said Christian Dustmann, the paper’s lead author, although he noted that this finding was from a period when the country’s economy had been thriving….”

Delphine Strauss, “Germany’s minimum wage boosted productivity but hit small companies,”Financial Times, February 18, 2020, https://www.ft.com/content/3bc67eee-5180-11ea-90ad-25e377c0ee1f

AI Summary. U.S. business dynamism has been declining since 1980 with a marked acceleration after 2000, and the share of transacted patents reassigned to the top 1% of firms rose from 30% in the 1980s to 55% by 2010. The authors argue that heavy patent acquisition by market leaders has crowded out smaller firms and slowed knowledge diffusion.

Sina Ates Federal Reserve Board
Date Posted:
Is Database:
Database

New Federal Reserve data shows a dramatic increase in patents reassigned to top 1% firms, from 30% in the 1980s to 55% by 2010, crowding out smaller firms and potentially impacting business dynamism.

Does patent buying by market leaders explain declining business dynamism?

Core argument: The share of transacted U.S. patents reassigned to the top 1% of firms rose from 30% in the 1980s to 55% by 2010, according to Federal Reserve data.

U.S. business dynamism has been declining since 1980, with a marked acceleration post-2000, as evidenced by Federal Reserve data showing a significant increase in the share of patents reassigned to the top 1% of firms. In the 1980s, 30% of transacted patents were reassigned to these leading firms, but this figure surged to 55% by 2010. This shift has crowded out smaller firms, as the likelihood of patents being reassigned to small firms has dropped dramatically over the past two decades. The concentration in patent production and reassignment has surged, with large firms expanding their intellectual property arsenals. This trend suggests that the heavy use of patents by market leaders may have contributed to a decline in knowledge diffusion, impacting overall business dynamism and innovation.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. The share of transacted U.S. patents reassigned to the top 1% of firms rose from 30% in the 1980s to 55% by 2010, according to Federal Reserve data.
  2. U.S. business dynamism has declined since 1980 with a marked acceleration after 2000, while the likelihood of patents being reassigned to small firms dropped sharply over the past two decades.
  3. Concentration in patent production and reassignment has surged as large firms expanded their intellectual property arsenals, suggesting that heavy patent use by market leaders may have contributed to declining knowledge diffusion and innovation.

Federal Reserve note implicitly supports the superstar firms thesis, finding that American business dynamism started declining in 1980, but accelerated in 2000. Note suggests that a steady decrease in diffusion has disproportionately impacted the decrease in overall dynamism as smaller firms share of patents declined. Data“…showsthe dramatic increase the share of patents reassigned to top 1 percent of firms with the largest patent stocks among all reassigned patents since the 1980s. Reciprocally, Panel Bshows the steady decline in the share of patent reassignments registered to small buyers over the same time period….”

Ufuk Akcigit and Sina Ates, “What Happened to U.S. Business Dynamism?,” Federal Reserve Board, February 14, 2020, https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/notes/feds-notes/what-happened-to-us-business-dynamism-20200214.htm

“…As in patent registries, we observe stark trends in patent reassignments since the 1980s. Figure 3a focuses on the purchasing trends of the top 1 percent of firms with the largest patent portfolios. The figure reveals that while 30 percent of the transacted patents were reassigned to the firms with the largest patent stocks in the 1980s, the share went up to 55 percent by 2010. This drastic increase has crowded out small players in the market, as illustrated in Figure 3b. The figure shows the likelihood of a patent to be assigned to a small firm, conditional on that patent being transacted from another small firm and recorded. In the past two decades, the fraction of transacted patents that are reassigned to small firms has dropped dramatically, implying a shift of ownership from the hands of small firms to large ones. These figures reveal that concentration in patent production and reassignment has surged, and firms with the largest patent (knowledge) stock have further expanded their intellectual property arsenals. Given that patents are exclusively used to prevent competitors from using the patent holders’ technology, these trends can imply that the heavy use of patents by market leaders might have caused the decline in knowledge diffusion from the best to the rest….”

AI Summary. Employment among people aged 25–54 is expanding by roughly 750,000 a year, and nearly one-third of these added workers previously identified as disabled, a group that does not necessarily receive Social Security Disability Insurance. Those workers are the largest single source of new hires.

Ernie Tedeschi Reason
Date Posted:
Is Database:
Database

@ErnieTedeschi 1/3 of prime age employment growth comes from previously “disabled” workers, a trend that could have significant implications for labor force participation rates and overall economic productivity.

Are previously disabled workers the largest source of new prime-age hires?

Core argument: Prime-age (25–54) employment is expanding at roughly +750,000 annually, with nearly one-third of those new workers coming from people who previously identified as disabled.

Prime-age employment is expanding at a rate of approximately +750,000 annually, with nearly one-third of these new workers emerging from individuals who previously identified as disabled. This group, which does not necessarily include those on SSDI [Social Security Disability Insurance], represents the largest single source of new hires. The influx of these workers into the labor market highlights a significant shift in labor force dynamics, suggesting that barriers to employment for those with disabilities are decreasing. This trend could have substantial implications for labor force participation rates and overall economic productivity, as it indicates a previously untapped pool of labor is now contributing to economic growth. The integration of these workers may also influence policy discussions around disability and employment support systems.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. Prime-age (25–54) employment is expanding at roughly +750,000 annually, with nearly one-third of those new workers coming from people who previously identified as disabled.
  2. Workers who previously identified as disabled, a group that does not necessarily include SSDI recipients, are the largest single source of new prime-age hires.

Terrific chart from Ernie shows prime-age employment is growing at a pace of around +750,000 a year. Almost a third of these job finders are coming from the ranks of the disabled(doesn’t mean SSDI, just that they self-identified as disability as their reason for not being in labor force)and they are the single biggest source of new worker hires.

Ernie Tedeschi, "Change in Prime Age (25-54) Employment," February 20, 2020, https://twitter.com/ernietedeschi/status/1230489362883678210

Friday, February 21, 2020

AI Summary. Wages in occupations that rely heavily on immigrant labor — including housekeepers, building-and-grounds maintenance workers, and drywall installers — are rising faster than in other low-wage jobs as immigration to the U.S. declines. Research finds wages growing 5% a year in five large metro areas where foreign-born populations fell.

Economist Staff The City
Date Posted:
Is Database:
Database

Immigration to the US is down, and wages are up. Wages in occupations heavily reliant on immigrant labor are rising faster than other low-wage jobs, according to @TheEconomist.

Does falling immigration raise wages in immigrant-heavy occupations?

Core argument: The Economist's calculations show wages in occupations heavily reliant on immigrant labour — housekeepers, building-and-grounds maintenance workers and drywall installers — rising faster than in other low-wage jobs as immigration to the United States declines.

As immigration to the U.S. declines, wages in occupations heavily reliant on immigrant labor, such as housekeepers, building-and-grounds maintenance workers, and drywall installers, are rising faster than other low-wage jobs. According to The Economist's calculations, these sectors are experiencing significant wage growth due to reduced low-skill migration, which acts as a substitute for domestic workers. Additionally, research by William Frey of the Brookings Institution indicates that in five major metro areas with declining foreign-born populations from 2010-18, wages are increasing by 5% annually. This trend suggests that reduced immigration is contributing to wage growth in specific sectors and regions, highlighting the complex interplay between immigration patterns and labor market dynamics.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. The Economist's calculations show wages in occupations heavily reliant on immigrant labour — housekeepers, building-and-grounds maintenance workers and drywall installers — rising faster than in other low-wage jobs as immigration to the United States declines.
  2. In five major American metro areas with declining foreign-born populations between 2010 and 2018, wages are rising by 5% annually, according to research by William Frey of the Brookings Institution.
  3. The Economist attributes wage growth in immigrant-heavy occupations to reduced low-skill migration, with such migrant labour acting as a substitute for domestic workers.

The Economisthas two calculations (of theirs) that are worth noting that suggest immigration has an impact on wages via low skill immigration serving as a substitute for low skilled domestic workers,

“…There are nonetheless scraps of evidence that some workers are benefiting from America’s growing antipathy to immigrants. Gordon Hanson of Harvard University suggests thatif the impact of reduced low-skill migration is showing up anywhere, it will be in three particular occupations: housekeepers, building-and-grounds maintenance workers, and drywall installers. These occupations rely heavily on immigrant labour and the services they provide cannot be traded internationally. Average wages in those occupations are rising considerably faster than wages in other low-paid jobs, according to calculations by The Economist.Intriguing evidence also shows up geographically. According to research by William Frey of the Brookings Institution, a think-tank, five big metro areas saw absolute declines in their foreign-born populations in 2010-18. Wages in those areas are now rising by 5% a year, according to our calculations.Cleveland, which is in one such area, has pockets of severe poverty but seems to be doing better than before. Many of the city centre’s astonishingly grand buildings are being converted into luxury lofts for millennials….”

Economist Staff, "Immigration to America is down. Wages are up,"The Economist, February 13, 2020, https://www.economist.com/united-states/2020/02/13/immigration-to-america-is-down-wages-are-up