Top Ten New York Times Bestselling Author
AI Summary. The gap in hours worked between Americans and non-Americans has narrowed by half since the 1990s, driven by declining U.S. work hours as expanded government health benefits reduced the need to work, while rising wages and lower barriers to employment increased hours worked in other advanced economies.
Serdar Birinci, Loukas Karabarbounis, and Kurt See National Bureau of Economic ResearchCore argument: American work hours declined after 2000 primarily because expanded health benefits reduced employment incentives for non-workers.
Whereas Americans and Europeans were working roughly the same hours in the early 1970s, by the mid 1990s, Americans were working much more than Europeans. We update Prescott’s observations on hours worked for advanced economies and document that about half of the hours gap in the 1990s has reversed by the end of the 2010s. While the decline in the U.S. hours is well documented in the literature, the increase in non-U.S. hours in the past two decades, both relative to the United States and in absolute levels, has not yet been analyzed systematically. The convergence in hours worked is concentrated on the extensive margin and is observed for both men and women. We offer a comparative study on the convergence of hours worked and ask, “Why do Americans no longer work so much more than non-Americans?” [Employing both nonstructural correlation analysis and a structural model of labor supply, we suggest that] U.S. hours per person declined after the 2000s because of the rise of benefits provided to the non-employed. Among these benefits, we find the most important role for health benefits and, in particular, Medicaid. For non-U.S. countries, the rise of labor supply is generally accounted for by a rise of wages and falling fixed costs and disutility of work.AI Summary. Federal Reserve wealth data overstates the role of public stocks in top portfolios because private corporations and private equity funds are counted alongside publicly traded shares, making the ultra-wealthy appear more like stock market investors than business owners.
Owen Zidar and Eric Zwick The Everywhere MillionaireCore argument: The ultra-wealthy derive substantial wealth from private business ownership, not primarily from public stock holdings as commonly assumed.
“Private businesses” make up a declining and now-modest share of top 0.1% wealth in the Federal Reserve’s Distribution of Financial Accounts (DFA), with corporate equities dominating portfolios at the very top. The misleading implication is that the rich are primarily stockholders. In fact, they are not. The issue, we learned, is that the DFA’s “private business” category is much narrower than what most people mean by the term. It covers only proprietor’s equity in noncorporate businesses — partnerships and sole proprietorships. Not S-corporations. Not other private corporations. Not financial partnerships like private equity or hedge funds. Just noncorporate, nonfinancial businesses. Private corporations are valued separately, but the Fed can’t distinguish households’ holdings of private corporate equity from their holdings of publicly traded stocks. They’re all lumped together into “corporate equities.” The Survey of Consumer Finances (SCF) tells a different story about what the top 0.1% actually owns. Private business shows up as roughly 45 to 50% of top wealth — far larger than the DFA’s “private business” label suggests. About 80% of households worth $30 million or more are business owners.