Edward Conard

Top Ten New York Times Bestselling Author

  • “…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
  • “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
  • “…a very valuable contribution.” - Larry Summers, former Secretary of the Treasury and director of the National Economic Council, president emeritus, Harvard University
  • “…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 very valuable contribution.” - Larry Summers, former Secretary of the Treasury and director of the National Economic Council, president emeritus, Harvard University
  • “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
  • “Unintended Consequences represents the most cogent and persuasive analysis of the Financial Crisis to date.” - Andrei Shleifer, 1999 John Bates Clark Medal Winner
  • “…challenges misconceptions that distort our economic debates.” - Arthur Brooks, President of the American Enterprise Institute
  • “…serious thinking for serious thinkers. …a thought-provoking blueprint for growing middle- and working-class incomes.” - Mitt Romney, former Governor of Massachusetts
  • “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
Upside of Inequality Oxford Unintended Consequences
Buy the Books
  • Macro Roundup
  • About Roundup
  • About Ed Conard
  • Highlights
  • Topics
  • Subscribe
Edward Conard
  • twitter
  • facebook
  • linkedin
  • youtube
  • Email
  • Text Message (SMS)
  • Twitter/X
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • WhatsApp Message
Subscribe to Macro Roundup Emails
  • Mentions 119
  • Primary focus 45
Showing 45 database articles primarily about College
Currently filtering by:
  • Remove College
  • Remove "primary topics only" restriction
  • Remove 'Database'
Show all 7,218 articles
For whatever topics you select (currently: College):
Choose search scope

Your importance filter 'Database' shows fewer articles.

Remove filters to see full article counts

The Downward Spiral

Nezih Guner National Bureau of Economic Research
Date Posted:
February 28, 2022
Is Database:
Database

The opioid epidemic has been driven by economic factors, notably the decline in prices for both prescription and black market opioids and the increase in dosages per prescription.

The opioid epidemic has been significantly driven by economic factors, notably the decline in prices for both prescription and black market opioids and the increase in dosages per prescription. From 2000 to 2018, over 400,000 individuals aged 18-64 died from opioid overdoses, with a marked rise in deaths linked to synthetic opioids like fentanyl post-2015. The out-of-pocket expense for prescription opioids fell by a factor of 3 since 2001, due to generic drugs and expanded social programs like Medicare and Medicaid. Concurrently, the street price of opioids also dropped, attributed to illegal imports and diversion from legal sources. The number of opioid prescriptions per person increased, especially among non-college-educated individuals, who often work in physically demanding jobs. These economic dynamics have exacerbated the opioid crisis, making opioids more accessible and potent, thus fueling addiction and overdose deaths.

Every year between 2015 and 2018 an average of 40,641 individuals between ages 18 and 64 died of opioid overdoses. A large majority of them, 37,596, did not have a college degree. The rest, 3,045 of them, were college graduates. The benchmark economy matches these statistics exactly. The downward spiral from opioid use is portrayed in Figure 8. It shows how the college- and non-college-educated' expected utilities steadily decline as they move through the stages of opioid addiction. The descent appears fairly gradual until one hits the addiction stage and, of course, the loss in utility associated with death is large. While utility is always higher for college graduates, the relative utility values of death to nonuse are roughly the same for both types of individuals. Backin 2000, the number of opioid-related deaths was only 8,179 (7,549 deaths among non-college and 629 among college graduates). Between 2000 and 2018, more than 400,000 individuals between the ages of 18 and 64 died from opioid overdoses. What can account for the dramatic rise in opioid use and overdose deaths during the last two decades? The model is now used as a quantitative laboratory to answer this question. Three candidates are entertained; namely, the fall in opioid prices, more powerful prescriptions, and longer length prescriptions…The calibrated model is then used to highlight the forces underlying the recent opioid epidemic. Through the eyes of the model, there were two key forces. The first force isthe decline in prices for both prescription and black market opioids. Thishad a big effect. The second force isthe increase in the dosages per prescription meted out by doctors. Thisalso had a significant impact. The fact that doctors kept pain suffers on prescription opioids for a longer period of time had little effect. Last, an analysis is conducted onmedical interventions that reduce either the probability of becoming addicted or the odds of an addict dying from an overdose. While such interventions are valued by consumers, theyincrease the number of opioid users.Reducing the odds of addiction can result in even more deaths due to the rise in users…The developed framework is taken to the US data for both the college- and non-college educated populations. The quantitative analysis has three key steps. The first step is the estimation of Markov chains characterizing the movements in and out of misuse and addiction. Death is an absorbing state. The model is calibrated in the second step to match the estimated transitions from the Markov chains for both the college- and non-college educated. The framework fits the US data well. A check is performed on the calibration, by examining whether the model's prediction on the relationship between prescription opioid access and opioid deaths is consistent with the cross-state evidence about this. The calibrated framework is then used to decompose the rise in opioid usage. The analysis suggests that drops in the price of both Rx and illicit opioids combined with increases in Rx dosages were the primary drivers of the opioid epidemic.

The evidence, “…In 2019 the age-adjusted death rate from an opioid overdose was 21.6 per 100,000 people. This compares with 12.9 for kidney disease, 14.2 from suicides, 14.7 for influenzas, 21.6 from diabetes, and 161.5 from heart disease (the leading cause of death in the United States). Opioid overdose deaths place in the top 10 leading causes of death in the United States. As can been from Figure 1, prior to 2015 most of these opioid deaths arose from prescription (Rx) overdoses, but after that they came from synthetic opioids; in particular, fentanyl. (The sources for all the data displayed in the figures are presented in Appendix B.) The overdose death rate was much higher for those without a college degree compared with those who had one. The rise in the death rate from synthetic opioids is particularly marked for the non-college educated population….”

Jeremy Greenwood, Nezih Guner and Karen Kopecky, "The Downward Spiral," National Bureau Of Economic Research, https://www.nber.org/papers/w29764

“…Figure 4 shows that the out-of-pocket expense for prescription opioids has fallen by a factor of 3 since 2001. This has been attributed to two factors. First, the advent of generic prescription opioids. Second, the expansion of social programs such as Medicare and Medicaid that subsidized the purchase of opioids, as can be seen from Figure 5. For the college educated Medicaid is less important than private payers while for the non-college educated the reverse is true. The share of opioids prescriptions funded by the government grew from 17 percent in 2001 to 60 percent in 2010. The vast majority of opioids went to people who needed relief from pain caused by either disability or illness. Over the same period the street price of opioids dropped by a factor of 3. This has been chalked up to both the illegal imports of inexpensive powerful synthetic opioids, for example fentanyl, from China and elsewhere. Additionally, the diversion of opioids from legal sources onto the black market via fraudulent prescription, family and friends giving away and/or selling their prescriptions, and theft. The rise of illegal imports is ascribed to the tightening of prescriptions and the introduction of a tamper-proof form of OxyContin. The upshot is that opioids are much less expensive now than they were in 2001. Likewise, the introduction of low-cost heroin at the beginning of the 20th century was due to the banning of smoking opioids and the increased restrictions on the use of cocaine…”

“.. Starting around the year 2000 there was a dramatic increase in number of opioid prescriptions per person for both the college- and non-college-educated populations, as shown in Figure 3. The non-college educated were much more likely to have an opioid prescription than the college educated. The former often work in occupations involving physical labor. Additionally, the amount of Rx opioids consumed, conditional on a prescription, also rose. Again, this was particularly true for those without a college degree. The price of prescription opioids has fallen dramatically since 2000…”

  • College
  • Comparisons
    • Historical
  • Workforce
    • Education
      • K-12
    • Poverty/Crime
Previous articleFebruary 28, 2022Debating defence budgets: Why military purchasing power parity mattersUS military spending is overstated when using market exchange rates, while China’s is understated. In 2019, China’s military budget was 1.62 times larger in military-PPP terms than market rates.Next articleMarch 7, 2022Most Women Denied Abortions by Texas Law Got Them Another WayTexas’s restrictive abortion law led to a 50% drop in legal abortions, but only a 10% decline in total abortions as women traveled out of state or ordered pills online.
Showing 44 database articles primarily about College

Easy A’s, Less Pay: The Long-Term Effects of Grade Inflation

Jeffrey Denning, Rachel Nesbit, Nolan Pope and Merrill Warnick National Bureau of Economic Research
Date Posted:
March 24, 2026
Is Database:
Database
Is Important:
Important

Data from Los Angeles and Maryland linking high school, postsecondary, and earnings records suggest that one class-year with a teacher with 1 SD higher mean grade inflation reduces the PDV of their students’ lifetime earnings by ~$213,872.

We develop two teacher-level measures of grade inflation: one measuring average grade inflation (the year-specific teacher fixed effect showing the teacher’s average contribution to grades after controlling for the student's contemporaneous performance in the focal subject as measured by the corresponding subject test score as well as prior test scores, prior grades, and other background characteristics), and another measuring a teacher's propensity to give a passing grade [which affects primarily students near the bottom of the distribution]. A [separate] cognitive value-added measure [included in the regressions] is a teacher fixed effect capturing how much a teacher raises students' standardized test scores relative to what would be predicted from the students' prior test scores and background characteristics. Grade-inflating teachers have moderately lower cognitive value-added and slightly higher noncognitive value-added. The two [grade-inflation] measures differentially impact students' long-term outcomes. Being assigned a higher average grade inflating teacher reduces a student's future test scores, the likelihood of graduating from high school, college enrollment, and ultimately earnings. A teacher with one standard deviation higher average grade inflation reduces the present discounted value [PDV] of lifetime earnings of their students by $213,872 per year.  In contrast, passing grade inflation reduces the likelihood of being held back and increases high school graduation, with limited long-run effects. [Figure 7 in the gallery].

Related Articles:

  • Steeper At The Top: Cognitive Ability and Earnings in Finland and Norway — The top-earning men in Finland and Norway score 1 standard deviation higher in cognitive ability than median earners. The ability curve is steepest at the top…
  • Never Enough: Dynamic Status Incentives in Organizations — Performance of Nazi fighter pilots rose as they neared eligibility for a medal and fell off upon receipt, prompting periodic offerings of new medals. This…
  • Killer Incentives: Status Competition and Pilot Performance during World War II — Analysis of >5k German fighter pilots reveals that awards & status competition significantly influenced performance, with disparities across skill levels…
  • College
  • Workforce
    • Education
    • Wages/Income

Master’s Programs Are Cash Cows for Universities. Do They Pay Off for Students?

Mark Schneider American Enterprise Institute
Date Posted:
September 10, 2024
Is Database:
Database
Is Important:
Important

Mark Schneider @AEIecon reviews the ROI of master’s degree programs and finds “vast differences among fields of study and among programs in the same field of study.” He argues that policymakers need to provide accurate ROI metrics to applicants.

The absolute increase in lifetime earnings is the average gain in income between students completing the degree and the counterfactual earnings of similarly situated students without the degree. Incorporating the time spent getting a master’s degree, the cost of obtaining the degree, and the probability of completing a program generates an “adjusted ROI.” Taking these costs into account drastically reduces the return to the student—and puts the return for master’s degrees dead last. [But] Averages Hide Lots of Information. Business is the single largest field of study for master’s students; but, on average, business master’s degrees have a negative ROI. But graduates from the top performing programs—including Dartmouth, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and the University of Pennsylvania— can earn millions more than graduates from other business programs. Students who choose badly could experience a negative ROI of over $1 million. Even in computer science, the field with the highest overall ROI, graduates from some programs experienced negative ROIs.

Related Articles:

  • Why Do Wages Grow Faster for Educated Workers? — .@ProfDavidDeming finds that the college wage premium is driven by occupational sorting: workers with college degrees enter jobs with higher returns to tenure…
  • Diversifying Society’s Leaders? The Determinants and Causal Effects of Admission to Highly Selective Private Colleges — .@OppInsights finds that the “Ivy-Plus” (Ivy League, plus UChicago, Duke, MIT, Stanford) admit students from the highest income families scoring in the top 1%…
  • Multidimensional Human Capital and the Wage Structure — The return to cognitive skills has declined since 2000 and there has been rising demand for “social skills.” “Jobs with the most employment and earnings growth…
  • College
  • Workforce
    • Education

Human Capital Spillovers and Health: Does Living Around College Graduates Lengthen Life?

Jacob Bor, David Cutler, Edward Glaeser and Ljubica Ristovska National Bureau of Economic Research
Date Posted:
April 25, 2024
Is Database:
Database

Bor, @Cutler_econ, Glaeser, and @lj_ristovska find a strong negative correlation between the % of college graduates in an area and all-cause mortality, even after controlling for individual education.

[There is] a strong and robust relationship between area human capital and mortality, even after controlling for individual education. More than half of the correlation between area human capital and mortality can be explained by differences in smoking rates and obesity rates across areas, and that [these effects are] strong even after controlling for individual education. More than half of the correlation between area human capital and mortality can be explained by differences in smoking rates and obesity rates across areas. We find empirical evidence for [both] regulatory policies such as workplace smoking bans, and peer effects about the harms of smoking. Health-related behaviors are particularly sensitive to human capital spillovers among younger individuals, implicating the role of changing social norms around smoking and obesity across generations in the widening geographic gaps in health between high and low human capital areas.

Related Articles:

  • Comments On: “Accounting For the Widening Mortality Gap Between American Adults With and Without a BA” By Anne Case and Angus Deaton — Caroline Hoxby argues that Anne Case and Angus Deaton’s recent findings on the divergence btw Americans with a BA and those without is largely driven by…
  • Accounting for the Widening Mortality Gap Between American Adults With and Without a BA — As of 2021, US adults with a college degree have a life expectancy at age 25 on par with Japan, but US adults without a BA have a life expectancy that’s 8.5…
  • How Disadvantage Became Deadly in America — Lower life expectancy for America’s poor is largely driven by opioids and gun deaths. Among the 10% of Americans who die youngest, the mean age of death is 36.
  • College
  • Workforce
    • Demographics
    • Education
      • K-12

Comments On: "Accounting For the Widening Mortality Gap Between American Adults With and Without a BA" By Anne Case and Angus Deaton

Caroline Hoxby Brookings Papers On Economic Activity
Date Posted:
October 10, 2023
Is Database:
Database

Caroline Hoxby argues that Anne Case and Angus Deaton’s recent findings on the divergence btw Americans with a BA and those without is largely driven by a compositional shift that has occurred as more Americans have graduated college.

I find it entirely plausible that selection accounts for most or even all of the widening mortality gap. Measures of achievement have not risen among 12 graders and other high school students for essentially the entire period since we started to measure them in a consistent way (i.e. since the early 1970s). However, the share who obtain a BA degree has increased quite dramatically over the same period. An NLSY [National Longitudinal Survey Youth] exercise shows that non-BAs are increasingly negatively selected. A comparison between the NLSY79 (1979) and the NLSY97 (1997) shows that the distribution of ASVAB [Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery] percentiles of non-BAs is shifted to the left for 97 vis-a-vis 79.

Related Articles:

  • Accounting for the Widening Mortality Gap Between American Adults With and Without a BA — As of 2021, US adults with a college degree have a life expectancy at age 25 on par with Japan, but US adults without a BA have a life expectancy that’s 8.5…
  • Why Are Americans Dying So Young? — One in 25 or 4% of American 5-year-olds today will not live to 40; these deaths are largely due to drug overdoses, gun violence, and driving related deaths…
  • Who Won the Cold War? Part II — Nicholas Eberstadt @AEI notes that the age-adjusted mortality rates for Americans born in 1990, the year after the Berlin Wall fell, is now higher than for…
  • College
  • Workforce
    • Demographics
    • Education
      • K-12

Diversifying Society’s Leaders? The Determinants and Causal Effects of Admission to Highly Selective Private Colleges

Raj Chetty, David Deming and John Friedman National Bureau of Economic Research
Date Posted:
July 24, 2023
Is Database:
Database
Is Important:
Important

.@OppInsights finds that the “Ivy-Plus” (Ivy League, plus UChicago, Duke, MIT, Stanford) admit students from the highest income families scoring in the top 1% of SAT/ACT at far greater rates than those from lower-income families.

Children from families in the top 1% are more than twice as likely to attend an Ivy-Plus college (Ivy League, Stanford, MIT, Duke, and Chicago) as those from middle-class families with comparable SAT/ACT scores. Two-thirds of this gap is due to higher admissions rates for students with comparable test scores from high-income families; the remaining third is due to differences in rates of application and matriculation. The high-income admissions advantage at private colleges is driven by three factors: (1) preferences for children of alumni, (2) weight placed on non-academic credentials, which tend to be stronger for students applying from private high schools that have affluent student bodies, and (3) recruitment of athletes, who tend to come from higher-income families. Highly selective public colleges that follow more standardized processes to evaluate applications exhibit smaller disparities in admissions rates by parental income than private colleges that use more holistic evaluations.

Related Articles:

  • Why Do Wages Grow Faster for Educated Workers? — .@ProfDavidDeming finds that the college wage premium is driven by occupational sorting: workers with college degrees enter jobs with higher returns to tenure…
  • Multidimensional Human Capital and the Wage Structure — The return to cognitive skills has declined since 2000 and there has been rising demand for “social skills.” “Jobs with the most employment and earnings growth…
  • The Economics of Inequality in High-Wage Economies — United States Income, Wealth, Consumption, and Inequality Diana Furchtgott-Roth
  • College
  • Workforce
    • Education
      • Test Scores

Education Has Less to Do With Inequality Than You Think

Paul Krugman Krugman Wonks Out
Date Posted:
May 11, 2022
Is Database:
Database

@PaulKrugman, according to his Wonk Out piece, the gap btw median male college graduate wages and the 95th percentile has widened since 2000, with the latter seeing substantial gains while the former’s real income has stagnated or declined.

Since 2000, wage inequality has risen while the college wage premium has stagnated, challenging the notion that education is a primary driver of economic inequality. Data shows that the gap between wages at the 95th percentile and those of the median male college graduate has widened, with the former seeing substantial gains while the latter's real income has stagnated or declined. This suggests that a college degree is no longer a reliable path to financial success for many, contradicting the belief that college-educated individuals are part of the economic elite. The disparity highlights that factors beyond education, such as structural economic changes, play a significant role in rising inequality. This insight is crucial for policymakers considering student debt relief and broader economic reforms, as it underscores the need to address systemic issues rather than focusing solely on educational attainment.

The Economic Policy Institute had a very useful analysis of this data just before the pandemic. Between 1979 and 2000, there was a rough match between growth in one measure of overall inequality — the gap between wages at the 95th percentile and those of the median worker — and its estimate of the average wage premium for college-educated workers. Since 2000, however, wage inequality has continued to rise, while the college premium has barely changed... my own version of this observation, comparing growth of incomes of households at the 95th percentile with those of the median male college graduate. Now, Americans at the 95th percentile don’t consider themselves rich, because they aren’t, surely as compared with C.E.O.s, hedge funders and so on. Nonetheless, they have seen substantial gains. On the other hand, the typical college graduate — who is, remember, someone who made it through and received an accredited degree — hasn’t.

Paul Krugman, "Education Has Less to Do With Inequality Than You Think,"Krugman Wonks Out, April 29, 2022, https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/29/opinion/college-student-loan-debt.html

Education Has Less to Do With Inequality Than You Think

President Biden says that he is taking a “hard look” at student debt relief, which probably means that some significant relief is coming. For one thing, Biden promised relief during the 2020 campaign. For another, it’s one progressive priority he can address by executive action, which is important given the extreme difficulty of getting anything through an evenly divided Senate.

How much relief will he offer? I have no idea. How much relief should he offer? I’m for going as big as political realities allow, but I understand that too generous a debt write-off might produce a backlash. And I have no confidence that I know where the line should be drawn.

What I think I do know is that much of the backlash to proposals for student debt relief is based on a false premise: the belief that Americans who have gone to college are, in general, members of the economic elite.

The falsity of this proposition is obvious for those who were exploited by predatory for-profit institutions that encouraged them to go into debt to get more or less worthless credentials. The same applies to those who took on educational debt but never managed to get a degree — not a small group. In fact, around 40 percent of student loan borrowers never finish their education.

But even among those who make it through, a college degree is hardly a guarantee of economic success. And I’m not sure how widely that reality is understood.

What is widely understood is that America has become a far more unequal society over the past 40 years or so. The nature of rising inequality, however, isn’t as broadly known. I keep encountering seemingly well-informed people who believe that we’re mainly looking at a widening gap between the college-educated and everyone else.

This story had some truth to it in the 1980s and 1990s, although even then it didn’t account for the huge income gains at the top of the distribution — the rise of the 1 percent and even more among the 0.01 percent. Since 2000, however, most college graduates have actually seen their real incomes stagnate or even decline.

The Economic Policy Institute had a very useful analysis of this data just before the pandemic. Between 1979 and 2000, there was a rough match between growth in one measure of overall inequality — the gap between wages at the 95th percentile and those of the median worker — and its estimate of the average wage premium for college-educated workers. Since 2000, however, wage inequality has continued to rise, while the college premium has barely changed:

Education Has Less to Do With Inequality Than You Think: Extended Excerpt Image 1


Furthermore, not all college graduates have had the same experience. Some have done pretty well, but many have seen no gains at all:

Education Has Less to Do With Inequality Than You Think: Extended Excerpt Image 2


I have my own version of this observation, comparing growth of incomes of households at the 95th percentile with those of the median male college graduate:

Education Has Less to Do With Inequality Than You Think: Extended Excerpt Image 3


Now, Americans at the 95th percentile don’t consider themselves rich, because they aren’t, surely as compared with C.E.O.s, hedge funders and so on. Nonetheless, they have seen substantial gains. On the other hand, the typical college graduate — who is, remember, someone who made it through and received an accredited degree — hasn’t.

So here’s how I see it: Much of the student debt weighing down millions of Americans can be attributed to false promises.

Some of these promises were scams pure and simple; think Trump University. Even those who weren’t outright cheated, however, were pulled in by elite messaging assuring them that a college degree was a ticket to financial success. Too many didn’t realize that their life circumstances might make it impossible to finish their education — it’s hard for comfortable, upper-middle-class Americans to realize how difficult staying in school can be for young people from poorer families with unstable incomes. Many of those who did manage to finish found that the financial rewards were far smaller than they expected.

And all too many of those who fell victim to these false promises ended up saddled with large debts.

Of course, there are many Americans who have suffered from rising inequality. I wouldn’t argue that college debtors are greater victims than, say, truck drivers who have seen their real wages plunge or families stuck in declining rural areas and small towns. And we should be helping all of these people.

Unfortunately, most things we could and should be doing for Americans in need — like extending the expanded child tax credit — can’t be done in the face of 50 Republican senators, plus Joe Manchin. Student debt relief, by contrast, is something President Biden can do. So he should.

  • College
  • Workforce
    • Education
    • Inequality
    • Wages/Income
© Copyright 2026 Coherent Research Institute · All Rights Reserved · Privacy · Terms