House cleaning…and where’s Jared?

July 28th, 2016 at 5:53 pm

Sorry, OTE’ers. I’ve been remiss. Not only have I failed to post much here of late, but I haven’t been providing links to posts I’ve placed elsewhere.

EG, over at PostEverything:

From today, a discussion about very recent wage trends. They’ve turned up due both to tighter job markets, a central prediction of so much of my work. Also, low inflation is helping to generate real gains. Obviously, these recent trends must be placed in the long-term context of wage stagnation, but they’re real [sic] and relevant to the election, I’d argue.

A number of posts re political economy, including this one on some fundamental differences to my eyes and ears between where the DNC and RNC are at on globalization, this one on the policy agenda we need to be talking about, and this one on the misguided nostalgia of today’s Republicans, who describe an America that I, for one, hardly recognize.

Finally, be sure to give this one a read as I’m pretty convinced we’re going to be hearing a lot more about how, through magic modelling (versus what happens in real life), big tax cuts largely pay for themselves.

Oh–and over at Vox: a teaser for a longer piece coming out shortly on the new rules of the road for progressive trade agreements–the kind that put working people at their core, not corporate interests.

I’ve also been busy with summer travel, including looking at colleges with one of the kids…which so far makes me really want to go back to college and start all over again.

Anyone know where I am here??

wheresjb16

Hints:

I’m not in the USA (but to win, you need to name both the country and the city).

They’re having a bit of a housing bubble but at least they’re trying to deflate it by taxing foreign home purchases.

Unlike us, they’re able to implement policies to try to meet their challenges, including robust carbon taxes and a recent expansion of retirement income security.

One way they’re able to maintain much smarter politics than we are is that their civil service comprises a much thicker slice of their government employment. IE, many fewer political appointees, which has the effect of fostering less ideological nonsense, less dog-whistle blowing to constituents vs. actual policy work, and thus less time wasting.

 

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

8 comments in reply to "House cleaning…and where’s Jared?"

  1. Douglas Roseman says:

    Jared,
    Welcome to Montreal, Canada. I hope that you are enjoying your visit here.

    Are you considering McGill U for one of your kids? It is a great option, and considerably less expensive than what an equivalent school would cost in the US. The bilingual, Euro-style ambiance and food more than make up for the tougher winter.

    Love following your columns.
    Regards.


  2. Or-el Vaknin says:

    I’m going to guess Vancouver, Canada, though I can’t find the exact spot.


  3. Tom_in_MN says:

    So would you still study economics if you went back to school?

    Being a prof I’m very happy to be on the other end of test taking and would not want to do that again. But I might pick another field …


    • Jared Bernstein says:

      Learn another language, study abroad to really nail it down. Or maybe get much deeper into statistics–always enjoyed it but just learned what I needed.


  4. Smith says:

    Not a Trump fan, but here’s the problem with running for Obama’s third term.

    Are you better off than you were eight years ago? The median wage is lower, so obviously not.* More than half of the recent rise in wages is due to a weak global economy and fracking, producing lower oil prices. Even if you got back to 2008 wages, you might still consider the stagnant wages of the 2000s’ endpoint a poor base to measure against (a small and brief 3% rise recorded of peak to peak wages compared to 1990s). What’s worse is if you take away the subnormal inflation (oil prices can’t drop 75% from historically high prices each year, and a weak global economy is a bug not a feature), nominal wage growth is still at historic lows of 1% That’s with a very conservative 1.5% inflation rate.

    Clinton rejected the TPP “Gold Standard of Trade Agreements” only because Bernie Sanders might have won the nomination or splintered the party further if she didn’t. Protections in trade agreements are window dressing, a sop to unions. The U.S. has enough trouble not exploiting workers, as do the nominally democratic third world countries of Southeast Asia including India, without competition from abroad. It is almost beyond comprehension that China would ever submit to international sanctions conditioned on worker rights. Giving China most favored nation status and entry into the WTO is a joke, we don’t even have free trade with Japan, partly for cultural preferences. Instead of a race to the bottom, globalization can be halted and reversed, exactly the way some former outsourced jobs are occasionally brought home. Fix the trade deficit first, start with Mexico and Canada, practice with Germany and Japan, then we can talk about the benefits of any trade with China.

    I don’t know why all the points on nostalgia for better times and a fairer economy before 1980 doesn’t favor the ‘change’ candidate, however dishonest and reckless his solutions may be.

    If Trump should win (god forbid) and pass his tax plan, cut from $400 to $300/billion a year, partly offset by spending cuts of $50 billion**, so a net -$250 billion, this adds over 2% of GDP a year to the deficit, public debt shoots from 87% to 107% of GDP, counting some increased growth, albeit no where near the dynamic scoring farce, it can happen here. It’s about framing the issues.

    You’re not saying the economy is great are you? I think the rhetorical trap that Trump has accidentally or masterfully laid in the slogan that implicitly asks that question.

    * Go to figure O (High School) and P (College), lines All (male and female) 16-64 (years of age)
    http://www.epi.org/publication/class-of-2016/

    ** Is this a magic asterisk? Cut all non military discretionary spending 10%, done.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.