Now at the Economists for Inclusive Prosperity session, with @snaidunl, @arindube, @EDerenoncourt, and more!
First paper is by Anton Korinek. It's about whether AI and automation hurts workers.
Should be super interesting to the #YangGang!
Should be super interesting to the #YangGang!
Korinek: Transition/adjustment costs are central to the effect of technological progress on labor.
So far Korinek's presentation is a lot of well-trodden ground - aggregate stats on labor share and inequality, simple partial equilibrium models, etc.
Korinek shows a decomposition showing that the "human capital share" of the U.S. economy has increased dramatically.
Oof. He doesn't even get to the impact of A.I.! Kind of disappointing given the title of the talk.
He concludes with fairly standard calls to use redistribution to cancel out the effects of technological change.
He concludes with fairly standard calls to use redistribution to cancel out the effects of technological change.
I dunno, I'm always pretty leery when I hear calls for targeted redistribution to cancel out the effects of big structural changes in the economy. How did that work out with "compensating the losers" from free trade?
I tend to think non-targeted redistribution is just better.
I tend to think non-targeted redistribution is just better.
Korinek sort of agrees, says progressive taxation is a good "2nd best" solution.
But what's new here? Inequality goes up. So we raise taxes and give people money. What does this have to do with technology?
But what's new here? Inequality goes up. So we raise taxes and give people money. What does this have to do with technology?
Ooh, now Korinek is getting to something more novel. He says we should use policy to steer technological progress toward things that complement labor instead of substituting for labor.
Korinek says NSF grants should explicitly consider whether the tech they create will be labor-complementing or labor-substituting.
Korinek's final suggestion is to tax digital monopolies. This is an interesting alternative to the regultion-focused and antitrust-focused approaches suggested by many presidential candidates.
Next up: Jesse Rothstein on social insurance and investing in children.
A lot of this is just a basic discussion of why markets don't work and why government intervention is justified.
But what is this, 1982? I think everyone already accepts that govt. ought to do these things!
A lot of this is just a basic discussion of why markets don't work and why government intervention is justified.
But what is this, 1982? I think everyone already accepts that govt. ought to do these things!
I feel like talks like this, which are mostly backgrounders on why the public has a role in stuff like healthcare and education, are good for A) laypeople, and B) free-market purists (who at this point are basically just trolls).
For economists who already believe that govt. has a role in things like healthcare and education, and who understand the economic rationale, what we need are ideas for how to implement the specifics. Is Buttigieg's plan really much worse than Sanders'? And why? Etc.
And I'd like to see economists talk about costs. What kind of system would control total costs the best? Instead of reiterating why free-market fundamentalism is wrong, let's get down to brass tacks!!
Discussant mentions Germany's worker councils and unions as a way to steer technology toward innovations that benefit labor instead of capital.
Good idea!!
Good idea!!
Warren gets a mention (the first time I've heard a politician's name so far), with regards to her labor plans.
Discussant also mentions the idea of Social Wealth Funds. Nice!!
Discussant also mentions the idea of Social Wealth Funds. Nice!!
Discussant says universal programs are more politically stable. Says we should make health care and pre-K universal.
Next up: Arin Dube, with a presentation on wage boards.
Dube points out something incredibly important: the number of workers COVERED by collective bargaining is NOT the same as the number of people who belong to unions!!! 
Dube: Minimum wage raises wages, but it's not enough. We need something for the people in the middle of the wage distribution.
That something, he suggests, is wage boards. This would be a step up from the sectoral bargaining that many politicians are now recommending.
That something, he suggests, is wage boards. This would be a step up from the sectoral bargaining that many politicians are now recommending.
Australia has wage boards. And its wage inequality hasn't increased as much as ours.
Hmm, looks to me like the difference is less than it used to be.
Hmm, looks to me like the difference is less than it used to be.
And now, I must run to lunch...
(end)
(end)
