Every econ instructor I know has been flat out all summer preparing for the new semester. With all that’s happened in the world, we’ve got a lot of work to do to update our classes to reflect our new covid reality.
So I thought I would see what I could do to help… #teachecon
So over the summer I’ve been working furiously to put together a slide deck that folks can use to their classes with covid examples, recent economic data and studies, and discussion questions.
The covid crisis is the biggest thing that’s happened in our students’ lives, and if we want to make the case that economics is relevant, we need to show them that the frameworks we’re teaching speak directly to these issues.
Hopefully these slides will give you a head start.
I was struck by just how much economics has to say about just about every major development, news story, and policy issue that has arisen in these tumultuous times.
It's certainly given me a useful lens for understanding the world, and I hope it helps you and your students, too
The slides are organized by teaching topic, and they cover both micro and macro.
While they follow the organization of my (amazing!) new textbook in reality, they’ll be a useful complement to almost any Intro (or even Intermediate) course.
If any of this makes you curious about what it’s like to teach from that new textbook I was just mentioning, add your details to this google form, and if you’re a college instructor, we’ll get a (free!) review copy out to you ASAP. docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAI….
Most importantly, a huge thank you to @fordschool student Jonathan Rodriguez who gave up hours of his summer to work on developing these slides.
The rest of us have just one job: Download those slides, and drag and drop 'em into your course, and do a great job teaching.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Payrolls grew a relatively uninteresting (and positive!) +177k in April, and unemployment was unchanged at 4.2%.
This economy is still humming along.
NOTE: This is a reading largely from the pre-tariff period. Still very foggy about what lies ahead.
Revisions were somewhat worrying: March was revised down -43k to +185k. Feb down -15k to +102k.
Three month average payrolls growth -- a useful indicator of the underlying pace of job growth -- is a healthy +155k. That's a pretty great place to be at this point in the cycle.
Nominal wage growth was 0.2% this month, and are up 3.8% over the year. That's probably enough to keep inflation above the Fed's target (and that's before factoring in the effect of tariffs).
Ugh. It's happening. The economy shrank in the first quarter, at an annual rate of -0.3%.
The good news: Consumption and investment remained strong. Think of this as a hard-to-interpret report due to -- **all of this**. Remember, this is the average of Q1, and the real concern is about Q2.
Look into the details, and the GDP report really isn't that bad. (We already know from the jobs data that the economy did okay in Q1.)
@jasonfurman suggested focusing on Real final sales to private domestic purchasers (basically C+I, the reliable parts of GDP) which grew +3.0%
The sharp rise in investment appears to be almost all due to pre-tariff front-running. Investment contributed 3.6%-pts to Q1 GDP growth.
Of that, inventory accumulation was 2.2%-pts.
And an additional 1.1% came from equipment investment (which is what the China tariffs hit).
1. Tariffmageddon isn't over: Lotsa tariffs to account for, but the average tariff rate is only down around one quarter.
2. He's not going to get big wins: Tariffs were low before this mess, and if Trump negotiates competently, they'll be low again. Basically no gain.
You've seen this movie before: It was NAFTA which got relabeled by Trump in 2020, but really barely changed.
3. The rationale for this policy keeps changing. Remember when it was all about bringing manufacturing home? (That was yesterday.) Now it's negotiating deals. Those are fundamentally in tension.
(I'm only going to build a factory in the US if tariffs are likely to persist.)
One thing I've learned to do when I have questions about social security number holders who are age 100 or older is to look up the SSA Inspector General audit report, "Numberholders Age 100 or Older Who Did Not Have Death Information on the Numident."
After all: Is there a principled difference between weighting on age (to ensure that your sample includes youngs and olds) and weighting on past vote (to ensure you get folks from across the political spectrum)?
Both age and past vote are:
- Predetermined (before this poll)
- Non-manipulable
- Though self-reported
- And we have good population estimates to weight them to.
What principle would make one of these a legitimate survey design weight and the other "herding"?