metaphors for economics

Metaphors for monetary policy are one of my econ pet peeves. Whether the Fed is “steering a ship in a dense fog” or “a bus driver in the Alps” or  “the intrepid crew of the R.M.S. Carpathia” … I am always left wondering how this imagery helps anyone. And why so many about transportation? But these metaphors (or maybe they’re analogies?) are soooo prevalent that, if nothing else, they must make sense to the economists who use them.

And that insight gave me a ‘fun’ idea: use monetary policy as a metaphor to discuss the draft of the AEA’s code of professional conduct. I’ve been struggling with my comments on the draft and thought an econ framework might help. Plus, on metaphors, maybe if you can’t beat ’em, join ’em.

I will comment on the draft code in three sections, each shown in block quotes below. I very much agree with the spirit of the code’s opening:

“The American Economic Association holds that principles of professional conduct should guide economists in academia, government, and the private sector.

The AEA’s founding purpose of “the encouragement of economic research” requires intellectual and professional integrity. These demand honesty and transparency in conducting and presenting research, disinterested assessment of ideas, and disclosure of conflicts of interest.

The AEA encourages the “perfect freedom of economic discussion.” This goal requires considering each idea on its own merits and an environment where all can freely participate. Economists have a professional obligation to conduct civil and respectful dialogue in all venues including seminars, conferences, and social media. This obligation applies even when participating anonymously.”

Defining the longer-run goals of the AEA (“encouragement of economic research”) as well as a communication policy (of “respectful dialogue in all venues”) … also reminds me of topics that have engaged monetary policymakers in recent years.

See for example this speech by then-Fed Chair, now AEA President-Elect Ben Bernanke: “Communication and Monetary Policy.” Along with a ‘driving a car’ comparison,  Bernanke talks about the FOMC longer-run policy goals first issued in January 2012.  The transcripts of the 2012 FOMC meetings came out this month, so I have been reading the discussion of the policy statement (here at page 42 and here at page 115, latter with a Garmin metaphor). This goals statement for monetary policy was MANY years in the making and is now reviewed annually. Getting the AEA’s goals and communication right is not a one-shot operation either. I appreciate the accompanying committee report to the code and we are going to need to talk a lot more as a profession what this code of conduct means.

I also want to flag some cautionary remarks from then-Governor Tarullo on broad statements of goals. When there is a lot of disagreement (and I think both monetary policy and economics profession meet that criteria), we can “artfully craft a text with enough left unsaid or ambiguous that all sides can credibly argue that it reflects … their favored position.” The fact that Kirk of EJMR fame, Ben Bernanke, and I would probably agree on this part of the AEA’s code may be a sign of how weak it is … and how little the code will change behavior.

The next section of the draft code, aiming at “equal opportunity” and “equal treatment,” strikes me as the most problematic:

“The AEA seeks to create a professional environment with equal opportunity and equal treatment for all economists, regardless of age, gender, race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, disability, health condition, marital status, parental status, genetic information, professional status, or personal connections.”

It’s not hard to applaud “equal opportunity” but we all know that this is a tall, tall order to achieve. And we need some metrics on what equal opportunity would look like in economics. That said, it’s the “equal treatment” language that stopped me. I can’t think of a single monetary policy rule that would say equal interest rates regardless of economic conditions. The whole reason we have this code to discuss today is because economics had gotten soooo far from professionalism. A nasty econ website, bias in research credit, a huge petition, and even textbook disparities … give me a break, we don’t need to just to be all “equal treatment” after years of “unequal outcomes.” And while more economists are FINALLY coming around to the idea the economics profession has a problem, many smart and serious economists continue to explain away these concerns. If an undergrad putting her career on the line before it even starts, doesn’t get you to wake up … then what possibly would? I suppose always ‘do-the-same-as-last-time’ (equal treatment in all conditions), could be a monetary policy but that sure ain’t going to stabilize the business cycle.

I am being a little unfair … that paragraph in the code could be read as a new longer-run equilibrium for economics, but I worry that it 1) says nothing about the transition path and 2) doesn’t take a stand on how far away we are from “equal opportunity and equal treatment” today. I would put both items high on the list of questions to ask on the new survey of the profession proposed in the committee report.

In addition, though without a monetary policy tie in, the list of attributes for equal treatment worry me. Listing out specific groups for “equal treatment” strikes me as problematic for many reasons. The baseline should be for everyone to have access to a respectful and open professional environment. And it’s not even clear that “equal treatment” is a way to promote better economic research. For example, this study found that tenure-clock extensions to new parents, regardless of gender, ended up helping economist fathers more than economist mothers. Human biology is not so interested in “equal treatment” and we are working under those constraints too (note: contrary to popular opinion, economists are people). I don’t have a vision for how to improve this part of the code but I do think it’s the weakest point in the current draft.

Moving on to the final part of the code … and it is a strong finish:

“Economists have both an individual responsibility for their conduct, and a collective responsibility to promote responsible conduct in the economics profession. These responsibilities include developing institutional arrangements and a professional environment that promote free expression concerning economics. These responsibilities also include supporting participation and advancement in the economics profession by individuals from diverse backgrounds.

The AEA strives to promote these principles through its activities.”

I love! love! love! the call for “collective responsibility.” The fact that the hard work of improving gender representation in economics often falls to women or the racial/ethnic representation to under-represented minorities DRIVES ME BONKERS. If our diversity and culture are important (and I think it is for the economics), then we all need to be contributing to the effort. The discussion of institutional arrangements in the code is also welcome. Keeping with my monetary policy metaphors, this Macro Musings podcast on Fed independence may have some parallel lessons. The economics profession as a whole could benefit from thinking more about how we fit within a larger policy and academic ecosystem.

In summary, the AEA’s professional code is a great way to broaden the conversation about improving economics. I worry when it gets bogged down in what differentiates us (gender identity, race/ethnicity, doctoral program, etc.) … but I see many places reminding us of our common ground and common responsibilities. We are all here because we love economics and see it it as a powerful tool to understand and improve the world. Of course, we don’t all agree on how to use those tools or even which tools are useful. That’s life … but so is striving for something better. It’s worth taking a long view. Economics, as with other social sciences, is still young … and so is the Fed (just hit its 100th b-day in 2013) … not surprising that both are still evolving.

PS if you have comments on the AEA draft code of conduct, please submit them by March 15 here. My post is way over their 750-word limit for comments, so I’d welcome thoughts on what points I make are worth passing on.

PPS as with all macromom posts, this represents my views and not those of my employer or any colleagues. All the monetary policy discussed here was (made public in the past and) used simply as metaphors for the code of conduct.

economists learning to code, together

UPDATE: The AEA has posted its report and draft of the professional code of conduct. Open for comments until March 15.

honesty and integrity in our work, civil and respectful dialogues in any forum, responsibility for own and collective conduct …

Friday night as I heard John Campbell describe plans for a new professional code of conduct for economists, my mind was a jumble of thoughts and emotions. Above all, was a weary hallelujah. This is the clearest high-profile recognition I have heard that economics has a problem here. I also took comfort in being wrong: back in September on this blog, I had staked out an expectation of being disappointed by the AEA’s response to Alice Wu’s findings. In my defense, it doesn’t take a DSGE model to tell you how hard it is for economists to set their sights on a new equilibrium.  This outcome was not a given; it took many voices (see, weary above). The AEA received a petition with over 1,000 economist signatures, an #EJMinfo hashtag was set up by two concerned economists, and countless discussions followed. I know many of those voices personally and my PhD advisor was on the code’s committee, so I sat there feeling immensely grateful.

Of course, not every thought I had was positive. At the start of the business meeting, I shot off a grumpy tweet: “true, lots of women here … but none at the head table, not encouraging.” I am sure AEA President Al Roth was trying to lighten the mood by referring to the “largest crowd ever” in the room, but frankly I wasn’t in the mood for jokes.  One surprise (to me) by having spoken up about the culture in economics is how people now come to me with their painful experiences. It SUCKS, hurts, makes me angry, and tests my love of economics. Roth’s joke made me think how we could have filled the Grand Ballroom (it wasn’t really a big crowd) with all the “lost economists” … the men and women who got hurt by our culture and walked away or who never felt invited in. Of course, if they had been assembled, we would have heard an apology, right? I did not hear an apology.

Setting aside, what a mess my internal wiring is … the code of conduct and the next steps outlined by Peter Rousseau at the business meeting will take a lot of work, from everyone. More diversity among the AEA officers (did you know an economist from a liberal arts college has never been elected?), a survey of the professional climate in economics (reminder: data are endogenous), AEA promoting best practices to end harassment and supporting victims (it’s about time), a new Job Wiki run by the AEA (thanks #EJMinfo for showing it can be done non-anonymously), and a moderated online forum for economists (thanks EJMR for showing how asymmetric info is in the profession and how much we need moderators). Inspiring words from a new AEA committee are not enough, ask CSWEP (founded in 1971) how hard it is to move the dial on presence of women in economics (no progress in last 20 years).

I’ll close with some backward induction. Look up again at the new goals for professional conduct … go to that new equilibrium in your mind and then solve backward to today. Think of all the tough conversations, sticking points (even defining terms will be hard), and tears between where we are now and where we want to go. I know. My Twitter is littered with my clumsy (but patient) attempts on this topic, like this two-day convo on seminar culture or this on diversity in macro panels. And I am not going to stop. I also got a head start on the tears (cried Friday night back in my room) … but I LOVE the idea from this code that we are in it together. Each of us taking collective responsibility for economics is a tall order but essential for real progress.

It will be glorious. Let’s get to it.  #ASSA2018  #thankyou

Addendum: I wrote this post from notes I took at the AEA Business Meeting. Here is related news coverage in the WSJ and Bloomberg. Look for the AEA to publish its proposals for member comment soon. And please, when they do, take time to send them your comments. I will.

time demands in economics

I keep telling myself I am done with these diversity blog posts. I am beyond busy in my new job (managing is hard) and presenting, let alone doing research, takes a major wrinkle in time. That’s all before I get to being a mom. Navigating my kids’ schedules (daughter made basketball team, yeah, destroyed my after-school logistics, boo), dealing with discipline issues (ability to sit still and be quiet are not traits I passed on to my son), and listening to my kids takes so much time.

I am tempted to free ride on others who have the time and energy and expertise to write about diversity in economics. And are allowed to do press calls. That’s why I was so stoked to see Claudia Goldin writing for the New York Times last week … but as I read, I got frustrated:

Fighting to eradicate discriminatory employment practices is absolutely needed, of course. I’ve spent many years studying this subject, and my research shows that unequal treatment in hiring and in the work setting is real and may be reflected in unequal pay.Yet it is also true that the time demands of many jobs can explain much of the pay difference, a finding that has sobering implications.

The “time demands of many jobs can explain” … that’s the careful, neutral language I am accustomed to seeing (and using) as an economist. I AM TIRED OF IT. especially from economists. Why do the “time demands” of being woman in economics (in addition to my work) include having your  vacation interrupted with utter TRASH talk of anonymous economists in the New York Times and Twitter feed; trying to mentor aspiring female economists on how to navigate around the trash or calling out the trash (I have tweeted, written tricky emails, had informal convos, etc.); and answering inquiries from senior economists (ones who I look to for wisdom) asking me on how to deal with sexism in the discipline. Then after all that, women’s contribution to economics is devalued and dismissed. %#@* that.

Breathe. And back to the calmer Claudia … Goldin discusses job characteristics associated with a larger gap in earnings between men and women.

“Certain job characteristics have a big impact on the gender earnings gap. I have looked closely at these issues, including the extent to which workers are:

■ Subject to strict deadlines and time pressure

■ Expected to be in direct contact with other workers or clients

■ Instructed to develop cooperative working relationships

■ Assigned to work on highly specific projects

■ Unable to independently determine their tasks and goals

Occupations with a lower level of these characteristics (like jobs in science and technology) show smaller gaps, corrected for hours of work. Occupations with a higher level (like those in finance and law) have greater gaps. Men’s earnings tend to surge when there are fewer substitutes for a given worker, when the job must be done in teams and when clients demand specific lawyers, accountants, consultants and financial advisers. Such differences can account for about half the gender earnings gap.”

In my opinion, these characteristics are a starting, not a stopping, point. Too many look at this list and say “ah-hah, it’s not discrimination, it’s the market.” But time demands are not an exogenous shock. Many employers can alter the time demands or support employees in meeting them. At the Board, the 100-hours of back-up child care per year was an amazing benefit when my kids were little. It’s a law of nature that your toddler will throw up in the early morning of your forecast presentation. I had the comfort of knowing that a back-up caregiver was only a phone call away. More importantly, at work, I knew that family came first and I had colleagues who would step in (and I the same) in an emergency and not downgrade my contribution as an economist for it.

Some jobs are harder to restructure, but can we at least stop punishing women who go after those demanding jobs?  Almost every year the Board sends a staff economist to the Council of Economic Advisers. In my first few years at the Board, my family had lunch with a Board economist couple and the topic of the CEA detail came up. I thought this sounded awesome (a project in my undergrad macro course was compiling binders and reports like we were at CEA) but back at home, when I expressed my enthusiasm, I got an earful. “CEA is not a job for women with young children.” True, CEA was a big time demand. Many, many hours (on par with grad school) and the most intensively I have ever worked. Even when I wasn’t on my computer or phone, I was tired. HEY, BUT WE ARE ALL DOING CONSTRAINED OPTIMIZATION. I was willing to pay the costs (both for myself and my kids) for a year, because I saw the benefits as higher. I did not get divorced so I could work at CEA, but by the time I was experienced enough as an economist to be offered the detail, I was a co-parent, not a wife and mom. I wonder how that is captured in Goldin’s regressions?

And speaking of omitted variables and tricky inference … look back at that list of job characteristics and think about how all the harassment of women (and minorities) fits in. It’s hard to “develop cooperative working relationships” when someone is making lewd, aggressive comments or touching you or openly devaluing people like you. Also in the list note the “unable to independently determine” task and goals. Abuse of power is a problem and fuels a lot of the harassment. I get it that men and women may find each other attractive and social mores differed in the past, but there are enough fish in the sea for econ professors to keep views on the physical appearance of their own grad students or female co-workers to themselves.

I was frustrated with the tone in Goldin’s piece (and that’s my flaw not hers) but I wholeheartedly agree with her closing …

Equality on this court requires a level playing field at home and in the market. There are many battles ahead. Unfortunately, they need to be fought at several levels.

Finally, I have no claim to superior insight on this topic or how to ‘fight the good fight.’ I mess up plenty and have rankled both women and men with my personal musings on diversity in economics. And too often, I give a pass to someone’s oafishness because I greatly value his or her economics. Dick Thaler, looking at you, 🙂 But seriously, I appreciate people with all our quirks and differing opinions … and I don’t want to shut down conversation with accusations or public shaming, but we have to be more mindful of our effect on others. And the culture of economics. Good economics is never an excuse for bad behavior. Or put in econo-speak by the great John DiNardo: “How you do on the job market is orthogonal to your value as a human being.” We have to work hard at both.

rethinking diversity in economics

I have been blogging and tweeting a lot about diversity in economics, but I have not explained why I am so interested in this topic. And no, it’s not because I am woman in economics and feel shortchanged. I have a great job and two wonderful kids. Sure I’ve heard some crap along the way, but who hasn’t? What motivates me is a concern about the advice we give as economists and how that affects individuals and communities.

I arrived at the Board in the summer of 2007 and started forecasting in 2008. Can you imagine what my first year was like as I learned how to forecast consumer spending? I was barely keeping my head above water (and only with many colleagues helping me). I remember a night in January 2008 when I was preparing my first forecast meeting presentation … Miles Kimball had sent me an email about some hopelessly overdue research … and then a Board colleague stopped by to check on me. He reminded me that everyone wanted me to succeed. Our staff work is very much a team effort. Reassuring but I still felt like an imposter, a feeling that only got worse as the Great Recession took hold.

Fast forward three years to 2011. We had gotten past the financial crisis, coffee no longer ran out in our cafeteria before 9 am, and the stress of work was less acute. The recovery was moving along but not as expected. That was the hardest time at work for me. (Yes, I added a broken heart to this forecast-evolution chart.)

forecast

One thought nagged at me in 2011 … what if we are wrong? Maybe the economy doesn’t always recover? Maybe we aren’t doing enough? I was surrounded by smart, hard-working colleagues at the Fed and I was closely following the related academic research. But if we, economists collectively, are so smart how did we miss signs of the financial crisis? The no-doc loans, the house-prices-can’t-fall mentality, the subprime is “contained”, and on and one. If we couldn’t put the pieces together correctly then, what were we missing in the recovery?

Thinking I might find some lessons in the past, I spent some free time talking to folks, reading archives, etc. My reflections here are on the Fed, but I think these issues exist throughout the economics profession. Mine is not a systematic or an expert evaluation. (Feel free to stop reading and turn to this paper by former Fed Governor Tarullo.) Also I have been interested more in the why than the specifics of what we learned about financial markets or monetary policy tools.

So what does any of this have to do with diversity in economics? A lot, I think. The financial crisis, Great Recession, and recovery were times when the economics playbook was often incomplete or in some cases just plain wrong. A common retort is that some model from “way back when” foresaw the role of financial frictions, specifically, or the need for stimulus, generally. I don’t buy it. It’s how we use our knowledge … giving advice and making decisions in real time … not the sum total of everything ever written down that matters. If the same person who wrote the “financial accelerator model” could also utter the words subprime “seems likely to be contained” in 2007 then the economics profession was out of its league. I come back again and again to how hard it is for us to think beyond our economist assumptions.

Of course, there were economists who recognized imbalances in housing markets before the crisis. For one example, see remarks by Josh Gallin and Andreas Lehnert, staff economists, at the June 2005 FOMC meeting (pg 4-11). It’s much easier to find examples of the economic consensus shutting down or discounting such concerns. At that same meeting (pg 46), I was sad (but not surprised) to see Greenspan say “Shall we break for coffee?” right after Susan Bies delivered a summary of risks building in mortgage markets. 2005 was fairly late, maybe it would not have mattered then? However, as early 2000, before the big run up in mortgage debt, calls came for the Fed to do more on predatory lending. Some bits on this: from the Federal Trade Commission in September 2000, Board staff work (lawyers) on a regulatory proposal in late 2000, but no traction as seen in a speech by then-Fed Governor Ned Gramlich in 2001. And that was from an economist policy maker who was one of the most aware of the lending problems.

My point is not to argue that economists are always wrong or that our models are worthless. Quite the opposite. Quantifying issues, modeling historical statistical patterns, thinking hard (and dispassionately) about causal factors are a very important skills. Similarly, I was told that the Council of Economic Advisers’ key role is to shoot down bad ideas … a great story from Ken Arrow … and I saw it in my time there. Economists think differently than many others and that’s great until it’s not. Being good at counterfactual thinking, trade offs, comparative advantage, and other non-intuitive logic, as well as a love of numbers, are useful attributes of economists BUT only as part of a larger team. For example, we, economists, tend to have blind spots from our assumptions on efficiency, credibility, rationality, markets, etc., in a way that a non-economist would not.  And yet, economist are known for going it alone. Sigh.

Groupthink … the lack of meaningful diversity … in economics has real consequences for real people. We give advice to Congress on how to spend hundreds of billions of dollars in stimulus. We make decisions at the Fed on interest rates. And in many capacities, we have input on financial markets, regulation, and business practices. This adds up to profound effects on many, many lives. And yet, our closed-system culture puts great emphasis on top five publications (an internal status marker) and the credibility of our economic institutions (making sure economists remain key to policy). Hiring more women and minority economists alone is unlikely remedy our grouthink, but I think it would help. Clearly, diversity in ideas spring from many sources, but life experiences shaped by gender and race are some drivers. Above all, I hope that making diversity a priority in our own ranks will help us see the benefits of listening to others.

PS The title of my post is a bit of play on the title on the recent “Rethinking Macroeconomic Policy” conference.  It had an esteemed group of speakers, each of which has waaaay more perspective on economic policy than I do. I only had time to watch the opening remarks (busy new job for me), but I hope the topic of diversity in economics got some attention. Or maybe I will hear other views on why economists culturally got it so wrong and how we can improve?

PPS This post … as with all of my macromom posts … reflects my own personal views and should not be ascribed to anyone else in the Federal System or to my role as a staff economist there.

#ILookLikeAnEconomist and so do you …

I was recently asked by someone who organizes a macro outlook conference for names of women and ‘non-white’ men who would be knowledgeable and good presenters. (I think the idea was to avoid a sea of panels with only white, male economists … not uncommon in macro.) The only hard part of his request was finding time to work on the list! Let me stress that I do not group economists in my mind by the color of their skin, gender orientation, or any other personal characteristics. I wrote up a list of suggestions as in groups requested, but their fields of expertise and the examples of their work that I included is more how I think of my economist colleagues. This is not an exhaustive list, I was trying to span the set of topics that might come up at a macro outlook conference. There are nearly 400 PhD economists on staff at the Board, and, of course, plenty of the white men at the Board would also be excellent additions to any macro outlook conference. And while I am proud of improvements in diversity over time at the Board, we also have a ways to go.

I did not intend to make a list solely of economists at the Federal Reserve Board in DC. We do have a mix of policy and research responsibilities that makes us focused on real-world issues. See Beverly Hirtle’s answer on how Fed economists differ from those in academia. We also get a lot of practice on writing and speaking. Even so, diversity takes many forms and you do not want a program full of Fed types. In fact, I went to an awesome conference this week on labor market disparities and it’s awesomeness stemmed from the wide-ranging participation (especially the audience).

Does diversity matter for the economics? Clearly we all want the sharpest, most dedicated economists on the task. But don’t you worry about our pipelines when we start to look or alike or come from the similar backgrounds? I do. A critical mass not a strict equality is often all we need to make the profession welcoming to a would-be sharp economist. Not once have I walked in a forecast meeting at the Board and felt that I stick out as a woman. But that’s not true everywhere I go. Even a few years ago at the NBER Summer Institute, I walked into a room and was one of few women sitting at the table as a presenter. I noticed. When I was at CEA, I got to present the US forecast at the OECD. When I looked around a HUGE table, I was the only woman presenting a country forecast and few were even in the room. By that point, I had done tons of macro forecasting and I knew that I had something to contribute. Who, we as economists choose to represent us and to tell us about the economy, does send a message. Choose your panels and speakers wisely. I want to make sure we are sending a message that supports diversity and makes our economics stronger.

Update: I knew in writing this that I did not know as well how to even set up the race/ethnicity grouping. (Note, gender is not simple either.) I went with the idea of non-white but I would encourage you to visit the Committee on the Status of Minority Groups in the Economics Profession for a more systematic approach. More broadly, I struggle to explain why diversity matters and yes, it should take many many forms but I don’t think it’s a stretch for us to be very concerned about groupthink in economics.

Update 2: The list below is not comprehensive … but maybe some are interested in the overall stats. By my calculations from the webpage, there are 394 economists on the Board staff, of which ~107 are women = ~27%. In macro specialty the split is ~55 women / 218 total = ~25%. Note the “~” takes into account that I don’t know the gender identification. See the Committee on the Status of Women in the Economics Profession’s annual report for some comparisons in the economics profession.

Some Women Economists at the Board:

Stephanie Aaronson, Assistant Director – labor markets, general macro “Labor Force Participation: Recent Developments and Future Prospects”

Kimberly Bayard, Group Manager – IO, measurement, industrial production “Industrial Production and Capacity Utilization: Recent Bulletin Articles and Other References”

Stephanie Curcuru, Assistant Director – international capital flows, market risk measures: “The Return on U.S. Direct Investment at Home and Abroad”

Deepa Datta, Principal Economist– oil markets, international finance “Oil, equities, and the zero lower bound”

Wendy Dunn, Principal Economist – general macro, measurement “The Effect of Sales-Tax Holidays on Consumer Spending”

Burcu Dyygan-Bump, Assistant Director – monetary policy “The Demand for Short-Term, Safe Assets and Financial Stability: Some Evidence and Implications for Central Bank Policies”

Rochelle Edge, Associate Director – Financial stability, DSGE Who is in charge of financial stability, why, and what they can do and “How Useful Are Estimated DSGE Model Forecasts for Central Bankers?”

Laura Feiveson, Senior Economist – consumption, state and local government finance “Does State Fiscal Relief during Recessions Increase Employment? Evidence from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act”

Sarena Goodman, Senior Economist – student loans, college access, Survey of Consumer Finances “Where Credit is Due: The Relationship between Family Background and Credit Health”

Joanne Hsu, Senior Economist – financial literacy, consumer credit, Survey of Consumer Finances “Minimum Wages and Consumer Credit: Impacts on Access to Credit and Traditional and High-Cost Borrowing”

Jane Ihrig, Associate Director – monetary policy, asset pricing  “Rewriting Monetary Policy 101: What’s the Fed’s Preferred Post-Crisis Approach to Raising Interest Rates?”

Felicia Ionescu, Principal Economist – student loans, human capital “College or the Stock Market, or College and the Stock Market?”

Kathleen Johnson, Assistant Director – household credit markets, measurement “Auto Sales and Credit Supply”

Elizabeth Klee, Assistant Director – monetary policy implementation “Take it to the Limit: The Debt Ceiling and Treasury Yields”

Raven Molloy, Chief – housing markets, urban “Understanding declining fluidity in the U.S. labor market”

Karen Pence, Assistant Director – consumer finance, real estate “How Much Are Car Purchases Driven by Home Equity Withdrawal? Evidence from Household Surveys”

Ekaterina Peneva, Principal Economist – inflation “Inflation Perceptions and Inflation Expectations”

Brigitte Roth Tran, Economist – weather effects “Blame it on the Rain Weather Shocks and Retail Sales”

Claudia Sahm, Chief – consumer spending, general macro “Another Look at Residual Seasonality in GDP”

Kamila Sommer, Senior Economist – housing markets “Implications of U.S. Tax Policy for House Prices, Rents, and Homeownership”

Stacey Tevlin, Associate Director – business investment, general macro “Perspectives on the Recent Weakness in Investment”

Maria Tito, Economist – IO, international trade “Unraveling the Oil Conundrum: Productivity Improvements and Cost Declines in the U.S. Shale Oil Industry” and “Import Penetration and Domestic Innovation: A View into Dynamic Gains from Trade”

Alison Weingarden, Economist – Labor markets, layoffs, regional disparities “Labor Market Outcomes in Metropolitan and Non-Metropolitan Areas: Signs of Growing Disparities” and “The Timing of Mass Layoff Episodes: Evidence from U.S. Microdata”

Min Wei, Deputy Associate Director – Treasury markets, risk premium “Macroeconomic Sources of Recent Interest Rate Fluctuations”

Gretchen Weinbach, Senior Associate Director – monetary policy, banking and monetary transmission “How Have the Fed’s Three Rate Hikes Passed Through to Selected Short-term Interest Rates?”

Rebecca Zarutskie, Chief – bank regulation, lending “Firm Leverage, Labor Market Size, and Employee Pay”

Some ‘Non-White’ Men Economists at the Board:

Aditya Aladangady, Senior Economist – consumer spending, houshold balance sheets “Housing Wealth and Consumption: Evidence from Geographically-linked Microdata”

Jose Berrospide, Chief – financial stability, bank capital The Real Effects of Credit Line Drawdowns

Neil Bhutta, Principal Economist – mortgage lending, consumer finance “The Effect of Interest Rates on Home Buying: Evidence from a Discontinuity in Mortgage Insurance Premiums”

Andrew Chang, Senior Economist – investment “Is Economics Research Replicable? Sixty Published Papers from Thirteen Journals Say “Often Not

Andrew Chen, Economist – asset pricing “Has the inflation risk premium fallen? Is it now negative?”

Brahima Coulibaly, Chief – monetary and exchange rate policies, global capital flows ” Emerging Market Capital Flows and U.S. Monetary Policy”

Illenin Kondo, Senior Economist – international trade, financial crisis in open economies “Foreign Competition and Domestic Jobs: Evidence from the U.S. Trade Adjustment Assistance”

David Lopez-Salido, Associate Director – monetary policy, general macro “Understanding the New Normal: The Role of Demographics”

Alvaro Mezza, Senior Economist – student loans, consumer finance “Student Loans and Homeownership”

Marius Rodriguez, Principal Economist – financial derivatives, CMBS pricing “Drivers of Inflation Compensation: Evidence from Inflation Swaps in Advanced Economies”

Gustavo Suarez, Chief – short-term credit markets, financial crises “Why isn’t Investment More Sensitive to Interest Rates: Evidence from Surveys”

Ivan Vidangos, Principal Economist – labor markets, public finance “Racial Gaps in Labor Market Outcomes in the Last Four Decades and over the Business Cycle”

Missaka Warusawitharana, Group Manager – corporate finance, asset pricing “Mapping Heat in the U.S. Financial System”

out of the weeds …

img_3935-2225669735-1505436984270.png

sharing a concern is the first step. it’s natural to disagree on the next and some may want to step back. fine, even macro folks get that the Representative Agent is a simplification, not a reality.

my last post was more feeling than fact. but I study economic beliefs (ab, c) enough to not apologize for being subjective. even so, it’s hard to explain why I was disappointed by Blanchard or hurt by silly comments. not sure but I don’t feel the need to justify myself or ask you to agree.

I’m more focused what might make things a little better. I got many kind comments in the past week even a thank-you note in the mail! I will never turn down happy but I wrote my post from a good place. I capped off ten years of policy work last Friday, am starting as a section chief on Monday, plus lots of good life stuff.

so why then such a gloomy post? I think our words and culture matter for the quality of our work … and it’s going to take a real effort to move us out of this bad equilibrium. pretty sure each of my quotables in my last post could give me back something much worse said to them. and those are men. I cringe when I hear the stories from senior women in econ (okay and from some junior women) and from people of color. come on folks, this is not okay and it’s hurting the economics. caring should not be an occupational hazard.

on the happy flip side, words matter so we can all do something. I was fortunate to have heard many positives, from folks who believed in teaching and encouraging me. and were funny and good hearted. often the support came in the form of a “you can do better” and was wrapped in lots (and lots) of editing. so many ways to build up an economist and the new ones need it most.

but it’s more than words, in my opinion. a culture of bullying and aggression doesn’t just happen. we can all be jerks but when bad behavior and excess stress are tolerated (and in some cases celebrated), this culture spreads like a weed. if we’re not careful our weeds will choke out the good stuff.

PS I was unpacking some boxes recently and came across this letter … made me smile, Joan Robinson. as I said, lots of ways to encourage the next generation.

if the shoe fits …

I applaud Alice Wu’s research but I didn’t need machine learning or EJMR to tell me that economics has a problem with diversity. I had read earlier research ranging from Amanda Bayer and Cecilia Rouse to Heather Sarsons not to mention years of CSWEP annual reports. Sadly, I didn’t even need to read. Just being an economist is enough to understand the toll that our profession’s aggressive, status-obsessed culture can take.

Here’s my (exhausting but non-exhaustive) submission for ‘text analysis’:

  • 2007 – start of first interview at one of my flyouts

Him: “Our assistant thought your last name was so funny for a candidate.” Me: “How so?” Him: “You know, SAHM: Stay At Home Mom. hahaha” Me: “Oh.”

tl;dr seriously, this is how you recruit new colleagues? I often mourn my lost sense of humor but lots of folks aren’t (trying to be) funny.

  • 2008 – identical, reject referee reports on my JMP, at two field journals despite adding references to some of his papers after first reject

“… footnote 19 just dismisses inconvenient findings without taking them seriously. I do not bother discussing why the arguments on page 3 are invalid, since they are purely polemical …

The correlations of risk measures with other behavior is a nice feature of the study, but I have so many doubts about the modeling of risk aversion that I do not want to comment on the veracity of that work.”

tl;dr he doesn’t use surveys and didn’t read my paper to do his review.

  • 2008 – said to me, or rather to the person I was trying to explain a forecast detail to by his supervisor …

“Don’t listen to her. She doesn’t know what she is talking about.”

tl;dr led to crappy answer in the boardroom (bad form for me to correct a colleague there, so I was silent) the work suffered not just my self esteem.

  • 2011 – while prepping a research conversation with Bernanke was told:

“The Chairman doesn’t want to hear about your research. He wants to hear about research headed to a flagship journal.”

tl;dr thanks for taking the joy out of one of the coolest projects I got to do as a junior staffer and reminding me how little my work is valued.

  • 2016 – EJMR comment in response to my blog post asking why so few women economists blog …

“Thanks Claudia for the pointer, but your research sucks. You have never published in any semi decent journal without your advisor, so your opinions on economics research do not matter. That’s why no one of importance reads your blog, and not because of your gender.”

tl;dr don’t let anyone tell you that EJMR is a bunch of non economist trolls. this is the stupid status crap that shows up everywhere in econ.

  • 2017 – email correspondence about my tweeting on Wu’s research

“sorry if I ruffled your feathers … ”

tl;dr sigh, this is not about me and I’m not a bird … not one word of my concern about status games in economics has sunk in.

That should be enough to explain why I have wasted so much time on this topic on Twitter in recent weeks and why I found Olivier Blanchard‘s post disappointing. Read Amanda Bayer’s interview instead. Then look back at my points above. All but one (I can’t verify the EJMR source) came from an economist who outranked me and was not anonymous. Let’s talk about punching down. Not one of my examples objectified me as a woman or was of the lame ‘she works well with others’ variety. I intentionally shared ones that underscore how the economics suffers. Maybe I got a few of these because I am woman but I know plenty of male economists with examples like these too. The aggression and status quo bias so clear on EJMR did not start or stop there.

I love being an economist and am thankful for the work that I have gotten to do. For every negative comment, I have gotten many positive ones, but I have found that the negatives weigh more.  I am not going to regale you with the details but just being an economist did take a toll on me. And I worry that to survive and succeed I have internalized a lot of bad, aggressive behavior. To check myself, I try to thank people when they help me and I point out when they’re being too hard on themselves. You never know what crap they are hearing from others (including their own inner critic). Oh, and I am adamant that economics is a team effort and not the playground of a few big names.

So let’s start a (ten years overdue) conversation about how an anonymous online website should not be the primary source of info on the job market. We have to do better. I don’t know the answer but I helped with an #econlife Twitter panel this week on being an economist and a parent. Other ideas? Then if anonymity is so bad let’s take a look at our publishing process too.  But if you think stamping out anonymity is all we economists need. Well, as Bernanke likes to say “good luck with that.” The AEA has to step up its efforts, big time … and address the aggression, status seeking, and exclusion that got us here. Hope springs eternal with me, but to be honest, I expect to be disappointed.