Today, September 7, 2022, I updated my “disgrace post. I have redacted all the names of the senior economists and some details. I stand by every word of the original post, but it’s as powerful, maybe even more so, without the names. I have also corrected some grammatical errors and unclear writing.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This post is a personal one. It is a painful one.
It is largely the same as the reflections that I sent to Janet Yellen, Ben Bernanke, and Peter Rosseau. I have redacted many names, except for public interactions or my correspondence.
Everyone who is privileged enough to hold a Ph.D. in economics should reflect on our toxic culture. Before you start, read the American Economics Association (AEA) code of professional conduct and policy on harassment and discrimination.
Students, please understand that I and many others are working to make your journey better than ours. Economics is hard enough without others who demean you. I love the energy of youth; however, you need allies. We all do.
Thankfully, I am healthy now due to my hard work in managing my bipolar disorder and the loved ones who carry me when I struggle.
Burn it down: economics failed us.
Economics is a disgrace. The lack of diversity and inclusion degrades our knowledge and policy advice. We hurt economists from undergraduate classrooms to offices at the White House. We drive away talent, mistreat those who stay and tolerate bad behavior.
Some experiences I share may seem innocuous. Taken together, they demonstrate a systemic problem. Ones that economists refuse to tackle. We blame bad behavior on victims. I was blamed. We tell them to toughen up. I was and did. We say the harasser is a good economist and imply the victim is not. He was supposedly better than me or you. He is not.
I chose to name the senior men economists [all redacted now] who hurt me and others. They are well-respected. You know them. By doing nothing, you allow them to hurt people. You allow them to teach bad behavior to the next generation. I did too. I blame myself and did not speak up. I am sorry, and that is why I am sharing now. I am not filing a formal complaint. I am sharing. After more than a decade as a macroeconomist, I am fine. You know me. It is painful to share a part of me you did not know. It is painful to revisit. I do not name names to tar and feather. I do it to make our problem concrete.
I mentor many people. They come to me as an ally, as someone who will listen. I do. Some conversations are happy, and people are looking for advice on being an economist. Some conversations are sad; people dealing with painful experiences in economics. Some get better. Some do not. Last year a Black woman undergrad asked me how to get from her satellite-school state university to a Ph.D. program in economics. We talked, and I gave her advice. I emailed her a few months later to see what she had decided. Her brother replied that his sister had killed herself. She will not be an economist. Others became economists then we drove them away. The tenure of a Native American woman economist was revoked after her men colleagues turned on her. I talk with her regularly. We discuss how she could return to academia after she is healthy again. Do you know how many Native American women are economists? Very few. Do you know how many Black economists work at the Fed? One out of 406. Economics is a disgrace.
The indignities are astounding. The new woman economist at the Board was asked by the men colleagues at lunch . Her husband is an economist I know well. An officer sabotaged her work . [Redacted.] I have talked with the woman and her husband several times. Broke my heart. Her tormentor is good friends with mine. I thought it was me. It was not me. It was them, and they have not stopped. I told her she would get better. I did. No one told me that in 2011 when I broke. I was told that I was not the first woman he targeted. No one told me I could report him. Both tormentors are senior officers at the Board, instrumental to monetary policy decisions. Neither said they were sorry.
Or how about the Southeast Asian research assistant, who I met once? He called me hyperventilating as he told me about his abusive work environment. After I hung up, I closed my door and sat in my office sobbing. Economists messed him up. I coached him on how to leave his job and find a new one. He did.
Finally, the woman economics major at Chicago went to office hours. She sat on the floor since the room was crowded. Someone offered her a chair. She said she was fine sitting on the floor. The professor looked at her and said, “I see you like it on your knees; women do.” He did not apologize to her though he did have to apologize for telling a sexually explicit joke at commencement. He continues to teach undergraduates. Economics breaks people, and it is broken. I am angry. You should be too.
I mainly share my experiences here. I am not special. Many have similar experiences, in some cases worse. I have written documents to back these incidents up. These records are awful to have in my email inbox, Twitter notifications and DMs, and text messages. Do not tell me; good men are economists too. I do not care. You did not protect the victims. You did not protect me. You had to know something was wrong, and you did nothing. I spend considerable time picking up the pieces of people we break. It is not fair. It is wrong what we do.
Economics destroys its students
- We discourage undergraduates, women, and men from studying economics. The AEA’s first climate survey of economics clearly shows our toxic profession, especially among under-represented groups. The AEA should commission surveys of undergraduates, research assistants, and predoctoral and postdoctoral students. Harassment begins in undergraduate classrooms and often does not stop unless you leave economics.
- We do not nurture the next generation. Many graduate students and economists have mental health issues. Research at Harvard found notably higher rates of depression and anxiety among economics Ph.D. students than other Ph.D. students and the general population. Departments often do send students to campus health resources. The faculty place unrealistic expectations on the students. They are aggressive in private and in public settings. Many do not mentor, even after they have agreed to be their advisors. Faculty suffer too. Leading economists Alan Krueger, Marty Weitzman, Bill Sandholm, and Emmanuel Farhi all killed themselves recently. Rest in peace.
- For several years, I have reviewed dozens of macro job market papers of Ph.D. students each year. I read their abstracts, introductions, and tables and charts. I worked with students from MIT to India to Stockholm to Santa Barbara, and everywhere in between. All their papers were technically impressive. They also benefited from communication tips. I tried to help. They worked hard on every aspect of their research, including writing. They thanked me, and many said it added to the support from their professors. Some replies suggested I got we must do more for our students, such as:
- ‘You are the first person to read any part of my job market paper.”
- “I finally understand my paper.”
- “Our department does not teach us how to write.”
- Many advisors and departments, including these candidates, are extremely supportive. Unfortunately, some are not. I got encouragement at Michigan. Some did not. I know too many graduate students who economists hurt. We must do better. Absolutely must. I will do better too.
- After I saw some common issues, I wrote a blog post on writing for all job market candidates. It is my most-read post by far. [Here is an updated version with a video.] I was surprised. My advisor, Matthew Shapiro, taught me how to write research papers. Many advisors do not. Some do. I blogged each of the students’ revised papers. I cheered them on during the job market. After one such email, a woman candidate thanked me. My email came after an exhausting flyout in the middle of an exhausting week of flyouts. None of these students were my responsibility. I was a section chief, managing five economists and three research assistants. We can all do more.
Predators target research assistants, graduate students, and early-career economists
- Research assistants and pre-doctoral fellows are particularly vulnerable. Many are considering a career in economics; however, they do know the culture of economics. They have not chosen to navigate our aggressive norms. The explosion of pre-doctoral programs at universities is a looming disaster. [In many cases, it already is.] Basically, no economists who supervise these young adults have management training. In contrast, the Board now sends every group manager and section chief to a months-long training. Training does not avoid all bad behavior; no training is worse.
- The Board is now recruiting research assistants from under-represented minorities. Sadly, Black and Latinx research assistants vastly outnumber the Ph.D. economists of color on staff. All research assistants have the least power at work, regardless of their background. Too often have bad experiences. One afternoon, a Black woman research assistant at the Board delivered memos to a White officer. The officer thanked her, using the name of another Black woman research assistant. She corrected her. Six weeks later, the officer made the same mistake. The research assistant gave up and asked one of the White research assistants to deliver memos to that officer.
- Two research assistants, a Black Latinx woman and a Latinx man, designed the first Research Assistant Survey at the Board. I saw the first drafts as someone who designs surveys. I could see from the start that the results would be uncomfortable. The discomfort of economists should not outweigh but often does, the discomfort they cause. One striking finding: research assistants were reluctant to offer critical feedback because they were worried that, as a result, they would not get a good recommendation for graduate school. Power dynamics are real, and early career scholars do not have power. I was in the meeting where they presented the results to the officers and section chiefs. Not surprisingly, the men in the room tried to explain the uncomfortable findings away. It was not them.; it was not their division; it was not their section. Bullshit. I basically said so in the meeting. Note that the woman is not doing a Ph.D. in economics. After seeing what economists are like, few Black women research assistants from the Board have. It breaks my heart. We do not deserve them. Diversity without inclusion is cruel.
- My experiences and those of others taught me that new economists are also vulnerable. They are easy to harass and intimate. They have the least power among economists, do not know what is acceptable, and often have impostor syndrome. I know. From 2008 to 2011, one man economist in private and in front of others demeaned my expertise. In 2008, I did not go to my commencement because he had convinced me I did not deserve my Ph.D. I got the top rating in my performance review in 2008. I now know it is extremely rare for a first-year economist to get top marks. I did deserve my Ph.D. The harassment did not stop. He and a buddy supervised me on a ‘Literature Conversation with the Chairman’ in May 2011 on household leverage. I was thrilled to present to then-Chair Ben Bernanke and other Fed Governors. The supervisor on the project came to my office and told me, “The Chairman does not want to hear about your research. He wants to hear about research that is going to a top journal.” That hurt. I presented Mian and Sufi. After difficult weeks of preparation, I enjoyed the meeting with Bernanke, Yellen, and Tarullo. As soon as I left the library, I was scolded for not sticking to the research. I talked too much about policy. Nearly all the women I know at the Board have had their expertise and accomplishments devalued by a colleague at some point. I am not special.
- I was under intense stress as a new economist. I started right before the Great Recession and was one of the lead economists on consumer spending. I did my job well, but a few senior officers often told me that I “did not know what I was doing.” The Great Recession and slow recovery were difficult to analyze and painful to watch as people out in the real world suffered. I now know that excessive stress triggers my bipolar episodes. I did not know then about my condition. I had several depression episodes from 2008 to 2011 and one manic episode in 2011. So, every winter during those early years at the Board, I was depressed. [Redacted.] I always did my work but could hardly get out of bed in the winter except to go to work. Then in 2011, I cycled from depression to mania. From April to August, I slept at most four hours at night and became increasingly irritable. I was not myself. I did not know what was wrong. It was a painful time at home and at work.
- I imploded on the Friday before the August 2011 FOMC meeting. I gave a trusted officer a list of everything that had been said or done to me since I started at the Board. He told me some of it was wrong and to go home and rest. That is the only forecast memo I did not finish. Instead, I went to the emergency room and slept for the first time in months. I sent a humiliating email to the ‘good men’ economists in my life. I remain embarrassed by my weird email. My advisor called my ally that night and asked, “what did you [the Fed] do to her?” My Board ally gets credit for me keeping my job. [He disagrees that my job was ever at risk. I felt like it might be.] But even he did not tell me to go to Employee Relations, the professional mediators at the Board. I went to another officer in administration on a forecast-related episode with these same two men. She said it was better they questioned my judgment in private than in a forecast meeting. I disagreed. In a meeting, I would have had backup. I stopped going to people. It was always my fault [implicitly]. It was always explained away.
- My ally, who had a reporting requirement, did not tell me that I could file an EEOC complaint for harassment. As a section chief, I did not know until 2018 that we had Employee Relations at the Board. I could have gotten help. I could have filed an EEOC complaint. My ally ensured I never worked for that man on a project again. I said I would quit if I did. [Redacted.] I spent years in therapy and took loads of medication. [Redacted.]. My tormentor is now a very high-ranking officer. I left the Fed.
Elites punch down and attack those with opinions different than theirs
- Elite departments are the gatekeepers of the economics profession. They circle wagons around other elites. MIT, Harvard, and Chicago define what is “good” research. They run two of the top five journals that many elite departments require for tenure. They decide what is cutting-edge economics. They decide who gets the top honors in the profession. Research on race and gender and work using feminist or alternate frameworks has been rejected for decades. The gatekeepers pass leadership to their students at elite universities. Many MIT and Harvard students are automatic members of the National Bureau of Economic Research. Economists outside elite circles are not seen as scholars. They are not voted in as members of the NBER; they are not invited to give seminars at elite departments and are not part of the American Economics Association’s leadership. A handful of departments run economics. They maintain an exclusive culture.
- Hostile attacks from senior economists on junior economists are common, often in seminars and other public settings. As one personal example, in May 2015, on Twitter, AAAA a Nobel Laureate, was talking with BBBB [a friend] about the effects of the Making Work Pay tax credit on consumer spending. I sent BBBB my paper with Matthew Shapiro and Joel Slemrod. We find that the 2009-10 tax credit, which was partly based on AAAA’s earlier research, was less effective than the 2008 tax rebates. I shared the link to the FEDS working paper version. AAAA’s public tweet replied, “there is a reason that paper was never published. Badly flawed. Asked people to remember what they did with the money. Huh?” He was the AEA President at the time. I replied politely, “actually, it was published in AEJ: Economic Policy, thanks!” Then he said, “ok, one for your side. I have not seen the published version.” So much for an open exchange of ideas. Our hyper-competitive field allows point scoring over the scientific inquiry.
- In another episode, when AAAA derided research by Andrew Chang, an Asian man economist at the Board, and his co-author Phillip Li. In their paper, “Is Economics Research Replicable? Sixty Published Papers from Thirteen Journals Say, ‘Often No.’” they tried to replicate results in 67 papers published in 13 well-regarded economics journals using author-provided files. They could replicate the main result in only one-third of the papers without the authors’ help and only half with their help. AAAA disagreed vehemently with their results. On Twitter, AAAA said to CCCC, “that paper’s title is highly misleading. No significant errors [in the published papers] were found. Like saying Federer’s serve is hard to replicate.” What? The authors and several Board research assistants had devoted hundreds of hours to their study. There were errors that fundamentally changed the results. AAAA’s public tweet was rude. No surprise, their paper was desk rejected at the American Economic Review and not published in any journal in their study. Early-career economists often suffer retaliation when they question top economists.
- The attacks on my economic expertise continue now. Every year at least one senior man has disparaged my expertise to my face or in writing to me. Every year! After Kate Davidson at the Wall Street Journal wrote a piece on the Sahm rule, I received an email from DDDD, the former Fed official who I had never met or spoken to before. He sent me a screenshot of a Goldman Sachs newsletter in 2001 with a recession indicator. The subtext [as I interpreted it and peers I showed it to] was I did not deserve the Sahm rule. The Sahm rule is in FRED, Haver, and Bloomberg terminals. It was my last week at the Board when he emailed me. Not only did I have a man again suggesting [in my opinion] that I did not deserve my accomplishments. The indicator in the newsletter was the Board’s internal rule of thumb and is not as accurate as my indicator. After my Sahm rule first got attention, a man from the Ohio state government contacted me and said they were thinking about using my rule to kick on enhanced food stamp benefits in a recession. If a recession indicator were widely known, if everyone got that Goldman Sachs newsletter, no one would have cared about the Sahm rule. They do care. It is now in several legislative proposals for automatic stabilizers. If I had listened to all the men like DDDD during my career, the Sahm rule would not exist. I would not be an economist now. My roadblocks are not special. [I had a good conversation with DDDD after this post. He did not intend for me to interpret his email as devaluing my contribution. We also discussed power dynamics and how he, in my opinion, had more than I did in the profession.]
Economists discourage economists from under-represented groups
- Economics has a race problem. Recent racist remarks from leading economists, such as EEEE, highlight the problem. On Twitter, he blamed the protesters for the riots after George Floyd’s murder. EEEE questioned their right to free assembly. When others pushed back on Twitter, he doubled down. FFFF came to his defense, quoting Martin Luther King Jr. I reminded FFFF that we [white people] killed him. FFFF, too, doubled down. A former Black student [Redacted] at Chicago shared that EEEE had made racist comments in class and moved his lecture to the Martin Luther King holiday. EEEE had passed it off as a joke. Another Black woman economist in a different cohort shared a similar experience with EEEE. The New York Times covered the incident. Research on racism is not published in the Journal of Political Economy, which is maybe unsurprising given that EEEE is its head editor. [He is no longer in that role.]
- Both EEEE and FFFF also have a history of undermining women economists. As the head editor at the Journal of Political Economy, EEEE is known for being an unfair editor, including third-round rejections of papers and questionable treatment of authors, including but not limited to women. FFFF harassed women for years while at [Redacted.]. Every Ph.D. student had to take his class. For example, he told one woman that she should leave economics. He made sexist remarks in class. The department tolerated his unprofessional behavior and celebrated his research. [Redacted.]
- Top research on race and economics often perpetuates racist tropes. In an interview in April 2020, GGGG said,
- “The progress of African Americans over the past century is staggering. Many have shaken off the legacies of poverty and discrimination. Those who deny that the American Dream is achievable ignore the myriad success stories and the mindset for personal growth that America offers.”
- “The current research in the field is shoddy. It has gained traction because it appeals to the negative image of American society held by leading opinion makers like the New York Times and the Atlantic.”
- Numerous economists pushed back on his claims on Twitter. They argued that Black people continue to face discrimination and economic barriers. He undercut research that disagrees with him on scientific merits and cultural policies. I wrote on Twitter that I disagree with GGGG’s comments but said he had the right to hold those views. I noted that he co-authored with people of color. [Redacted.] GGGG dismissed these facts and made racist remarks on other occasions. The person of color was offended but did not pursue the issue. Others reminded me that GGGG has published research for decades, promoting his narrow-minded view of racial and ethnic minorities. GGGG is a Nobel Laureate.
- Professors casually make racist and sexist remarks to undergraduates. In addition to being disrespectful, it makes students less likely to pursue a career in economics. A recent undergraduate in economics at Penn told me how a senior professor repeatedly made such comments. One example was in an undergrad labor economics class. He could not remember the word for Native Americans. He called them “red Indians.” The students were stunned and did not know what to say. He also made sexist comments to undergraduate women. He suggested that women students should get an MBA, not an econ Ph.D. He said it is hard for women to have kids and do economics. The man student, who witnessed these incidents, complained to the department and to the economics student association. No action was taken. He does not want to be an economist. Shocker.
- Leaders often downplay the concerns of women and minority men economists. When economists in under-represented groups report an incident, they are often told they are being too sensitive or unreasonable. The leaders of the profession turn a blind eye to such reports. Often the profession awards economists esteemed positions without checking complaints. HHHH was elected to the AEA Executive, while a case of sexual harassment was pending against him. IIII was elected AEA President in an uncontested election, even as Asian economists were concerned about his views toward them. It should surprise no one that IIII’s work as a paid consultant for Harvard upset our Asian colleagues. IIII argued that systematically subjective ratings on ‘soft skills’ justified Harvard not admitting Asians with higher test scores and grades. Asian economists have long complained others ding their technically solid work for not being creative. IIII will assume the leadership of the AEA in January. I am not here to judge, but I do think a conversation is necessary.
- Elites tolerate the bad behavior of other elites. The reverence toward JJJJ exemplifies my claim. During his entire career, JJJJ has attacked others who disagree with him. He is a Clark Medalist and a high-ranking former economic official. [Redacted.] In 2005, JJJJ delivered remarks at NBER Conference on Diversifying the Science & Engineering Workforce. One hypothesis he offered for fewer women faculty in the sciences was “different availability of aptitude at the high end.” Some men economists counter, “JJJJ was only “asking questions” about women’s IQ. Anyone who is a researcher knows that the questions we ask reflect our priors and interests. I was a Ph.D. student at the time. I did not attend the lecture, but I heard about it. I cannot imagine how the women in the room felt. I felt awful when I read it. [Redacted.]
- JJJJ continues to demean women in economics. [Some of the following were redacted.] I had a woman economist come to me about an offhand comment JJJJ made to her; he had questioned whether economics was for her. I told her it absolutely is for her. Why am I picking up the pieces of others’ hurtful words? [I doubt that JJJJ meant to be so hurtful, and I doubt he even remembers saying it to her. People in positions of power should consider how their words may negatively affect those with less power.]
Economics promotes elitism over science
- Leaders of the economics profession, including AEA Execute, Nobel Laureates, and Clark Medalists, almost exclusively hold degrees from top universities. They have top publications. They are Fed Chairs, Council of Economic Advisers Chairs, and Treasury Secretaries. They have huge public platforms. Many elites argue that they earned their status to some extent, that is true. They worked hard. In many cases, their research is top-notch. Even so, they won the lottery when admitted to a top program. Some won the lottery earlier and were born into prestigious economic families. From the start of their education, they were taught the methods, and the research questions that the leaders in the discipline thought were worthy of inquiry. Their outcomes partially reflect their privileged start in economics. It is inexcusable that AEA Executive does not reflect the diversity of its members. It is inexcusable that faculty from liberal arts colleges and state schools have never led the AEA. It is inexcusable that economists with other methodological approaches have not led. Elitism suppresses diversity and inclusion. That undermines our science.
- Elites defend their status. On Twitter, I criticized KKKK’s claims in a Financial Times article in May, “Why inflation might follow the pandemic?” I said that I disagreed with his ‘what if’ inflation scenarios and said they were badly timed. KKKK asked me privately why I was criticizing him. I explained. It was a professional conversation. Two well-respected macroeconomists told me to lay off KKKK. This incident is an example of how elites protect other elites. I told KKKK about the scoldings. He told me to “go after the right targets,” not him. I should be allowed to argue on economic merits, regardless of the other person. I will continue to. [Redacted.]
Economists hurt people outside economics with bad policy advice
- The toxic culture of economics reduces the quality of our economic policy advice. As a personal example: in early 2008, I talked with a peer about the staff’s assumptions on spending from the rebates. He was the briefer in a staff presentation to the Board, and I was the consumer spending analyst. The briefing text did not accurately convey our staff’s views on the rebates, and I was talking with him about how to adjust his text. My tormentor walked in and said to him, “Don’t listen to her. She does not know what she is talking about.” I was speechless and hurt. I left the office. My peer repeated the incorrect description of the staff view at the briefing. They teach staff economists not to stand up in the Board room and contradict a colleague. I sat quietly. I was demoralized. Not only did the officer undermine my credibility, but my peer also listened, and the Board was given incorrect information.
- As a bigger example, national media is now covering racism in economics. Nearly all Black economists who study racism have had their research marginalized and rejected from top journals. Instead, during the mass protests, we had EEEE, the head editor at a top 5 research journal, sharing his racist views [in my view] on Twitter and his blog. It is painfully obvious why the leaders in the economics profession do not have anything intelligent about race and the economy. It matters for large groups of people. Black unemployment is always, in good times and bad, nearly twice the White unemployment rate. We did not learn that in my macro or labor field courses. We did not teach that in Intermediate Macro. If we do not know the facts, if we do not ask the questions, then how will we offer good policy advice. Amara Omeokwe at the Wall Street Journal wrote, “Economics Journals Faulted for Neglecting Studies on Race and Discrimination.” She details the barriers that Black economists face to publishing their work. It is 2020, and our Black colleagues must still explain why their research is top-notch?
- The damage in economics is on full display in the Covid-19 crisis. From bad economic policy advice to counterproductive infighting, economics is failing the American people. Elites shut down debate. An example is in LLLL’s “Will We Flunk Pandemic Economics?” in early April.
- “What should we be doing? Serious economists have already reached a rough consensus over the appropriate policy response to a pandemic. The bottom line is that this isn’t a conventional recession, which calls for broad-based economic stimulus.”
- Who are the “serious economists?” LLLL links to KKKK and MMMM. Many agreed with their views on the economy and policy responses; however, reasonable people like me disagreed with them. However, when elites define who is a “serious economist” and who is not, they suppress debate. [Redacted.]
- Secondly, many economists are tone deaf to the crisis. A well-respected economist was asked about the model at a virtual macro seminar early in the crisis. He replied, “deaths from the coronavirus are changes in the stock of people in my model.” Yes, that is a literal math reading, but we were in a raging pandemic. His seminar was live-streamed and public. None of the macro men on the screen batted an eye.
- Finally, economists blur the line between research and politics. Last month, NNNN left the Trump Council Economic Advisers. [Redacted.] I and many others have criticized the economic analysis from CEA during this crisis. That said, I respect anyone who serves in the government. In this time of crisis, we especially need good economists at CEA. After the news broke that NNNN was leaving, many elite, left-of-center economists attacked him. Some even questioned his character in public. [Redacted.] My comeback to the critics was to ask if they had volunteered to serve at the Trump CEA. I and other former CEA economists have been helping CEA since the crisis began. The vocal critics have not. The world is burning. How could you not add your expertise?
Recent AEA efforts cause pain and burden women and minority men economists
- A reckoning over gender in economics began in August 2017, when Justin Wolfers wrote “Evidence of a Toxic Environment for Women in Economics” about Alice Wu’s research in the New York Times. Wu’s paper, “Gender Bias in Rumors Among Professionals: An Identity-based Interpretation,” was her undergraduate thesis at Berkeley. She documented the misogynistic, racist, homophobic comments about economists on the anonymous forum, Economic Job Market Rumors. EJMR began when I was on the job market in 2007. Economists have been told since then to ignore the website, even as economists were viciously attacked, in at least one case, stalked at a conference. Nonetheless, most job market candidates visit the EJMR Job Wiki to get non-public information on the hiring status. Some advisers encourage their students to check it. EJMR is not the source of our toxic culture is a symptom of it.
- After the article on Wu’s research, economists demanded that the AEA address the horrible behavior on EJMR and in the profession. The AEA acted. We now have the AEA Code of Professional Conduct; Policy on Harassment and Discrimination; Ombudsperson; Committee on Equity, Diversity, and Professional Conduct; our first Climate Survey; EconSpark (a substitute for the EJMR forum); and EconTrack (a substitute for EJMR Job Wiki). I appreciate these efforts. Unfortunately, their implementation was uneven. Poor implementation hurts victims again and discourages economists from coming forward.
- After the AEA created EconSpark, Executive Committee members started conversations. They tried to draw economists to the new site and away from EJMR. It did not work. The site is used infrequently. It did not become a substitute for EJMR. Instead of asking why and trying a new approach, the AEA seems to have abandoned the effort.
- Another well-intentioned effort was AEA EconTrack. The idea is to have departments register and log their job market status on the website. Job candidates can check this verified information instead of the crowd-sourced, anonymous information on EJMR. Again, the implementation fell short. Early this year, I began emailing departments whose hiring information was on EJMR but not EconTrack. I showed them the information on EJMR. I asked them to consider posting on EconTrack. I contacted over 20 departments, and about half joined EconTrack. I doubled the number of departments on EconTrack. Getting departments to join EconTrack was not my job. It took time, and a few chairs asked why I was contacting them, not the AEA. Good question. I did it for the job candidates. Even with my efforts, many more departments were on EJMR’s Job Wiki than EconTrack.
- Finally, the process to file a harassment and discrimination complaint was not ready to launch last year. I filed the first complaint in the summer of 2019. It was on behalf of a man economist who had been viciously harassed on EJMR for years. After I sent in my formal complaint, OOOO told me it “would not stand up in a court of law.” I do not see anything in the AEA policy about going to court. I retracted my complaint. I got EJMR to remove the thread that included a death threat against him. Later, I was met with skepticism when I sent screenshots of an attack on a Black woman economist. I did not feel like OOOO understood the gravity of the thread. [Redacted. The attack on EJMR had lasting professional consequences for the woman.] After the second discouraging interaction with OOOO, I no longer recommend people file complaints. I will not again. The AEA is working to improve the system. Next time AEA, wait until you have a process that works. You are hurting victims. It is not OOOO’s fault. It is a bad process that the AEA put in place. We must do better.
In closing, thank you for the opportunity to share my reflections on economics. I will continue to mentor and support others. Our future is so bright. I cannot undo the hurt that economics causes. I am tired. Efforts to change our culture are cheap talk if we do not act. Instead of a victory lap, we should be ashamed of the lack of progress and the sloppy implementation. Until we make progress, I will no longer identify as a member of the American Economics Association or the economics profession. Congrats.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Addendum: Not surprisingly, I am the only individual who has been punished professionally for my blog post. I did not write it to advance my career; I wrote it to advance the careers of others who experience mistreatment and abuse. Above all, I wrote it for the students. Our future is bright, even if our present is not.
Claudia, words seem inadequate in face of the horrors that you document, so I send my love instead.
… but vital and necessary. Pointing out these horrors is a first step to overcoming them.
Me too.
I am not in this field. I am an international student doing PhD in a related field. There are lots of things to process from the blog but I would comment on one particular point from this article.
Most economists/academics I observe on Twitter seem to play for one political party and it almost seems they value playing for the political party more than the country. That seems very odd to me. Your point about not volunteering in this hour of need seems baffling to me. It seems they all want to wait out till November so that they can audition for cleaning up after the house has already burned. Sure, I saw many op-eds and commentary on Twitter. But I didn’t see anyone saying this is going to be a huge crisis and I must reach out to the government because ultimately I don’t play for a political party but rather the country.
I could be wrong. Many might have done so privately. Nonetheless, this is just my perception.
Many economists I know on Twitter or in other setting do not reveal their politics. I try hard to keep my commentary to economic policy. I offer expert advice, basically to anyone who will listen. Some economists do help privately, regardless of political affiliation. I shared my concern about some of the public partisan statements I have seen on Twitter. People have every right to share their politics. However, the American Economics Association’s professional code of conduct encourages non-partisan treatment of fellow members of the AEA.
Is there a list of economists whose books I can boycott from now on? Not only do I not want to support them financially, but also this type of closed mindedness means their thoughts are deeply flawed as you point out.
I wrote my post to encourage economists to reflect on systematic problems in the economics profession. I do not plan to boycott the work of economists. Good people do bad things and I am believe that we can all do better. That said, I often do not amplify the voices of economists who I know to have hurt people. And I try hard to amplify the work of scholars who economics marginalizes.
When I saw ‘Climate Survey’ at the start of your section on destroying students I had some hope that this piece would ALSO address the huge elephant in the room – that economics teaching is not fit for a planet facing a catastrophic climate and ecological emergency. Your account demonstrates the mechanisms by which elitist economics still holds sway on governments and corporations, but sadly does not go far enough in exposing just how broken this system is. Your battle for diversity, equal opportunity and respect may gain even more traction if part of an examination of what we want from our economists in the face of unprecedented global disaster. I wish you the best.
Completely agree. As a scientist I’ve always been perturbed by naive extrapolations for growth. The lack of diversity is downright dangerous.
Sounds fake
It’s not ❤️
What you endured was shameful. You are a well-educated, competent, but very sensitive, person.Your sensitivity and ability to empathize with others is a good thing. More people should be like that. You did not deserve to be treated the way you did. But I’d like to know why you did not name more names that you did. If someone were to torment me the way you were tormented, I would make their names very public and call out exactly what they did with dates, times, places, and detailed facts. Granting people who torment you the gift of anonymity only encourages their bad behavior. The most liberating thing one can say to others is, “I’m not afraid of you. I’m going to do what I’m going to do, and if you don’t like it, tough.” Your fears give your tormentors control over you. Don’t let them occupy space in your head. They can’t afford the rent. Evict them!
a woman would be sued for libel…or called a b*tch and discredited – for naming names
Economics is a disgrace
Comment on Claudia Sahm on ‘Economics is a disgrace’
Economics is an institution and a science. Claudia Sahm gives a personal summary of the toxic institutional culture “We hurt economists from undergraduate classrooms to offices at the White House. We drive away talent; we mistreat those who stay; and we tolerate bad behavior.” So, economics is a failed institution, “Burn it down”.
Being not a part of this institution, I am not entitled to comment on it.
The all-decisive point about economics is not human failure but scientific failure. Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, Austrianism, MMT, and Pluralism are materially/formally inconsistent and therefore scientifically worthless.#1
The blunder is, with regard to the subject matter, at the axiomatic level and with regard to formal consistency at the level of elementary algebra.
Microfoundations are false since 150+ years. Macrofoundations are false since Keynes. Economists did not spot Keynes’ foundational blunder to this day.
THIS is the indelible disgrace of economics.#2 The mistreatment of students/colleagues is bad, the mistreatment of science is worse. Institutional failure is bad, scientific failure is worse.
Egmont Kakarot-Handtke
#1 Section Exemplary proof of the inconsistency of economics in
https://axecorg.blogspot.com/2020/06/wikipedia-economics-scientific.html
#2 See Ch. 13, The indelible scientific disgrace of economics, in Sovereign Economics, BoD
https://www.bod.de/buchshop/sovereign-economics-egmont-kakarot-handtke-9783751946490
I suppose it’s good to be reminded in the context of a painful, resonant blog post like this one that there are always such sanctimoniously oblivious and undeservedly self-adoring men standing by, positively glowing with the eagerness to pontificate.
Actually, it seems pretty obviously written by a bot.
You know bots that write that well?
Please post some links and example texts (especially necessary inputs) as I could use such fancy software.
thx in advance
I know right? Have a look at the posts on The Female Lead. You’d think there would be a degree of circumspection from bloviated opinionated men. You would be wrong.
We sat beside each other at CEA a few years back and both gave our talks. Claudia, I had no idea of what your history was. You seemed so calm when I knew you. It pisses me off that some of the responses to your post try to be too analytical. Bloody typical. If you can’t differentiate the hay out of it or you did not act logically at all times…. I’m glad my career in this profession is coming to an end soon. My sincere condolences for for all that has transpired. Please heal. David.
This is an astonishingly powerful blogpost. Thank you.
Thanks so much for posting this. It reflects so many experiences I’ve had in the profession. I thought I was unlucky that I kept finding my way into toxic work environments, and I have considered leaving the industry on many occasions. It’s great that the culture of economics is being discussed more widely. Be well Claudia.
You are brave! thank you for being a voice for young economists!
I would love if there were a list of allies! I can’t help noticing and being so so pleased that there were some who supported you. It is not enough, but it is something. And I want to compile a list of them, in our own kind of JMR, so those in need might be able to look up someone willing to help. It is not our job, but it is something I would volunteer to do in a heartbeat. I know there are others still.
Thank you Claudia. A thousand thanks. Your words needed to be published. I’ve strayed out of academia because of such toxicity and egos, and that was in the field of physics! I write and teach mathematics now, economics applications, and will think twice about tying to publish in any mainstream econ journals. Luckily there are a few alternatives, less well read, but they are a start. I think of all the amazing UMKC and Levy Institute scholars who are not widely read because they cannot publish in the mainstream journals, and I weep.
Thank you for validating my experiences. If I had known before I earned my PhD and subsequent employment at a university, I would have picked a different field of study.
I’m surrounded by miserable, selfish people that are scum under my shoe who publish in the “best” journals. They are horrible people who teach and interact with impressionable young minds. In good conscious, I cannot encourage young women to go into the profession.
Just to say thank you and sending you solidarity. Every field needs people with your integrity, even if it doesn’t deserve it.
EVERYTHING you say here is unfortunately true. That is exactly what I have noted. Unfortunately however you treated me with such meanest yourself and with so much disregard, that this 1 day and half I spent with you at the Board working on a project will go down in history as one of the worst for me. The dismissive way you treated every idea I had as part of the group and rejected my work right in my face for the sake of it was the same treatment I had received from a ton of other white economists I worked with. Now I understand your sheer meanness was just projecting. It is because you were unhappy there.
I am truly sorry, Maude. Your contributions to the conference was valuable. I learned much from you. Again I am sorry.
I am from Jawaharlal nehru university( JNU) New Delhi,India. This institution as well as the my economics department is heavily dominated by communist and their ideology you can’t show your disagreement with your professor and their ideology if you do you will be doomed you can’t have a good career in economics. I did my master in economics and left the economics for government job.
I’ve been trying to get the mainstream elite economists in Indonesia to discuss about the idea of MMT and Job Guarantee to no avail. So I fully get the cliquey critique conveyed in this article. 🙁
I totally agree,
All of the theories are based only on political ideologies and no effort is made to actually try to understand just how the system works. Every proposition is held like some form of religious dogma.
The most curious attitude to me is that the discipline is based solely on pre Newtonian mathematics and as such reveals it’s nonsense to any Mathematician Scientists or Engineer that takes the trouble to look at it in any depth.
No functions of time are used and so feedback effects are never considered resulting is a continuous flock of their wretched black swans. They never get anything right but their sychophantic practice keeps them in favour with politicians who are also sychophants and see see their future in going along with this nonsense.
I think it is coming undone now. Some economists have come up with total garbage about COVID-19 and this has very quickly been revealed to be nonsense. Also we were already primed for a lot more economic turmoil, I think that, with communications as they are in 2020, economics is going to be revealed as having no cloths.
Keep up this good work, thank you.
I’m a former female Board RA and I relate strongly to this post. From an RA’s perspective one of your most accurate lines is:
“The explosion of pre-doctoral programs is a looming disaster. Basically, no economists who supervise these young adults have formal management training. “
So, so true. While I was generally treated with respect at the Fed, I left the Fed and the field partly because I didn’t receive any sort of mentorship or encouragement to enter the field, so when I doubted whether a PhD program was right for me there was no one to help me decide, despite it supposedly being a pre-doc program. My economists barely talked to me once a week even when I was working on their projects. And what I saw of the economics culture seemed toxic which also scared me off.
Also relevant is your spot on point about economics culture towards ranking. I was given the message that if you didn’t go to a top top school you would have absolutely no chance of teaching which is what I wanted to do. Since I never received any advice or mentorship I had to infer for myself using online info whether my grades were good enough or I was smart enough to get into/hack it at a top school. I concluded I didn’t think I was, and left. In hindsight it’s (a) silly I never got any support in figuring this out from the dozens of economists around me and (b) silly that I got the message from day 1 that it was go top 5 or be a failure.
And, my exit interview was cancelled.
Thank you for your valued insights and confirmation of my own thoughts on this field I have chosen. Graduated at the top of my class at a city college and a minority on May 2017 and have applied to Fed Reserve and other agencies for jobs but not selected going on 3 years now, thank you again for telling your story and be strong.
Hi Claudia,
Thank you for laying it all out, unfiltered. My immediate reaction was shock. I was shocked to see spoken out loud the stories that I’ve only ever heard quietly spoken behind closed doors, and not without a great deal of shame. Then, as I read your post again and again, my reaction turned to rage toward all us who let it happen. How complicit and cowardly we’ve been. Now it’s all out—there are no more excuses to do whatever it takes to get it right.
Doriana
Thank you for everything you wrote. I have a lot of examples of the disrespect Phd academic ecnonomists have toward industry economists. Moving from indsutry to academia has some pros, but the cons of working with some in academia highly outweigh the benefits.
I was cured of herpes simplex virus his email ____________________________https://robinbuckler. com, I am so happy, He can restore broken marriage/relationship ………🥰🥰🥰
-GENITAL AND ORAL HERPES
-HPV
-DIABETES
-WEAK ERECTION
-VIRGINAL PROBLEM
-WHOOPING COUGH
– HEPATITIS A,B AND C
-COLD SORE
-LOWER RESPIRATORY INFECTION
-LOW SPERM COUNT
-STAPHYLOCOCCUS AUREUS
-STROKE
-IMPOTENCE
-PILE
-HYPERTENSION
-MENOPAUSE DISEASE
-CANCER
-SHINGLES
-FIBROID
-YEAST INFECTION
-BARENESS/INFERTILITY….
I agree with a lot of the things you said. I’m a grad student and been reading EJMR for a long time, just that I don’t – and would hardly – tell anyone about it of course. At its very core, disgruntled economists are complaining about the elitism and privilege that pervade our community. That’s a very similar, if not the same, argument you are putting forth here. And I think you do see it too, because you don’t call the forum the root of toxicity but the symptoms. I wholeheartedly agree.
Everyone knows that to gain academic prestige and standing, it’s at least Top 5 PhD granting institution or NIL. It’s wrong. Very wrong. Not just in terms of equality but also because it stifles creative thought outside what is pushed as mainstream economics, and actively seeks to quash alternative channels where such works can reach a larger audience. These papers don’t get accepted to Top 5 journals (conveniently controlled by the elites too!) and econ twitter isn’t a very effective place to reach the general public either. Not that the general public’s opinion factors greatly into influencing other economists, but I digress. And while I do come off as superficial to aspire to prestige and reputation, without any of these connections and networks, nobody will listen to your work no matter how good it is. There are also cases of famous people at good universities plagiarizing other smaller names (I decline to name and shame, but it’s a very famous and recurring thread on EJMR). And that’s why I guess we all get drawn back to read EJMR, because anonymity is the basis for truths to be told without repercussions (although it also enables cyberbullying, which is immensely terrifying, and thus why I am conflicted in my views towards such a forum).
I felt depressed just writing this out. I can also see how so many people have come before me, bearing the same excitement and passion, and slowly just faded out of the field presumably out of their own choice, when it was motivated by so many actions that drove them out. I came here after reading the thread on EJMR. If it helps, most people agree with some of your arguments, and it takes a lot of courage to talk about uncomfortable truths with your name attached to it. Please stay strong.
As to WHAT we can do about it as a community, the solution is to make the pie bigger. It’s very simple, but also very hard. There’s going to be an influx of economists over time, and we have to force universities to stop being fixated on journal rankings – not that rankings are a bad thing, but instead of Top 5 we should have Top 10 instead. For better or for worse, given Trump’s recent visa bans, if the best international graduate students no longer come to the US but instead Europe, or some schools in Asia, then hopefully the pie will grow in size. It seems impossible but everyone thought it was impossible too, back in the 1930s, for the center of mathematics research to shift from Germany to the States so quickly and so easily. And hardly anyone remembers that the home of Economics was not Chicago but the other Cambridge oceans away.
Sorry for the rant. I think most of us are the silent majority, especially if we are POC. I do feel helpless at times because I do not know how to improve the state of our profession. I’d much rather just escape to my research and work on ideas I love and care about. I think many of our peers share the same feelings, which is also what drew us here in the first place. If possible we wouldn’t want to play politics at all, or worry about elitism or discrimination against Asian men and African American women. But no man is an island. Our silence renders us as guilty as those who have, for so many years, hoarded precious resources and opportunities within the sacred zip code.
Thank you for sharing this Claudia! Thank you
Economics is a disgrace – now more than ever
Comment on Claudia Sahm on ‘Economics is a disgrace’
The true disgrace of economics is that it is failed/fake/cargo cult science for 200+ years.#1 Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, Austrianism, MMT, and Pluralism are mutually contradictory, axiomatically false, materially/formally inconsistent and all got the foundational economic concept of profit wrong.#1 By consequence, economic policy guidance has never had sound foundations. This applies to left/center/right policy. Economists are a hazard to their fellow citizens.#2
This is why economics has to be burnt down to the ground. However, Claudia Sahm demands “Burn it down: economics failed us.” This is upside-down thinking. In the scientific realm, the question is, what have you done for science and not what has science done for you. However, economists are not scientists, and science is the last thing Claudia Sahm cares about.
Claudia Sahm is “privileged enough to hold a PhD” but has not realized to this day that economics is failed/fake science.#3 That means that she is part of it.
What she cares about primarily is to make the story of her martyrdom in a toxic institutional culture (painful appears 7 times in her post) and her psychic condition (bipolar disorder) as widely known as possible. She does this for herself and on behalf of other victims, in particular vulnerable students and women of color, but does not forget to mention the recent deaths of Krueger, Weitzman, Sandholm, Farhi as proof of the psychological toxicity of economics.
Everybody knows that something is rotten in economics as a scientific discipline. But Claudia Sahm does not deliver a material/formal refutation of mainstream economics but sends a letter to Janet Yellen, Ben Bernanke, and Peter Rosseau complaining about the toxic culture of the profession.
This, of course, is a farce. You cannot be an economist without realizing at some point that academic economics is not committed to the advancement of objective scientific truth but that it is a crucial propaganda outlet of the Oligarchy.
This is no secret. Arrow defined the rules of the game in his famous AEA address: “It is a touchstone of accepted economics that all explanations must run in terms of the actions and reactions of individuals. Our behavior in judging economic research, in peer review of papers and research, and in promotions, includes the criterion that in principle the behavior we explain and the policies we propose are explicable in terms of individuals, not of other social categories.”
So, either you subscribe to the ideology of methodological individualism and the peer-review gatekeepers let you in and thus help you to get on a financially attractive trajectory with the Bank of Sweden Nobel at the end of the rainbow or you get problems – psychological or otherwise.
All this is really old stuff. Economics started as Political Economy and J. S. Mill was on the payroll of the East India Company. Economics has from the beginning on been the Oligarchy’s heavily promoted queen of the so-called social sciences.
The disgrace of economics is that economists have not produced much of genuine scientific value for 200+ years: “Thousands upon thousands of scholars, as well as thousands of statesmen and men of affairs, have contributed their efforts to the attempt to understand the course of events of the economic world. And today this field of investigation is being cultivated more extensively, than ever before. How is it, then, that in all these years, and with all the undoubted talent that has been lavished upon it, the subject of economics has advanced so little? (Schoeffler)
Worse, economists still do not understand profit – the foundational concept of their subject matter.#4 Worse, MMTers with academic credentials apply a provably false macroeconomic balances equation in order to camouflage that public deficit-spending/money-creation is to the disadvantage of WeThePeople and a free lunch for the Oligarchy.
Claudia Sahm does not address any scientific issues or the role of economists as useful idiots, she instead accuses academic economics of psychological cruelty, well knowing that this emotional issue will bring her immediate attention and the approval of the general public.
No doubt, the economics profession in the incarnation of the AEA will pledge guilty and promise betterment and reform and rework their code of conduct.
This, of course, is the usual farce. Claudia Sahm wittingly or unwittingly helps to cover the real disgrace of economics. Economics – orthodox and heterodox alike – needs to be condemned for the corruption of science. The condemnation for toxic culture is justified but entirely beside the point. It is like a sociopathic mobster getting off cheaply by pleading guilty of having stolen a candy bar.
Egmont Kakarot-Handtke
#1 Economics is a disgrace
https://axecorg.blogspot.com/2020/07/economics-is-disgrace.html
#2 Econogenics: economists pose a hazard to their fellow citizens
https://axecorg.blogspot.com/2019/11/econogenics-economists-pose-hazard-to.html
#3 Section Exemplary proof of the inconsistency of economics in Wikipedia, economics, scientific knowledge, or political agenda pushing?
https://axecorg.blogspot.com/2020/06/wikipedia-economics-scientific.html
#4 Your economics is refuted on all counts: here is the real thing
https://axecorg.blogspot.com/2020/06/your-economics-is-refuted-on-all-counts.html
Hi Claudia, I am not going to say “I am sorry” because your story resonates with many of us.
I couldn’t agree more with you that CLARK MEDAL should end. I would add so should the NOBEL in ECONOMICS! They both are being reduced to mockery of the field.
On these big shots, well, Nobel Laureate Krugman plagiarized the idea of permanent effects of shocks from a paper of mine with a female co-author in his NY Times Article in Sept 2018 (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/30/opinion/the-economic-future-isnt-what-it-used-to-be-wonkish.html). We complained to the NYT – the response was:
I am writing in response to your email, from Friday, alleging instances of possible plagiarism on the part of our columnist Paul Krugman. I understand your concern, and I can assure you that we take these matters very seriously.
However, after reviewing the materials, and consulting with our legal counsel, we do not feel that the similarities between elements of his column and elements of the works you cited rise to the level of plagiarism. There are similar ideas expressed in different ways.
Sincerely,
Clay Risen
—
Deputy Editor, Op-Ed
We wrote to our own organization also because our paper was a WP. They came to the same conclusion that similar idea. Well, he didnt have these ideas before our paper. All this was a code word for “He is too big to be embarrassed for plagiarizing.”
What makes it worse is that females who get top jobs because of the recent push for gender equality tend to behave exactly like these men.
I do not know how to fix the system, except calling these people out as and when these things occur. Naming and shaming might work.
More power to you, Claudia.
K
The “Nobel prize in Economics” is really the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics instituted by the bank of Sweden and as such is a fake “Nobel Prize”.
Dear Claudia,
first thank you. This situation is indeed pervasive across the board (economics, science, etc.) hindering professionals in doing what’s right, whats humane, what inventive without being destructive, etc. You talk of allies. To help tackle the problem without reinventing the wheel, here are two important ones: Jeff Schmidt (Disciplined minds) and Robert Sutton (The no asshole rule) . And you should think of writing your own book to add to these two 🙂 All the best in solidarity.
Jacques
Link to
Economics is a disgrace ― now more than ever
https://axecorg.blogspot.com/2020/08/economics-is-disgrace-now-more-than-ever.html
As an soon-to-be undergraduate in economics, this post was extremely eye opening. Although I was somewhat aware of all this, I don’t think I knew the extent of this issue. Thank you for your honesty, and for inspiring me with your courage.
Claudia, your experience sounds terrible and I’m sorry you suffered. I’m grateful you shared them because they validate much of my experience at the Board. When I complained why I was not promoted while all the White males were promoted ahead of me, my section chief complained to me, “Do you know how long it took for me to be promoted? 10 years because my boss was an asshole!” She also said I had a “PR problem” which till this day I have no idea what that meant. I am not an economist but I did policy work at the Board’s Division of Monetary Affairs. Every female in my position left because of the lack of visible projects because the senior officer preferred to work with White males. The Board shields it’s officers and sends them on secondments when they get complaints. Yet staff employees who raise concerns are marginalized at work. Intimidation and bullying is rampant yet It’s also sad that given such pervasive sexism and racism at the Board, there are so few formal EEO complaints. Check the Fed’s EEO stats and you can see there are very few EEO complaints each year. I suspect that once you do then your working life is made even more miserable in order to push you out or be fired. I filed one and now await a hearing.
I participated at Troika with you a few years back and was surprised when you left abruptly after 2 seasons at CEA. Frankly, you came across as bitter, curt, and rude then although you did do some useful work there. Your blog explains why you came across as bitter. You remain bitter although you have done remarkably well. I do not agree with your generalities. At times the profession has tilted the other way, promoting women economists over men economists apparently for affirmative action reasons. I know of many cases where women economists have been promoted undeservedly. Yes, there is an elite club in economics and in order to make it in you have to go to the ‘right schools’ and the right mentors. This is faced by all and not just women. I am one of them. Sad as it is but this is true in most professions. Clearly it pays to be white, born in the U.S. and with well know parents and relatives. As far as whether you are male or female the playing field has been leveling pretty fast, ask Claudia Goldin. In my career as a government economist more of my bosses have been women, many of whom felt entitled, and who went to the right schools although they weren’t that exceptional. They have continued to do well and have now made it to become AEA executive officers. You have done remarkably well yourself, right schools and the Fed. Your efforts at promoting diversity in the economics profession is noteworthy. I hope you can become less bitter and rejoice more in your triumphs and remain an economist.
Thank you Dr. Sahm for writing this blog post. I also had the (mis)fortune of working at the Federal Reserve Board. (I was part of the non-Economist and non RA staff.) While in the cafeteria I would hear names of officers who were offenders, some of whom I worked with for the Greenbook and other releases.
I had no idea the treatment was so bad with Ph.D economists and with RAs. I read your account with horror; it also brought back many (bad) memories. Thank you for doing what you could to assist the suffering and I am glad that you found a much better place for your talents and gifts.
Managers on the non-Economist staff side were allowed to scream at and humiliate staff also. Mine liked to flood my email with assignments and complaints. To this day, I open my morning email program at work (a new job with awesome managers, thank goodness) with great trepidation.
FOMC meeting periods and MPR preparation were a special hell; it was no holds barred for staff.
On Greenbook day, I also had the pleasure of fielding calls from a yelling, angry IF officer, blaming me (powerless) for Economist’s meetings that delayed production and made her late to go home. (I often stayed until 10 p.m.or 11 p.m. and had to return by 6 a.m. the next day.) I found out later that the IF officer and my manager collaborated on my torment.
I dealt with Employee Relations (ER); they help managers. All employee complaints are dutifully reported back to the problem manager. ER and the manager then gang up to torment the complainant with the system.
EEO is the same. Once you are issued a “bad review” (PMP), your time is up, as your wrote. the EEO process does not affect the coming firing.
Your stories were much worse, and I am sorry that you had to endure it. I am happy you wrote, though, as it helps those still being abused at the Board–to know they are not alone.
Claudia
I was a little shocked by your article. My journey through the academic world was a long time ago. But for a long while now I have had the feeling that the academic discipline has really lost its way, and it seems likely that the culture you describe has a big part to play in that. Everything that is awful about today’s cancel culture seems to be present in this system. I have been fortunate to have worked in very supportive workplaces in government, which for the most part have stamped out bullying as a career path.
I have been a member of the AEA for many years – to get access to the journals. It has been extremely rare to find anything published that is relevant to the real world of economic policy that I have inhabited here in Australia. Most of it is, to use the venacular, a big introspective w**k. I have never voted in the AEA elections, but your post has prompted me to do so this time. I have chosen the candidates who seem most likely to expand the diversity of the Executive – but the choice is, sadly, still limited to a very elite bunch. Sorry, I am a bit slow today because I have now had the thought that I should have written your name in!
Don’t give up. The heterodox mob are growing in influence and dealing with the aftermath of COVID19 will give alternative views a leg up. The time is right for a breakaway.
Richard
Yep. When I was offered a scholarship to continue in the PhD programme at Fordham I sought advice from a number of “colleagues”. Male professors whom I didn’t know but were connections and willing to meet me. They all told me not to bother. I was super lucky in that my first real boss at the Embassy of Canada Murray Smith was truly fair, and an incredible mentor. But I have seen ideas by women and myself struck down so fast, one could hardly get them verbalized. And then a few months later some other company or economist comes out with the same idea and all of a sudden it’s “legit” and “trendsetting”.
I work for myself now.
By the way your article is super awesome.
I’m having this debate on LinkedIn right now, and what do you know…I’m not alone.
https://podcasts.apple.com/de/podcast/masters-in-business/id730188152?l=en
Claudia, I Heard- you discuss this piece in an interview with Bloomberg‘s Barry Ritholtz (Link above). He encouraged you to own the Sahm Rule— this puts you far above probably most of those you criticize as you have discovered a tool which can be universally applied in a non-partisan way. You have a legacy! Fantastic.
I listen to many of the same podcasts you do and would be curious if you have read a new biography of John Maynard Keynes „The Price of Peace“ by Zachary Carter… Keynes, the inventor of Animal Spirits which many economists will disregard as it is the human response to economics, not easy to measure and yet is the ultimate driver of Macro-economies. Take care! You are great and have a lasting legacy. Congratulations
Thanks so much for this brave and important post.
I encourage all (any gender/sex )to read Sara Ahmed’s LIVING A FEMINIST’S LIFE. In fact, The book should be assigned reading for all department chairs and University/college administrators. Ahmed introduces the character of feminist “killjoy.” Killjoys need other killjoys. I am happy to join the flock. My
Thank you for posting this. It resonates very strongly with me, and with my own experience getting a PhD at UCLA, and then at my jobs at Montana State University and the University of Missouri. Sadly, it resonates very, very strongly.
I hold a PhD degree from one of those fancy places and I have seen some of those things play out as well. So much power is held by a few individuals and the cut throat competition that comes with that is absolutely unhealthy. People often think that those elite professors/researchers excel at all they do but they don’t. They can be so clueless and blinded by the power that they possess that working with them is almost impossible. I certainly had that experience and I know many others who did as well. All of that was a motivation for me to seek and, to luckily obtain, employment at a liberal arts college. This has, of course, marginalized me as a researcher but I am glad to be away from this worse part of the discipline. I am sorry for the hardship that you and so many others have endured. Thanks for pushing the envelope from within!
I would argue that we need to develop the foundation of a safe whistle blowing culture, or a safe “telling truth to power” culture. The techniques and tools exist but few know them. Yet these abilities have become a “sine qua non” for a humane and prosperous society. Without these, very few are willing to sacrifice their career or their family. With them, the value of an ethical response goes way beyond the discomfort of being ethical.
Great piece! Thank you for your thoughts!