Category: mentoring

Today is July 29, 2021, which is:

• exactly 1 year since my “economics is a disgrace.”
• about 4 years since my first post, “if the shoe fits.”
• shortly 10 years since I took myself to the hospital.

So yeah, a lot on my mind.

I remain in disbelief that over 100,000 of you have read my “disgrace” post. I honestly did not think anyone would care. My “shoe fits” covers much of the same ground with fewer words and fewer names. My name is on both. Basically, no one cared then. So why three years later?

More people acted like they cared in 2020 than 2017 . Among leaders, the caring was not to “change the profession.” It was a that’s “not me” and feigned outrage. It’s too soon for “disgrace” to move the needle. It probably won’t.

No one in my “disgrace” post was held accountable, except for me. Within three days, I was told to leave my job at a progressive think tank, led then by a woman who’s now a top economics official in the White House. She worked with Larry Summers on the campaign. Larry didn’t like my post. I doubt powerful donors and people like her who fear him liked it. I told you economics has a systemic problem. Proved me right.

Who did care? Students, who are our next generation, and people marginalized in economics, whose cruel treatment costs us dearly. See out-of-touch, cruel policy advice during the COVID-19 crisis and the sea of White men leading that charge.

During the past year, I’ve received hundreds of heartfelt notes emails, DMs, texts, phone calls, etc. from the people who did care, often thanking me for my “bravery.” I was not brave. I was angry. And I truly cherish every person who cared. They’re why I wrote my post, and why I push economics to be better.

I put my credibility on the line and was privileged to have enough to do it. For god sake’s, John Taylor and I are the only two people who have a “Rule” in economic policy. I got mine two years ago and at a much younger age. I’m not done.

It’s not all sunshine and roses. I did burn through an incredible amount of credibility. Most depressing was this year. I was publicly critical of Larry Summers and Raj Chetty’s economic policy advice. I was told sternly that I should’ve done it in private. I shouldn’t have named names. Ugh. Raj’s advice would’ve cost 50 million women, men, and children a $1,400 stimulus check and Larry’s the entire $2 trillion Rescue Plan. I did my job as policy expert. I was punished for it by the elites. Economics is a disgrace. I am not surprised. I am sad.

Good economics and compassion won the day. The $1,400 checks went out, and Congress did not heed Raj’s advice. I collected more data and showed that in a research policy brief that the checks worked. The $2 trillion Rescue Plan passed. In total, Congress enacted $5 trillion in economic relief within a year. In the Great Recession, it was less than $1 trillion. Larry won that policy debate. Not this time. Praise the lord.

The policies enacted were not perfect, and we must do better next time. Even so, I’m in shock and often cry tears of joy when I reflect on how much better policymakers did this time.

I have yet to watch Jay Powell speak during this crisis without getting emotional. Started crying again yesterday at the Fed presser. I did not sleep until CARES passed the Senate in the middle of the night. How could I? Millions of Americans were having sleepless night and millions more would soon.

It’s personal. My breakdown at the Fed in 2011 was caused, in large part, by the stress of watching policymakers step away, even as the recovery dragged on. I did not know it at the time, but the stress triggered my one (and only) manic episode. It was scary. Now, I had been severely depressed every winter after I started at the Fed in 2007 until my diagnosis with a bipolar disorder in 2011. Sucked for me and my family. But, when I am depressed, I am a danger only to myself not others. When I am manic, I say and do things that hurt others. To me, that’s worse.

One thing mania did not change was my goofiness. In the emergency room, I slept for the first time in months. In the morning, they sent me to the mental health office. I didn’t make sense, so the woman on duty gave me a piece of paper and told me to write a letter to someone. I wrote it to Ben Bernanke. She had me tear it up and throw it in the trash before I left. It makes me laugh now. Like Ben would have cared or even understood it. It’s not an accident that he and Janet Yellen were who I wrote the “disgrace” post for. It was never meant to be a public post. I wanted them, as leaders in economics, to do something. They told me they could not. Duh, it was goofy of me to expect them to. Goofy is good. If you’re not laughing your crying.

I love economics dearly. I work extremely hard at good economic policy, even though I much of it is volunteer work now. I have been blessed by many new opportunities this year. I have been blessed by all the support. I have absolutely nothing to complain about. Actions and words have consequences. It was messy and I made mistakes, but I have no regrets.

In policy and in life, we must never let the perfect be the enemy of the good. And we must not pretend the good is the perfect. We can always do better. Policymakers did better this time. I did better too. I stayed healthy. I spoke my truth, and I created space for others to speak theirs. That’s how change happens.

Stay safe.

Economics must help all economists to thrive. We have work to do. I know from countless hours of mentoring. Many of their experiences break my heart and make me angry. I love economics and it hurt to call it out as a disgrace. But that hurt is nothing compared to the hurt that comes to me. The hurt inflicted on me after my post is nothing compared to the hurt that comes to me.

Problems require solutions. Big problems require big solutions. I have demanded for years that leadership in the American Economics Association lead. Ask Ben Bernanke, Janet Yellen, Peter Rosseau, David Card, and anyone on the Executive Committee about my push in private and public. I am not alone. The list is long of other economists dedicating their time and putting their reputations on the line for others suffering. It’s time for all of us to lead.

It’s your turn. Do something. Anything. Make the economics profession a better place. It’s good for the science. It’s good for people. It’s good for you. Push yourself to act. Push your institution to act. No more excuses.

I have many ideas on how to make economics better. Here is a talk I give on how to create a healthy, inclusive work environment. Send me questions or comments; add more resources or ideas in the comments; and use any material here. I am happy to speak with your group whether it’s an academic department, a government agency, think tank, research institute, or any other work place. We must stop hurting people. We must start supporting everyone.

_______________________________________

_______________________________________

_______________________________________

_______________________________________

_______________________________________

_______________________________________

_______________________________________

_______________________________________

More Resources

• •Best Practices for Economists. American Economics Association.
• •Diversifying Economic Quality. Professor Amanda Bayer.
• •Racism and the Economy: Focus on the Economics Profession. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis.
• •How Can Economics Solve Its Race Problem? Panel at Economics Annual Meeting in 2020.
• •Berkeley Women in Economics: Recap on Summit on Diversity in Economics. •Women in Economics: Symposium and Podcast Series. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis.

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.