Just a few decades ago, more than 90 percent of 30-year-olds earned more than their parents had earned at the same age. Now it's only about 50 percent. What happened -- and what can be done about it?
This is an unofficial transcript meant for reference. Accuracy is not guaranteed.
This podcast dynamically inserts audio advertisements of varying lengths for each download. As a result, the transcription time indexes may be inaccurate.
If you'd, like to listen to free economic radio without ads the place to do that is sticker premium five dollars a month and you can get free month trial by going to stick your premium dot com and use a promo code freak. You also get access to all our bonus. Episodes and you'll be supporting our show to that sticker premium: dot, com, promo code, freak thanks. Let's start today with a pop quiz, arrogant enough Jeanne. Seventy. What percentage of thirty year olds in America were earning more money than their parents had earned at that age, adjusted for inflation? Of course. That is question number one and question number two. What percentage of american Thirty Year olds today earn more than their parents earned at each thirty? I give a second to think it over right. You ready for the answer, the priest. image of American Thirty Year olds in eighteen. Seventy were earning more
more than their parents had earned? Thirty was ninety two percent, then amazing. That, in a nutshell, is what we call the american dream. And what's the percentage now it somewhere around fifty percent, which has led some people to say this. Sadly, the american dream is dead, Donald trumps, view of the american Dream and his promise to revive it had a lot to do with his getting elected president. According to gallop poles before the election, more than fifty percent of Americans saw our economic conditions worsening in case you're wondering it's not,
Cranky old people, a pole from the Harvard Institute of Politics, found that nearly fifty percent of millennials think the american dream is quote dead. We went out on the streets of New York ourselves to ask people if they thought the american dream was real and achieve absolutely thrill remain, especially here in battery park. You look at different people. All across nations that come to amend to realize the american dream. I think bad If you really work hard, then you can do it every one might be a little difficult reference peak and so do I dont think the american dream is achievable. I think it's a motivated to try to achieve Can dream is something of a mythology for a way in which to advance and have a good life under what is essentially not just to capitalist system, but a country founded on exploitation and put its work and put his sweat and
we can definitely make the american dream happen there's a lot of cynicism of the american dream. I M a product of my family, our families, refugees came to this country at thirty. ago. Had nothing was able to send all their kids college was able to have. A house was able to give a better future for myself and their children then they wouldn't ever had back. Maybe I love the conversations we have these days about. The american dream are in political terms or theoretical terms, but today on for economics, radio, the actual unvarnished economics of the american dream, which we will define for the sake Today's conversation as this, if you're born into a low income families, Do you really have a shot at rising up? No matter what your background is and will be
where the american dream is really dead, or maybe, if it's just moved a bit north. Your twice as like to realize the american dream, if you're growing up in Canada, rather than the. U S I'm happy! from W and Y see studios. This is freakin comics radio broadcasts that explores the hidden side of everything. Here's your host Stephen governor dreams, troves Lou Adams, born in eighteen, seventy eight to a wealthy New York fan became a finance ear and later an author he wanna Pulitzer Prize for history of New England and later he wrote a book called the epoch of America
even though it was written during the great depression, Adams took a fundamentally bullish view of the United States. His book was hugely popular and as best as we can tell, it introduced the phrase the American Dream Adams to find this as that dream of a land in which life should be better and richer and fuller for everyone with opportunity for each according to ability achievement the phrase Hoddan and not just a little bit, especially among our presidents, the bedrock of our economic success is the american dream dream, does not come to those who voluntarily So every citizen has access to the american dream. They have lived, the american dream, the american dream will succeed or fail in the twenty first century. The american dream is dead. The reason my parents came to this country was in search of the american dream that
Roger Teddy. So I was born in New Delhi, India and came to the United States when I was nine years old and drew up mostly in the Midwest Teddy is now an economist at Stanford, the issues of inequality and opportunity and how we can use economic policy to improve people's outcomes, Jedi was one of scholars behind the research I cited earlier about the massive drop in the share of thirty year old Americans earning more than their parents did in fact he's behind a lot of the most important research on income, inequality, mobility and the fragile state of the american dream. His work is highly regarded by the people who give awards he's one Macarthur genius fellowship and John Bates Clark, metal politicians admire him as well. That's J! Thank you for your participation, doktor. Shutting what do you think that was
that are Bernie Sanders and before him then Senator Jeff sessions when chatty testify that a Senate hearing on income, mobility and inequality, chatty is a favourite of Democrat Hillary Clinton, some really interesting work. done by professor rod shoddy and his colleagues, as well as Republican, Paul Ryan economists going to talk to Roger Jedi or or are others they'll tell you. This is social capital city. Is the policymakers policymaker, the economists economist, which means he tries to be above all empirical? Not ideological or political. One of my mission is to try to inject more evidence into these important policy debates, because I think we are making huge investment. with very little knowledge about exactly what is gonna work. Do you vote? Are you a political participant
independent, and so you that's actually, though, you know thought hard about this. I think it's very difficult to keep yourself objective, which is very important to me. I mean it's important to me that I have some findings that I think are more supportive of policies that Democratic Europe, There are some findings that are more supportive of policies that Republicans are pushing. Some academics, I know whose work gets cited for political purposes, have told me that the work is inevitably cherry, pick door cream skimmed to suit the politicians position I think, while the big picture focus might be chosen based on political views. There are lots of details that matter greatly and I think science can are useful there. In addition to perhaps guiding which areas we focus on. portable housing, verses, tax cuts, verses, mother thinks for all his
points. Chatty is only thirty. Seven years old there was actually the last person in my family to publish your paper my, my parents are both and academics enough the elder sisters who are unknown. Bioscience chatty went to her It has an undergrad, but he didn't spend much time under granting. He got his phd at twenty three. Basically, I did a six Europe, today and didn't go to college in the sense that starting my sophomore year, they didn't take any undergraduate classes. He taught at Berkeley than Harvard in twenty fifteen. You move Stanford, you are hardly the first economist from Harvard to go to stand for the last four years has been quite a little exodus recently, as the field of economics is shifting towards big data and increasing use of modern statistical techniques like machine learning. To think about economic questions, Stanford has treatment
strengthen those areas and other fields, and of course we all know that the birthplace of money, modern computing is heard. Look on Valley at Stanford, now, economists in particular, but social scientists more broadly, have in the past few years, especially just been being gobbled up by tech firms, because they too have discovered that big data is potentially exciting. A number of academic economists, many of whom, I am sure you know well, are moonlighting or side lining with tech firms who baron Facebook and on Non what about you, that was at an appeal for you to be out there and are you doing any consulting advising work on the side with these private firms? Are you strictly and academic economists? Yet that is a very important
and I myself am not doing any work with those firms directly. But what I am interested in is working with the data firms like Facebook and Twitter, for instance, to think about social and economic policy questions. So, to give you a concrete example: I'm starting a project with my colleague, Matt Jackson, Curate Stanford and others at Facebook were exploring the role social networks in inequality and trying to understand, essentially whether you can network yourself out of poverty, social scientists have been interested in that's all
for a very long time, but we just having had the data to really investigate that question precisely from an empirical point of view and the Facebook Data. Of course, our game changing in that respect, alot of chinese research falls under the banner of something called the equality of opportunity project. That is, a group of economists and other social scientists. We're trying to find the most effective and efficient ways to dress, chronic poverty, which shady argues is really important, because the economy that for so many years, facilitated the american dream. For so many millions. is no longer reliably doing so, while Technology and economic growth is changing, world and tremendous ways, and we can now do things with our cell phones, never would have imagined ten years ago. I think, unless we think carefully about social balls
doesn't necessarily and benefiting everyone. There are many people for whom progress over the last thirty years hasn't really tremendous impact on their lives in terms of better opportunities for their kids or better health outcomes, and so forth. Teddy admits. The american dream worked out. Great for his immigrant families, so far before, without personal innovation, partly out of scientific interest, one to think about whether american dream. You know truly, is I've been well and what the determinants of the american remark? Okay. So how do you do that? How do you measure the state of the America dream and more important. How do you identify the determinants that enable one family or one kid to shoot up out of
poverty, while others are left behind. Well, if you're, an economist you do that with data lots and lots of data. So the way we came at this, the specific angle, retook, is by using the large data that we have now from administrative tax and Social security records of where we are able to see for the full population. What income distribution? Look like for kids and for parents until you can basically ask taking, say all the kids born in America in the nineteen eighties. What fraction of the kids the low income families actually make it to the top of the income distribution, and you know how much intergenerational mobility. Is there in America? In the? U S, if you take say the set of children who are born to families in the bottom, quintal of the income distribution in the bottom fifth about seven and a half per cent of those kids make it to the top.
fifth of the income distribution and that number in isolation doesn't sound off the bat, so bad yeah, that's right! So exactly seven and a half hour and is that a big numbers that a small number you know it's hard to judge in isolation, so you did too to give some context for that. I thank Stephen, its useful to start first by thinking about comparisons across trees. So if you look at that number and other countries where we have comparable data, like the United Kingdom, for instance in the UK, numbers, nine percent been little bit higher, not all that much higher. If you go to a place like Canada or Denmark, the numbers, thirteen percent or thirteen and a half per cent drumbeat, that's quite a bit higher and its useful tat in in thinking but these numbers thirteen percent of big number. Well, you have to Member, of course, that no matter what you do, you can't have more than twenty percent of people in the top twenty percent right.
The maximum value. This statistic can take, I think, is plausibly twenty percent to put it more precisely, if you like, in a society where your parents played no role at all in determining your outcomes, we'd expect one fifth of kids derives from the bottom twenty percent to the top twenty percent, and so relative to that benchmark. That upper bound, if you will the third two and a half percent rate in Canada and the seven and a half percent written the? U S! That's that's a really big difference! It's almost like your twice ass, likely realize the american dream of moving up. If you're growing up Canada, rather than the? U S right or perhaps more precisely, we should just all the canadian dream instead of the american dream, if their twice as good as well but what we want to know, then, is why rate what makes that more possible in Canada? So that's what you're research is really about. Yes is identifying the factors that move that needle exactly
actually, so you know that I think is kind of useful as background, but there are lots of differences between Canada and the Eu S, the first of which was that Canada has less inequality than the? U S, third, less distance between them, twenty eight percent down the eighty eight percent, while in Canada relative to amend which means a sore you making a social pointers, assist statistical point, in other words, it's easier to move because its smaller jump. That's exactly right. You known from a status the point of view. One do you could have as me The reason you see, I'm upward mobility can does not really so much that it is actually Izard move up in Canada, but just theirs easier to make that move, because it's a short distance in a sense so that one exam, but why? I think these cross country comparisons, while they can be motivating in and of themselves it's. It's inevitably gonna, be very difficult to say for sure but you can learn from comparing Kennedy was, but I think before you don't even get to sure? Why is the? U S different from Canada, but it turned out story, even in America itself as much more nuanced within Amerika there
are actually a number of places that truly our lands of opportunity places where kids achieved the american dream at high rates in some places like insult city, Utah or in the Bay area? Something like thirteen percent of kids are making it from the bottom fifth to the top. Fifty turns out the centre of the country like an Iowa, for example. In many areas via while you see more than fifteen or sixteen percent of kids, making it from the bottom fifth to the top of so higher, the numbers we see in the data for Canada and for scandinavian countries, but at the other end of the spectrum you take so like Atlanta, Georgia, Charlotte North Carolina, much of the South EAST of the? U S and you have rates of upward mobility below four and a half percent lower than any country for which we currently
the data so that shouldn't really. I guess, surprise us if you know a little bit about the make up and history of the United States and end the fact that we are states that have different policies. Different populations, then obviously counties in cities. It really differ lot, yeah, that's right, but nothing that line of thinking would lead you to think that most of this variation is regional, but, what's perhaps more surprising, is that has the zoo men more. Finally, we continue to find all does judgment variation, so kids growing up in San Francisco, for example, have about twice the trans of climbing from the bottom to top as kids, just across the Bay Bridge in Oakland coming up on economics, radio. The preliminary results of an incredibly ambitious government programme to address poverty. What you ended up finding was frankly, I think, somewhat disappointing.
all right, then, how do you engineer the possibility of the american dream? Reeve identified five factors that seem to be particularly strongly correlated with this too the Stanford Economists, Roger Chatty, has been won, with large data sets. Try to understand why so many Americans are no longer living the american dream when it comes to economic opportunity. Chatty and his colleagues and huge, regional and even local differences throughout the Eu S, as he told us, kids growing up in San Francisco about twice the chance of living, the american dream: ass, kids from just across the bridge in Oakland. Why? One easy explanation would be that the people in those different areas are just different: they have different ability
different cultures, different job opportunities, and that certainly has some explanatory power, but shady and his colleagues found story? Isn't that simple a lot of this very was driven by differences in child environment as opposed to differences in missions in the labour market or the types of jobs that are available or unemployment rates, things that affect you in adulthood. How the data explain, but it's the childhood environment, making the difference so we're gonna start by thinking about families who move when there too, does exactly nine years old wage. Nine that happens to be the earliest stage we can examine and from the available data and that's not just because you were nine years old when you moved from India to Matlock. Is it not quite just a coincidence and interesting coincidence? And so when we look at these nine Earl to move find that they end up roughly half way between the kids, who grew up in Oakland from birth and the kids grow up and said, Frances
from birth, so their earning roughly thirty five thousand dollars when we tracked them forward twenty one years and measure their own incomes when their age thirty. So that's for the kids who move when their exactly nine rights analysis replicate that four kids move under ten, eleven, twelve and so forth and so on, and what you end up, seeing the data is a very clear decline, Meaning pattern were the later you make that move from Oakland to San Francisco, the less of the game you get. In fact, if you move after your twenty one and twenty two or so you get absolute they know gain at all and if you move in your early twenty when your thirty there's, the relationship is completely flat, there's no further gain from moving. So this sort of analysis leads us to the conclusion that, first of all rare you grow up matters. It's not just at the kids who live in Oakland are somehow different from the kids who live in San Francisco. Second,
You see that neighbourhood environment matters because of childhood factors and not factors in adulthood right this is hardly a new idea that growing up in a poor neighbourhood isn't the best launching ground for economic success. This idea, in fact, led the Clinton administration to, chairman in the mid. Ninety nine, these with a program called moving to opportunity. They took about five thousand families cross five cities in the? U S, including New York, Chicago in LOS Angeles, in New York, for instance. So far, since a New York, many of the families were living in the Martin Luther King towers, which has a very high poverty, large public housing project in New York state. These families and their randomly assign them to one of three groups. The first was a control group. They stayed
in the Martin Luther King towers and then there were two treatment groups, one of which was called the standard section. Eight housing, voucher group. This group could use the vouchers to move wherever they want it. So, Many families, for example, moved to a place in the MID Bronx called sound view, which is about six miles away from them and allocate hours so not in the super high concentrated poverty, public housing project, but not in a dramatically different neighbourhood. Either. Families in the third group were also given a housing voucher. However, with an additional restriction, trust that you could only use this voucher to rent a house, her apartment in a place where, poverty rate below ten percent, so basically trying to encourage families to move into more mixed income areas. Hence the programmes name moving to opportunity are empty, o the people behind the programme suspected or
we hoped that families who removed themselves from concentrated poverty would end up having better outcomes themselves. For both the adults. already in labour market and their kids would be coming into the labour market. So what happened? What you ended up finding was, frankly, I think, somewhat disappointing. So you didn't see any differences in employment rates are average levels of earnings. There were some positive health effects, lower obesity and better mental health, for instance, but the empty Experiment was largely considered a failure. I think it left the field in kind of aid difficult spot because people's uniting instinctively felt and anecdotally felt like, of course, it's got a matter where you grow up, but this gold standard scientific experiment is telling us that.
doesn't matter for economic outcomes. That, indeed, was the consensus among researchers who analyzed the empty of data, but several years later, chatty and his colleague Nathaniel hindrance, wound up taking another look at the data and they saw a rather large benefit among some people who participated in empty. Oh, why are had pot. This us was that earlier studies of empty o had looked at impacts on adults and children who were older. At the point of the move, remember the moving to opportunity. Experiment was conducted in the mid nineteen nineties. The studies that found disappointing results were published roughly, ten years later and of course, the children who were very young at the point of the experiment was implemented, take kids, who were two or three years old. Ten years after the experiment has implemented, they were still only twelve and so obviously you measure their earnings at that point because they weren't they were working it. So these earlier
so it is, for that reason mainly focused on adults and older youth, and they didn't find much of an impact but to us in light of Our findings on the importance of childhood exposure that actually made sense. We thought well in our data. It looks like you need to in order to really seen effect of moving to a better neighborhood, you need many years of exposure to that better neighbourhood and that's what led chatty and his colleagues to reexamine the empty of data the added a layer of irish data in order to measure the long term earnings for the kids, who were young when they moved and quite Secondly- and I told you no vividly remember seeing this when we were studying this at the IRS. Looking at the data when you look children who moved when they were young, you see extremely clearly that they are doing dramatically better today as adults, they earning thirty percent more there. Twenty seven percent more
way to go to college, their thirty percent less likely to become single parents, and that, in our view, just kind of completely changed everything and anything has changed: people's perceptions of empty ok, so young kids, who move out of a high poverty neighbourhood, do much better later on. What exactly does this signify? What's going on in the poor neighborhoods to depress income mobility, and what's going on in the better neighborhoods to increase it answering those questions has become a big part of rush eddies work. He and his colleagues have come up with five, so different explanations. The first is residential segregation, cities that are more segregated by income and by race, tend to have much lower levels of upward mobility. So if you look at a city like Atlanta, it's an incredibly segregated city, now, cities that look like that in terms of residential structure, we find systematically tend to have very low rates of upward mobility and
contrast if you look at a place like the Bay area, at least in the nineteen eighty. Ninety ninety than this Stephen things change in quite a bit over time, especially here in Silicon Valley, is prices are rising in the nineteen eighteen. Ninety nine is the barrier was relatively integrated, at least compared Atlanta, where you had neighbourhoods of San Francisco with both middle and high income people you had people of different ethnicities. Near each other and those kinds of cities. Ten, a much higher rates of upward mobility. The second factor income inequality. You have more people in the middle class. You also tend to have high levels of upward mobility, this relationship as what Alan Krueger, based on Cross Country Data, termed the great Gatt speaker of the idea that there is a link tween inequality in any one generation and rates of intergenerational mobility. Why is this link interesting? If, if one can interpret it causally it,
just as we have growing inequality over time as well as we do in the. U s we might be concerned about that now interest because were worried about equitable distribution, but also because were worried that it might erode children's chances of achieving the american dream, and so again we don't know exactly what the mechanism is and whether this is really a causal effect. Inequality causing changes in an upward mobility, but there does seem to be some link between these two factors. The third factor they identified relates to family. It turns out that the single strongest correlation we find in the data is with measures of family structures such as the fraction of sir
your parents living in an area we find that places with more single parents, have significantly lower levels of upward mobility. Now reinterpreting this correlation, it's very important to note that it's not purely driven by the fact that growing up in a one parent family leads to worse outcomes for children and the way you can see. That is. If we look at the subset of kids who grow up, in a two parent household, receive that Ford, that subset of children, even for them growing up in neighbourhood, with a lot of single parents as associate it would lower levels of upward mobility. So it's not literally about whether your own parents are married or not again. It's picking up some community level factor where growing up in a place that has a lot of single parents you know, maybe there's more family instability or its correlated with some third factor. That is leading to higher rates of single parenthood. For whatever reason that seem speech,
probably associated with lower levels of upward mobility. The fourth factor, social capital, the idea of social capital, I think of it released to the old adage that it takes in a village to raise a child. Will someone else in your community help you out when you need help? So as an example, SALT Lake City with the Mormon Church is thought to be the quintessential exam, love, a city with a lot of social capital and correspondingly in our data, seems to exhibit a lot of social mobility. Now this concept of so capital. As you may know, Stephen was popularized in a very well known book by Bob Putnam called bowling alone. Indeed, we put out enough, so not long ago called trust me with Bob Putnam who teaches public policy at Harvard years ago. He was looking at the decline of civic life in America. We were becoming more more isolated,
or, as a friend suggested. We once you mean we're bowling alone, and the reason for the title of that book is social capital is notoriously difficult to measure and by a bad. The creative idea of using the number of bowling alleys in an area and in particular by other people, are bowling alone as a proxy for social capital. The quality of social capital is so simple that I'm almost embarrassed to say it is that social networks have value huge amount of work on how social networks help us find jobs so I was amazed to find- I remember actually discussing this with Bob in his office at Harvard that the nuts, of bowling. Alleys is actually very highly correlated with rates of upward mobility in our Data were used? to go. When you first looked at that I was surprised, certainly- and I also thought, while Barbara Barbara they had some foresight and in thinking about bowling alleys,
but I mention that here because it illustrates a caviar to all of these relationships, because these these are all correlations rather than causal effect straighten. So it be surprising if the policy implications draw from this is We should build more bowling alleys to think for supper nobody in the United States, and so I think that that's a very fourteen caviar to keep in mind and a dimension that, because it is the fifth factor, is a bit of an exception to that of the factors school. We find that places with better public schools, as you might expect intuitively have much higher rates of upward body and on that dimension there's a lot of very good evidence showing that improving the call They give schools can really thankfully a fact, rates of energy generation
mobility, so I would treat school quality a little bit differently from the other four factors where we see strong correlations, but are not yet your exactly what the causal mechanisms are. No each of the factors that you discussed, even I could think of some potential policy ideas, to improve them? Do you think much about that? Or are you content at this point, to do the research that allows policy makers to have those ideas and make those moves? Absolutely we want to take the next step to think about what this means for policy. we want. The causal mechanisms are what the levers are, that we can push to change some of these factors, and so you know that I think, is a good we now to come back to the moving to opportunity. Experiment which ice He is a way to potentially tackle segregation, one country way in which you might try to integrate a city is by giving family low income, families housing assistance to be able to rent houses in warmly then come neighborhoods, thereby Dena mechanically reducing segregation. Now I could hear you talking about this
extolling the virtues the latent virtues at you. Ultimately unearthed of a programme like moving to opportunity where the government spends a bunch of money to relocate families, and I could think o year another big government spending advocate. Her hand. I know that you have thought quite a bit about the money that is spent in the: U S on a variety of affordable housing programmes. I believe a total of roughly forty five billion dollars, so I'm curious as an economist Oh, you would assess the efficiency of typical, or historical housing spending in the U S and compare that to the IRA. Why? On something like moving to opportunity? I certainly wreck nice that in a time when we have a government authority spending quite a bit on initiatives like this? The answer cannot simply Did you spend more on these problems? I think the power of these data and what we need to be doing is spending money and smarter ways, and so this is a good example of a programme,
bending forty five billion dollars on various forms of affordable housing, but were not spending that money in the most efficient possible way in order to achieve outcomes like reduce poverty the long runs. Let me give you a couple of examples on dimensions in which we can, I think, make improvements first, the optimal age at which do to help families movers when their kids are born or when their kids are very young in Prague. As we do almost exactly the opposite. We put family on waiting lists when they have kids and those waiting list sometimes take many many years, particularly in the most depressed cities, where we really would like to be moving families out of concentrated poverty. And so what ends up happening, is that families only get the opportunity to move exactly. What
The kids are older, but just exactly backwards. Writer in terms of what you'd like to be accomplishing you're. So that's it tweak that would not increase programme costs, but I think, would dramatically increase. In fact, another example is that the vast majority of housing bouchers are currently being used in very high poverty, a low opportunity areas, and that is problematic because we found In that its really critical to move to these higher opportunity, low poverty areas in order to see beneficial outcomes until we're working with hard and a large group of public housing authorities to figure out how again without spending more money, how we might be able to reform the program. So we can get more families that get these vouchers to move to neighborhoods that are going to better serve their kids in the long run. A further important aspect to think about in the context of cost is that a my sense of that the government will actually recover much
the money. We invest in programmes like this, because we see that these children, who are earning thirty percent more as adults. They, of course, they're, paying more an income taxes themselves, as they have higher earnings. Until we calculate that the extra income taxes that they pay? actually more than offset the incremental cost of a programme like moving to opportunity. So it's actually a. We think you know a budget saving programme in many ways you work has been cited by politicians, certainly across Yale, by Paul Ryan. You ve, personally tutored Hillary Clinton in mobility issues, and perhaps others you advise the Obama administration and advised JEB Bush. I'm really there is to know how we are going to ask you how it feels to have that policy pull. I don't know if you actually have poor At least here in the room- and you are looked too as authority, who really understands or
Explain, cause and effect in addressing these issues that policy makers deal with all the time, often not in an evidence based manner. So could you just talk about that? what those conversations are like if you feel their their fruitful. If you feel your researches considered seriously and perhaps even acted upon. Yes, I am quite encouraged- by how interested policy makers are in this type of evidence, and I think there is a genuine interest, often on both sides of the ILO, in trying to do better things with the money that we are spending. I think when you can come into her room and say I'm not saying we should spend an extra. thirty billion dollars on affordable housing, I'm saying we should the money, were already spending and then maybe tweak it. Certain ways enact certain reforms that, based on the evidence will actually deliver better outcomes that we all want to achieve. I think that can really be impact for my senses by the way, a lot of the poet go influence at matters here, is not just at the national level, but at the local level. Given the nature of the problem, mayors
do a lot and we notice that measures are talking about things differently and our because, ultimately, the evidence, are accumulating and a number of other researchers will ultimately influence policy. Since our interview with Roger Teddy
he has met for an hour and a half with Ben Carson, the presumptive secretary of Housing and urban development as Teddy described it in an email. He and his staff were eager to hear about how the data could help us make better use of the dollar's HUD spending to achieve better outcomes for low income children. We asked Teddy. If he would consider serving in this administration himself. I would not have considered serving in either Trump or clinic administration. He wrote largely because I'd like to continue focusing on research to identify the best policy solutions. At this point, perhaps down the road I'd, reconsider Chatty also wrote this. I hope that the new administration will take an evidence based approach to making policy decisions, for instance, by making smart investments in childhood. Education
Affordable housing and other programmes can create opportunity in effective ways. If you want to look at some of the research by Roger Chatty and his colleagues on the equality of opportunity project, I suggest you spend some time on their website. You can look it up. Equality of opportunity, project and next time on economics, radio. We will expand this conversation about the state of the american dream. One hour we ve all heard, is it the? U S was too willing to let its manufacturing jobs go to China and elsewhere. Economists were for the most part sanguine. They told us not to worry that the upsides of global trade and cancel the downside of that job loss. What do they say now, I'm Watch list sanguine about it than I used to be. I think if we have realised how traumatic the pace of change would have been, we would at a minimum, had much better policies.
in place to assist workers in communities that suffered these very severe and immediate consequences You might have tried to moderate the pace at which had occurred. The true story of chinese Trade and american job loss its next time and for economic radio, the friggin I'm its radio, is produced by w in my c studios and w production is this episode was produced by Gregg results. Keep our staff also includes Shelly It was Christopher worth. Stephanie Tam merit Jacob lies a lumber, Alison, Hockenberry Morgenstern, we Huggins and Brain Gutierrez, and we had help on this episode from Andrew done and no I'm a husband you can subscribe to
economics, radio, on Itunes, wherever you get your podcast, you should also check out our archive at for economics that com, which has every past episode, including transcripts you can find on twitter and Facebook, and if you want to drop us a line which will certainly red though we probably one hundred apply. The address is radio at for economics. Dotcom thanks for listening.
Transcript generated on 2021-01-24.