The Unassuming Economist

A new post by Brian Schaitkin says that “Economist Michael Mandel of the Progressive Policy Institute tells a reassuring story about what will happen to retail employment. Jobs behind retail counters and stocking store aisles will simply be replaced by jobs at warehouses, e-commerce facilities, and as delivery drivers.” How quickly will this happen? He provides forecasts under the “Apocalypse is an Exaggeration” and “Apocalypse is Ongoing” scenarios:

“[…] Under an “Apocalypse is an Exaggeration” scenario, e-commerce will grow at a modest pace as a share of total retail sales because many of the lowest hanging e-commerce fruit have already been plucked. Therefore, the transformation from in-store retail to e-commerce would take quite a long time. The logistical challenge of shipping books to individual customers is orders of magnitude less complicated than delivering groceries. The “in-store” experience also provides special value to some consumers, especially when the ability to touch and feel merchandise and consult with experts is part of the value proposition stores and their workers provide. Firms will learn how to adapt to the challenge of e-commerce in less easily adapted industries, but because of these challenges, growth in the e-commerce share may increase by only 6.8 percent every 13 years, as happened between 2005 and 2017.  Under this scenario, the share of e-commerce in retail sales would be 21 percent by the end of 2040, and the “old and new” retail sector will employ 16.8 million workers, compared to 17.6 million today.  A disappointing job trajectory to be sure, but hardly apocalyptic.”

“The 2005 to 2017 period though lights the way to a bolder, yet in my view more likely “Apocalypse is Ongoing” scenario. This scenario assumes that exponential growth of the e-commerce share will continue as it did from 2005 to 2017 meaning that the e-commerce share of retail will double every 6.5 years. Incentives for firms to adapt new sectors to e-commerce will be tremendous due to the convenience and efficiency commerce without stores can provide. Companies can apply the lessons from developing one form of e-commerce to new product areas with knowledge of the pitfalls they are likely to encounter. Under this scenario, e-commerce would represent 18 percent of retail sales by the middle of 2024, 36 percent by the end of 2030, and 100 percent by the middle of 2040.  Initially, job losses resulting from the shift to e-commerce would be small in “old and new” retail with 738,000 jobs disappearing between now and the end of 2025.  By 2040, however, only 12.1 million workers, all employed by “new” retail sectors, would be able to manage all retail sales activities, a loss of 5.5 million jobs.”

Continue reading here.

A new post by Peter Dizikes summarizing David Donaldson’s new paper on how railroads helped India trade and grow: “railroads fostered commerce that raised real agricultural income by 16 percent.”

“Donaldson’s paper on the subject, “Railroads of the Raj: Estimating the Impact of Transportation Infrastructure,” just published in the American Economic Review, may also speak to the importance of infrastructure more broadly. After all, as he notes in the paper, about 20 percent of World Bank lending in the developing world goes to infrastructure projects. And in the United States, debate rolls on about the value of building and refurbishing America’s roads, bridges, railroads, ports, and airports.”

“And while every country is different, and circumstances change over time, Donaldson’s research suggests that the growth India experienced as its railroads grew was specifically the result of increased trade, a general finding that could be applied to other countries and other eras.”

From a new post by Mohamed A. El-Erian:

“[…] the reputation of mainstream economists has taken a beating in the last 10 years. The bulk of them failed to predict the 2008 crisis that almost tipped the global economy into a multiyear depression. They also didn’t foresee the aftermath.

Most made the mistake of treating the crisis as a cyclical shock and forecast a V-type growth snapback. They were prisoners of an excessive mean-reversion mindset: They acknowledged that growth was taking a huge hit due to severe financial dislocations, but they forecast that economic activity would bounce back strongly and inclusively.

Instead, the experience of advanced economies more closely resembled an “L,” in which they got stuck in a “new normal” characterized by a prolonged period of low and insufficiently inclusive growth.

The damage goes well beyond lost output, diminished consumer welfare, widespread economic insecurity and a worsening of the inequality of income, wealth and opportunity. The shortfalls fueled the politics of anger, along with a heightened mistrust of the establishment, institutions and expert opinion.

This, in turn, has diminished the credibility of economics. Meanwhile, many students have complained to me that the mainstream economics they are taught is divorced from real-world relevance. It is only a matter of time before the funding for economic research risks becoming a casualty.

Yet this huge failure has not been the result of ignorance about the limitations of the discipline, nor is it the consequence of a lack of new, disruptive ideas.

Here are some reasons for the erosion of the insights and predictive powers of mainstream economics:

• The proliferation of oversimplifying assumptions, including those that sideline many elements of real-world behaviors and interactions, in an effort to make models seem more “scientific.” This leads to overreliance on excessively abstract estimation techniques and approaches.
• Insufficient consideration of financial linkages and little allowance, if any, for the possibility that financial dislocations can disrupt the economy.
• Poor and grudging adoption of important insights from behavioral science, along with excessive hesitation to develop multidisciplinary approaches.
• An oversimplification of uncertainty and the ways it influences economic interactions.
• Overemphasis of equilibrium conditions and mean reversion, a trend that reduces the understanding of transitions, structural changes and tipping points.”

“Two decades ago, the economics profession concluded that trade with developing countries was not seriously hurting unskilled workers in developed countries.” A new post by Adrian Wood argues that “the debate from which that consensus emerged came to an end prematurely. Even now, the evidence does not permit any firm conclusion about the contribution of globalisation to the economic misfortunes of less-educated people in developed countries. Had there been less consensus among economists, more might have been done, sooner, to mitigate the social costs of globalisation.”

From a new post by Timothy Taylor:

“How much would you be willing to pay, in actual money, for an additional 30 years of life expectancy?”

“Fuchs and Eggleston are especially focused on the inequality of life expectancy. So they look at where the age of death falls for the 20th and the 80 percentile of this distribution. Then they calculate how the age of death at these percentiles has evolved over time. It’s a little tricky to eyeball this result from the graph (and the authors provide more specific statistical meaures), but the inequality from 80th to 20th percentile diminished somewhat between about 1950 and 2000, but since then the degree of inequality hasn’t changed much.”