Economic Growth

The Declining Cost of Adam Smith

Jeremy HorpedahlLeave a comment

Last week I had the opportunity to see (and touch!) some first edition copies of Adam Smith’s books, including The Wealth of Nations and The Theory of Moral Sentiments.

For an economist, of course this was a very cool experience. The books from the Remnant Trust were still in great condition, despite people like me handling these copies from time-to-time. The books were also beautiful editions, which got me thinking: how much did these cost to purchase when originally published?

According to John Rae’s Life of Adam Smith, the original price for The Wealth of Nations was 1 pound, 16 shillings. Average wages per day in England were somewhere around 15 pence per day (1 pence is 1/12 of a shilling), it would take close to 30 days of labor to purchase the book. But that’s assuming you spent all of your wage on books, which of course would have been impossible: a common laborer would have been spending 80-90% of their wages on food, beer, and rent. And that’s assuming no unexpected expenses or sickness. In reality, it might take a common laborer months, years, or maybe his entire life to save up for that book.

Today, of course we can read this book online for free, but what if you want a nice hardcover version? Amazon has several nice hardback versions available for just under $30. These are not quite as beautiful as the 1776 edition, but they would look nice in any library. Given that the average wage in the US today is close to $32, it would take less than one hour of labor to purchase the book. And thankfully the cost of necessities today is much lower than 1776, indeed much lower than 1900, so it would be much easier to set aside that one hour of wages relative to the past, and purchase yourself a little treat like a book written 250 years ago.

Most Married Women with Children Were Working By the Late 1970s

Jeremy Horpedahl1 Comment

A recent essay by Jeffrey Tucker asks “Has Life Really Improved in Half a Century?” Specifically, Mr. Tucker is interested in measuring median income of families (he uses household income, but families are clearly what he is interested in).

Tucker grants that real median household income has increased by about 40 percent from 1984 to 2024 (if he had used family income instead, the increase is almost 50 percent). But… he says this is illusory. That’s because it now takes two incomes to achieve that median income, whereas it only took one income in the past:

“Adding another income stream to the household is a 100 percent rise in work expectations but it has yielded only a 20-plus percent rise in material income. The effective pay per hour of work for the household has fallen by 40 to 50 percent!”

(He makes a data error by saying that in 1976 real median household income was $68,000-$70,000, when it was actually $59,000 in 2024 dollars in 1976 — real income didn’t fall from 1976 to 1984!)

Continue reading →

Which Economies Grow with Shrinking Populations?

Zachary Bartsch4 Comments

If you didn’t know, China has had negative population growth for the past 4 years. Japan has had negative population growth for the past 15 years. The public and economists both have some decent intuition that a falling population makes falling total output more likely. Economists, however, maintain that income per capita is not so certain to fall. After all, both the numerator and denominator of GDP per capita can fall such that the net effect on the entire ratio is a wash or even increase. In fact, aggregate real output can still continue to grow *if* labor productivity rises faster than the rate of employment decline.

But this is a big if. After all, some of the thrust of endogenous growth theory emphasizes that population growth corresponds to more human brains, which results in more innovation when those brains engage with economic problems. Therefore, in the long run, smaller populations innovate more slowly than larger populations. Furthermore, given that information can cross borders relatively easily no one on the globe is insulated from the effects of lower global population. Because information crosses borders relatively well, the brains-to-riches model doesn’t tell us who will innovate more or experience greater productivity growth.

What follows is not the only answer. There are certainly multiple. For example, recent Nobel Prize winner Joel Mokyr says that both basic science *and* knowledge about applications must grow together. That’s not the route that I’ll elaborate.

Continue reading →

MapGDP to teach economic growth

Joy Buchanan2 Comments

Economist Craig Paulsson has made a simple game free to all.

When you go to MapGDP.com you will find a real picture from Google Maps and a simple question. Guess the GDP/capita in the country where this picture was taken.

Watch his YouTube introduction

See Craig’s announcement about the game on his Substack

Many economics teachers will at some point visit the topic of “what is GDP” or “economic growth.” This web game is great for both topics. I put the website on my classroom projector and called on students to take the guess. We then could do the reveal together. I rate this high value for low effort from a teacher’s perspective.  No login or account creation required.

If you are an EWED reader and not an econ teacher, you might have fun playing the game yourself. Almost as satisfying as Wordle…

One-Third of US Families Earn Over $150,000

Jeremy Horpedahl14 Comments

This is from the latest Census release of CPS ASEC data, updated through 2024 (see Table F-23 at this link). In 1967, only 5 percent of US families earned over $150,000 (inflation adjusted).

Addendum: Several comments have asked how much of these trends can be explained by the rise of dual-income households. The answer is some, but not all of it, which I have written about before. Dual-income households were already the most common family structure by the 1980s. There hasn’t been an increase in total hours worked by married households since Boomers were in their 30s. You can explain some of the increase up until the Boomers by rising dual-income households, but this doesn’t explain the continued progress since the 1980s. And as Scott Winship and I have documented, even if you look just at male earnings, there has been progress since the 1980s.

Even more data on this question in a new post!

The American Middle Class Has Shrunk Because Families Have Been Moving Up

Jeremy Horpedahl7 Comments

In 1967, about 56 percent of families in the US had incomes between $50,000 and $150,000, stated in 2023 inflation-adjusted dollars. In 2023, that number was down to 47 percent. So the American middle class shrunk, but why? (Note: you can do this analysis with different income thresholds for middle class, but the trends don’t change much.)

The data comes from the Census Bureau, specifically Table F-23 in the Historical Income Tables.

As you can see in the chart, the proportion of families that are in the high-income section, those with over $150,000 of annual income in 2023 dollars, grew from about 5 percent in 1967 to well over 30 percent in the most recent years. And the proportion that were lower income shrunk dramatically, almost being cut in half as a proportion, and perhaps surprisingly there are now more high-income families than low-income families (using these thresholds, which has been true since 2017). The number is even more striking when stated in absolute terms: in 1967 there were only about 2.4 million high-income households, while in 2023 there were 11 times as many — over 26 million.

Is this increase in family income caused by the rise of two-income households? To some extent, yes. Women have been gradually shifting their working hours from home production to market work, which will increase measured family income. However, this can’t fully explain the changes. For example, the female employment-population ratio peaked around 1999, then dropped, and now is back to about 1999 levels. Similarly, the proportion of women ages 25-54 working full-time was about 64 percent in 1999, almost exactly the same as 2023 (this chart uses the CPS ASEC, and the years are 1963-2023).

But since the late 1990s, the “moving up” trend has continued, with the proportion of high-income families rising by another 10 percentage points. Both the low-income and middle-income groups fell by about 5 percentage points. Certainly some of the trend in rising family income from the 1960s to the 1990s is due to increasing family participation in the paid workforce, but it can’t explain much since then. Instead, it is rising real incomes and wages for a large part of the workforce.

Is Everyone Going to Europe This Summer?

Jeremy Horpedahl6 Comments

I had planned to write about the Trump-BLS fight today. But considering that two of my co-bloggers have already written about this (Mike on Monday and Scott on Tuesday) and that I have written about supposedly “fake” jobs numbers before several times (see January 2024 and August 2024), I will hold off on that topic until all of the dust settles. But this is a very important topic, and I believe Trump is clearly in the wrong (as is Kevin Hassett, see my tweets from this week), so please do continue to follow this topic and sane voices on it (see a Tweet from Ernie Tedeschi and from me for a long-run perspective on data accuracy).

But now, on to something a little more light-hearted: is everyone traveling to Europe these days?

Judging by my Facebook feed, it seems that Yes, lots of people are traveling to Europe. But this could be a result of selection bias in at least two ways: the people I am friends with on Facebook, and what people choose to post about on Facebook.

So what does the hard data say? We actually have pretty good long-run data on this question. In short: yes, lots more Americans are traveling to Europe (and overseas generally). Though don’t worry: not everyone went to Europe this summer, despite what social media might have you believe.

For starters, here’s a chart showing three decades of US overseas travel:

Continue reading →

US State Growth Statistics 2005-2024

Zachary BartschLeave a comment

In macroeconomics we have basic tools to help us talk about economic growth, which is simply the percent change in RGDP per capita. What causes growth? Lot’s of things. All else constant, if more people are employed, then more will be produced. But the productivity of those workers matters too. That’s why we calculate average labor productivity (ALP), which is the GDP per worker. This tells us how much each worker produces. All else constant, more ALP means more GDP.*

What affects ALP? Nearly everything: Technology, demographics, health, culture, and public policy. Most of these have long-term effects. So, it’s better to think in terms of regimes. After all, incurring debt now can result in a lot of investment and production, but there’s no guarantee that it can be sustained year after year. This is why I don’t get terribly excited about individual good or bad policies at any moment. There’s a lot of ruin in a nation. I care more about the long-run policy regime that is fostered over time.

Given the variety of inputs to economic growth, there’s always plenty of room for complaint about policy – even if the economy is doing well. In this post, I’m inspired by a Youtube video that a student shared with me. The OP laments poor policy in Massachusetts. But compared to some other nearby states, MA is doing just fine economically. This is not the same as saying that the OP is wrong about poor policies. Rather, a regime of policy, technology, interests, etc. is built over time and there can be a lot wrong in growing economies.

In the interest of being comprehensive, this post includes basic growth stats for all states from 2005 through 2024 (the years of FRED-state GDP).** First, let’s start with the basic building blocks of population, employment, and RGDP. Institutions matter. Policy affects whether people migrate to/from the state, fertility, how many people are employed, and what they can produce.

People like to talk about migration and the flocking to Texas & Florida. But that fails to catch the people who choose to stay in their state. Utah is  43% more populous than it was 20 years ago. But you don’t hear much clamoring for their state policies. Idaho and Nevada also beat Florida in terms of percent change. Where are the calls to be like Idaho? Employment largely tracks population, though not perfectly. The RGDP numbers can change quickly with commodity prices, reflected in the performance of North Dakota. But remember, these numbers cover a 20 year span. So, any one blockbuster or dower year won’t move the rankings much.

Of course, these figures just set the stage. What about the employment-population ratio, ALP, and RGDP per capita? Read on.

Continue reading →

What Are the Effects of TCJA? It’s A Little Hard to Say

Jeremy HorpedahlLeave a comment

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act was passed in late 2017 and went into effect in 2018. For academic research to analyze the effects, that’s still a very recent change, which can make analyzing the effects challenging. In this case the challenge is especially important because major portions of the Act will expire at the end of next year, and there will be a major political debate about renewing portions of it in 2025.

Despite these challenges, a recent Journal of Economic Perspectives article does an excellent job of summarizing what we know about the effects so far. In “Sweeping Changes and an Uncertain Legacy: The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017,” the authors Gale, Hoopes, and Pomerleau first point out some of the obvious effects:

  1. TCJA increased budget deficits (i.e., it did not “pay for itself”)
  2. Most Americans got a tax cut (around 80%), which explains #1 — and only about 5% of Americans saw a tax increase (~15% weren’t affected either way)
  3. Following from #2, every quintile of income saw their after-tax income increase, though the benefits were heavily skewed towards the top of the distribution ($1,600 average increase, but $7,600 for the top quintile, and almost $200,000 for the top 0.1%)

Beyond these headline effects, it seems that most of the other effects were modest or difficult to estimate — especially given the economic disruptions of 2020 related to the pandemic.

For example, what about business investment? Through both lowering tax rates for corporations and changing some rules about deductions of expenses, we might have expected a boom in business investment (it was also stated goal of some proponents of the law). Many studies have tried to examine the potential impact, and the authors group these studies into three buckets: macro-simulations, comparisons of aggregate data, and using micro-data across industries (to better get at causation).

In general, the authors of this paper don’t find much convincing evidence that there was a boom in business investment. The investment share of GDP didn’t grow much compared to before the law, and other countries saw more growth in investment as a share of GDP. Could that be because GDP is larger, even though the share of investment hasn’t grown? Probably not, as GDP in the US is perhaps 1 percent larger than without the law — that’s not nothing, but it’s not a huge boom (and that’s not 1 percent per year higher growth, it’s just 1 percent).

Ultimately though, it is hard to say what the correct counterfactual would be for business investment, even with synthetic control analyses (the authors discuss a few synthetic control studies on pages 21-22, but they aren’t convinced).

What’s important about some of the main effects is that these were largely predictable, at least by economists. The authors point to a 2017 Clark Center poll of leading economists. Almost no economists thought GDP would be “substantially higher” from the tax changes, and economists were extremely certain that it would increase the level of federal debt (no one disagreed and only a few were uncertain).

Better Off Than 4 Years Ago? Median Family Income Edition

Jeremy Horpedahl1 Comment

Are you better off than you were four years ago? That question was asked at the Presidential debate last night. But more importantly, we also got a massive amount of new data on income and poverty from Census yesterday. That data allows us to make that just that comparison, although somewhat imperfectly.

The Census data is excellent and detailed, but it’s annual data, meaning that the release yesterday only goes through 2023. We won’t have 2024 data for another year. Such is the nature of good data. (Note: I’ve tried to address this same question with more real-time data, such as average wages). Still, it’s a useful comparison to make. It’s especially useful right now because the new 2023 data on income are (for most categories) the highest ever with one exception: 4 years ago, in 2019.

A reasonable read of the data on income (whether we use households, families, or persons) is that in 2023 the median American was no better off than in 2019, after adjusting for inflation. In fact, they were probably slightly worse off. I fully expect this will no longer be true when we have 2024 data: it will certainly be above 4 years prior (2020) and likely above 2019 too (more on this below). But we can’t say that for sure right now.

So let’s do a comparison of “are you better off than 4 years ago” for recent Presidents that were up for reelection (treating 2024 as a reelection year for Biden-Harris too), using the 4-year comparison that would have been available at the time using real median family income. Notice that this data would be off by one year, but it’s what would have been known at the time of the election.

Continue reading →