“for example, when New York decided to build the subway in 1900: 4.7 years later, they opened 23 subway stations, and in 2019 dollars, they spent just over a billion dollars doing so. So 23 stations, just over a billion dollars”
Relative abundances and scarcities define the economic times, I would for example expect that NY 1900 would be abundant of cheap workforce employable at very flexible terms, which I am sure it is not true today where most people works in services and with much higher protections on the job
My opinion is just general but I think in the right direction. one has to understand what drives development and growth, and today it’s not what it was 120 years ago. In 50 times someone will muse the good old days when Mark could amass 2 billion users in 15 years while now no matter how much money you spend you might expect just 2 o 3 hunderd millions. Oh cruel times, we are so bad compared to the intenret pionners, glossing over the fact that the users will have much more protection from spam and aggressive marketing (yeah, pipedream)
gullible, unprotected users is the relative abundance of our times
I said tech people fixation with tunnels, let’s not forget that one day Musk, frustrated with the time it takes to build tunnels today, bought a boring machine and started digging a hole under his company’s parking.
by the Richmond Fed, which states optimal to move less productive workers out of high-productivity hubs and give them UBI of 17,000$ rather than investing money into peryphery project in order to reduce growing income gap
the authors note how CNR or Cognitive non-routine workers are more productive while clustered together so instead of trying to lure them away from hubs where they would become inevitably less productive is better to lure away non CNR from hubs with a subsidy.
This is an economic thought experiment, in a political void, nonetheless there is a clear insight in how to spend development money in the periphery, do not try to create works, just give money away.
A new paper from the Richmond Fed finds that it would be optimal to continue to concentrating knowledge workers in specialized hubs while subsidizing less-educated to move and live in less productive cities with a UBI-like cut of the agglomeration bonus. https://t.co/vWXhgvufBw
adding a data point for the top 400 make the curve collapse in 2018, it is a graphic trick but also substantial
they have been fighting on it for days, looks like national accounting is complex and prone to interpretation though sometimes you see economists meddling up waters in this politically charge issue
The important thing to say is that SZ's core result — that we've seen a drastic and unnecessary reduction in the progressively of the tax system — is rock-solid. In particular, taxes on capita income are way down, while taxes on labor income are up 2/
Time for my substantial comments about the @gabriel_zucman and Emmanuel Saez tax series. I'll run with numbers for top 0.01%, over 1962-2014. I'm still to fully digest top 400 and projections to 2018. So, first things first: the QJE and the paper show different patterns: pic.twitter.com/OAEArIALCo
a study argues that 60% of income inequality rise in recent years can be explained with smart professionals being rewarded in stocks rather than cash, so productivity gains of fast growing companies would accrue to this new kind of “human capitalists” and taken away from the high-skilled labor share, which indeed has been decresing over time