Being unemployed can be very stressful, so what can economists do to help people back to work? Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers discuss what it means to be jobless, and what to do if you're unlucky enough to lose your job.

Co-host: Nastaran Tavakoli-Far.  Editor: Alastair Elphick.  A Modulated Media production.

Being unemployed can be very stressful, so what can economists do to help people back to work? Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers discuss what it means to be jobless, and what to do if you're unlucky enough to lose your job.Co-host: Nastaran Tavakoli-Far. Editor: Alastair Elphick. A Modulated Media production.

From world events to everyday decisions, economics explains it all. Platypus Economics makes it clear, useful, and actually fun.

From world events to everyday decisions, economics explains it all. Platypus Economics makes it clear, useful, and actually fun.

Platypus Economics with Justin Wolfers

Unemployment - Does joblessness have to mean hopelessness?

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/e73c998e-6e60-432f-8610-ae210140c5b1/clips/abf7c828-ca1e-44c9-9142-b4340123cdf7/transcript

This Census Bureau report is propaganda

This report has nobody behind it

Small errors can fake a scandal

Old records falsely accuse new citizens

Census ignored its own rules

Democracies need truth-finding institutions

The Census Bureau just published a report claiming 24,000 noncitizens illegally voted in the 2020 election. In this episode of Diving In, Justin Wolfers takes the report apart and shows why it reads less like statistics and more like propaganda. The document has no author, no report number, and no named reviewers — a flashing red light that career statisticians have refused to sign their names to it.

Justin also does the math: matching 128 million voter records to citizenship files without Social Security numbers means guessing who's who. Apply the Census Bureau's own historical false-match rate of 0.146% and you'd "find" about 21,000 apparent noncitizen voters — even if every single person voted legally. Add outdated naturalization records (the report itself flagged and fixed 64,000 such cases) and the whole 24,000 could vanish. It's counting smoke alarms and calling them fires.

Trusted government statistics are an essential piece of infrastructure on which American prosperity depends. If the institutions that tell you where poverty is rising or how the economy is doing get bent to serve whoever's in power, you lose the ability to hold that power to account — and that's a cost you pay whether you voted or not.

Subscribe — it's a truth-finding institution with a much smaller error rate:
on YouTube 👉 https://youtube.com/platypuseconomics
on Substack 👉 https://newsletter.platypuseconomics.com

Follow on Social Media @PlatypusEconomics and @JustinWolfers

The Census Bureau just published a report claiming 24,000 noncitizens illegally voted in the 2020 election. In this episode of Diving In, Justin Wolfers takes the report apart and shows why it reads less like statistics and more like propaganda. The document has no author, no report number, and no named reviewers &mdash; a flashing red light that career statisticians have refused to sign their names to it.
Justin also does the math: matching 128 million voter records to citizenship files without Social Security numbers means guessing who's who. Apply the Census Bureau's own historical false-match rate of 0.146% and you'd "find" about 21,000 apparent noncitizen voters &mdash; even if every single person voted legally. Add outdated naturalization records (the report itself flagged and fixed 64,000 such cases) and the whole 24,000 could vanish. It's counting smoke alarms and calling them fires.
Trusted government statistics are an essential piece of infrastructure on which American prosperity depends. If the institutions that tell you where poverty is rising or how the economy is doing get bent to serve whoever's in power, you lose the ability to hold that power to account &mdash; and that's a cost you pay whether you voted or not.
Subscribe &mdash; it's a truth-finding institution with a much smaller error rate: on YouTube 👉 https://youtube.com/platypuseconomics on Substack 👉 https://newsletter.platypuseconomics.com
Follow on Social Media @PlatypusEconomics and @JustinWolfers

How To Fake a Voting Scandal | Diving In

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/e73c998e-6e60-432f-8610-ae210140c5b1/clips/4a1653d2-b68f-4b86-8916-b4b20006ed1a/transcript

Do sanctions on Iran actually work? Sixty years of the Cuba embargo say probably not.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent just announced what he's calling an "economic D-Day" against Iran — a threat aimed not just at Tehran but at every foreign firm, bank, trader, and shipper that does business with it: choose Iran, or choose access to the U.S. dollar. Justin Wolfers walks you through what was actually announced and then rewinds to 1963, where the Kennedy administration used almost identical language to "tighten the noose" around Cuba. Same playbook, six decades apart.

Here's the problem: the CIA studied the Cuba embargo for 20 years and concluded the sanctions "have not met any of their objectives." Castro stayed in power until 2008; the regime is still there today. Broader research is just as sobering — even optimistic studies find sanctions produce political change only about a third of the time, and almost never regime change against an entrenched authoritarian. One study of Iranian influencers found broad sanctions actually increased pro-government sentiment.

Why should you care? Because sanctions don't stop at the missile factory. There's no border checkpoint that lets in baby formula but not weapons. When you choke an economy, food, medicine, and family remittances get squeezed too — and every time America uses dollar access as an ultimatum, other countries get one more reason to build a system that doesn't need us, quietly eroding the financial leverage that makes your dollar so powerful in the first place.

Subscribe — it's the one economic lifeline we promise never to sever:
on YouTube 👉 https://youtube.com/platypuseconomics
on Substack 👉 https://newsletter.platypuseconomics.com

Follow on Social Media @PlatypusEconomics and @JustinWolfers

Do sanctions on Iran actually work? Sixty years of the Cuba embargo say probably not.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent just announced what he's calling an "economic D-Day" against Iran &mdash; a threat aimed not just at Tehran but at every foreign firm, bank, trader, and shipper that does business with it: choose Iran, or choose access to the U.S. dollar. Justin Wolfers walks you through what was actually announced and then rewinds to 1963, where the Kennedy administration used almost identical language to "tighten the noose" around Cuba. Same playbook, six decades apart.
Here's the problem: the CIA studied the Cuba embargo for 20 years and concluded the sanctions "have not met any of their objectives." Castro stayed in power until 2008; the regime is still there today. Broader research is just as sobering &mdash; even optimistic studies find sanctions produce political change only about a third of the time, and almost never regime change against an entrenched authoritarian. One study of Iranian influencers found broad sanctions actually increased pro-government sentiment.
Why should you care? Because sanctions don't stop at the missile factory. There's no border checkpoint that lets in baby formula but not weapons. When you choke an economy, food, medicine, and family remittances get squeezed too &mdash; and every time America uses dollar access as an ultimatum, other countries get one more reason to build a system that doesn't need us, quietly eroding the financial leverage that makes your dollar so powerful in the first place.
Subscribe &mdash; it's the one economic lifeline we promise never to sever: on YouTube 👉 https://youtube.com/platypuseconomics on Substack 👉 https://newsletter.platypuseconomics.com
Follow on Social Media @PlatypusEconomics and @JustinWolfers

America Is Reusing Cuba’s Sanctions Strategy on Iran | Diving In

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/e73c998e-6e60-432f-8610-ae210140c5b1/clips/ff1f573b-3bd4-49a8-a1ca-b4b0016f38bc/transcript

Should we actually want prices to go down?

Are certain goods rising more than others?

Examples of past damaging supply shocks?

Join Delete Me

What do we know about job switching right now?

What about labor’s declining share of income?

What’s driving record-high pessimism?

Politicians keep promising to bring prices down. In this episode of The Professor Is In, Justin Wolfers explains why that's a terrible idea — and why it's not the same thing as slowing inflation. He walks through what actually happens if you force the price level down: wages have to fall too, stores go unprofitable, and the only reliable way to make it happen is to engineer a recession — possibly a depression. The sensible target isn't zero prices, but inflation low enough that you can forget about it.

Justin also digs into why your paycheck feels like it's losing the race even when, on average, it isn't. At least half of Americans saw wages beat prices last year — but the gains mostly go to people who switch jobs, and in today's low-hire, low-fire labor market, that door is barely open. So the raise you'd need to keep up is harder to reach right now, which could help explain why a record 71% of Americans expect prices to outrun their incomes (something that almost never actually happens).

What the $20 Burrito Debate Gets Wrong About Affordability https://omny.fm/shows/platypus-economics/burrito-gate-and-the-affordability-paradox-diving-in  

🔒 Get 20% off DeleteMe by going to https://joindeleteme.com/WOLFERS and use code WOLFERS to protect your privacy! 🙌

Subscribe on YouTube 👉 https://youtube.com/platypuseconomics
Subscribe on Substack 👉 https://newsletter.platypuseconomics.com

Follow on Social Media @PlatypusEconomics and @JustinWolfers

Politicians keep promising to bring prices down. In this episode of The Professor Is In, Justin Wolfers explains why that's a terrible idea &mdash; and why it's not the same thing as slowing inflation. He walks through what actually happens if you force the price level down: wages have to fall too, stores go unprofitable, and the only reliable way to make it happen is to engineer a recession &mdash; possibly a depression. The sensible target isn't zero prices, but inflation low enough that you can forget about it.
Justin also digs into why your paycheck feels like it's losing the race even when, on average, it isn't. At least half of Americans saw wages beat prices last year &mdash; but the gains mostly go to people who switch jobs, and in today's low-hire, low-fire labor market, that door is barely open. So the raise you'd need to keep up is harder to reach right now, which could help explain why a record 71% of Americans expect prices to outrun their incomes (something that almost never actually happens).
What the $20 Burrito Debate Gets Wrong About Affordability <a href="https://omny.fm/shows/platypus-economics/burrito-gate-and-the-affordability-paradox-diving-in">https://omny.fm/shows/platypus-economics/burrito-gate-and-the-affordability-paradox-diving-in</a> &nbsp;
🔒 Get 20% off DeleteMe by going to https://joindeleteme.com/WOLFERS and use code WOLFERS to protect your privacy! 🙌
Subscribe on YouTube 👉 https://youtube.com/platypuseconomics Subscribe on Substack 👉 https://newsletter.platypuseconomics.com
Follow on Social Media @PlatypusEconomics and @JustinWolfers

The Economics of Feeling Ripped Off | The Professor Is In

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/e73c998e-6e60-432f-8610-ae210140c5b1/clips/a8f0d9b9-39b1-463e-bdc3-b4ab01297509/transcript

Unemployment - Does joblessness have to mean hopelessness?

In 1 playlist(s)

Platypus Economics with Justin Wolfers

Social links

Follow podcast

Recent clips