UCSD this year said they are not taking any new math PhD students due to the fiscal situation. The world of academia is in more flux than I've seen in recent memory.
This is some long horizon impact. Really just wildly unfortunate to see a disruption that feels unique. It's not due to war, even if academics could 'flee' to another institution, its a discarding of the prioritization of knowledge generation. The thing humanity has been built on.
Higher education pissed off half of customers in their quest for moral purity, at the same time as birth rate decline post-2008 began hitting, while raising prices +93% on average since 2008. That's not a great way to survive.
Academia didn't choose trickle-down policy. Quite the opposite -- that was you guys, after you purged all the leftist economists in the McCarthy era. In fact, the think-tank driven economics departments of recent years are so notoriously to the right of most academic faculty that this is a point of frequent conflict.
> pissed off half of customers in their quest for moral purity
I'm not sure what 'half' means here. It's neither true that men make up half of applicants (which are really what we should be focusing on), nor that so-called 'conservatives' make up half of this population.
It’s funny that instead of making points or adding data, you just repeat the same slogan and act like a victim. Many of us have tried to listen for a long time but we have never found any intellectual meat on the slogans. It’s boring.
At this point, we might be just fine. The academics won't be, but they were the ones telling everyone to wait on having kids in the first place. Demographic trickle down, biting the hand that feeds academia, is a big part of this story.
At my college, birth control was as free as water. Teaching people to postpone marriage, children, for the sake of career, combined with record-high school debt... might be partly why academia finds themselves in this demographic decline. They told the next generation not to have kids, made it financially impossible to have kids, and lo and behold, there's less kids entering college now.
Academia didn't make it financially impossible to have kids. Just what control do you think academia has over the market? Over the government?
"Raise house prices now or I'll send you to the principal's office!"
The gays didn't send house prices to the moon. Mexicans didn't send the jobs to China. No, it's the people with assets who pursued asset-pumping policy to great effect. You're right to be angry, but you're a fool to believe them when they point at universities as the source of the problem.
> At this point, we might be just fine. The academics won't be, but they were the ones telling everyone to wait on having kids in the first place. Demographic trickle down, biting the hand that feeds academia, is a big part of this story.
> At my college, birth control was as free as water. Teaching people to postpone marriage, children, for the sake of career, combined with record-high school debt... might be partly why academia finds themselves in this demographic decline. They told the next generation not to have kids, made it financially impossible to have kids, and lo and behold, there's less kids entering college now.
Hard to tell if this is just parody.
I will say that if feel that providing something equates to mandating it... I don't know how we're going to be able to have logical exchanges
How does the phrase go? Facts don't care about your feelings?
When one side of the political spectrum not only abandons scientific rigor, rationality, and questioning beliefs but attacks those ideals instead of religious devotion to dogma over evidence, then acts outraged that educated people tend not to share their beliefs, it's on them.
Anecdotally I have heard similar things from top tier institutions in the US as well. They are all in recession mode basically and actively cutting classes, staff, and lecturers.
This all started when the govt began withholding federal funding in an attempt to clamp down on campus protests
Both of those links (thanks for providing them) only talk about raw numbers, no real in depth analysis of whether the administrators are needed at those levels, or not, nor even how they classify someone as being an administrator.
I don't have any serious evidence, but the idea of "bloated administration" has been a meme for many years and I remember this humorous article describing it as a new chemical element floating around since around a decade ago: https://meyerweb.com/other/humor/administratium.html
Yeah - I often hear politically motivated speakers talk about "bloat" in various parts of organisations, but I've never (literally) seen anything beyond "numbers"
That's not really helpful, because, as I said to the other poster and have subsequently been down voted for it - that's not genuine analysis, we don't know anything about who is being described as "administration" nor do we know why they're there in the first place.
The sources of university funding and spending on administration has been broken for a long time.
What does a graduate math program need? A building with some offices and classrooms, wifi, email service, maybe a couple of secretaries and janitors, office supplies, and salaries for students and researchers/instructors.
What need does a math program have for any but the most basic administration? That's where all the money is going, where the biggest growth in spending is going.
You could cut university admin costs by 75% and lose nothing. Start with the top 25 university presidents who all earn a slightly rounded up 2 million a year and more.
Who pays for all that? Usually it's not the students or even private funders / donors. Most of the money comes from one level of the government or another, and it comes with all kinds of regulations and requirements. Complying with that requires a lot of specialized administrative staff.
Most of the time, when you hear a politician saying that universities should / should not do X, they are effectively saying that universities should spend more on administration.
Universities with a residential campus have a lot of staff in functions unrelated to the academic mission, such as student housing, food services, healthcare, or sports facilities. If they have to compete for students instead of most people just automatically choosing the nearest university, focusing on these tends to make them more competitive. And while student amenities are not particularly important to PhD students, they are important to the university if it also educates undergraduates.
Then there is the organization chart. In a traditional university, the faculty senate (or another similar body) is in charge and all administrators are subordinate to it. But the modern world prefers centralized organizations, with administrators at the top. And whoever is in charge also determines the priorities of the organization.
…and money to go to conferences and summer schools, and money for software licenses (especially in applied programs), and department funds to bring visiting academics, and the following things that get lumped under administration: money for grad student food pantries and childcare because funding streams for PhDs don’t provide for good salaries outright, and job advising centers because the math job market is a crapshoot, and free student health clinics for psychological and physical health because doing a PhD in any condition is rough…
Their acceptance rate is in the 25% range. Clearly the demand is there, so why is there a "fiscal situation"?
In the mid 90's I went to a university that had cafeteria-style food, and dorms with no air conditioning. You don't need Waygu beef and massages in order to teach students. There shouldn't be any "fiscal situation" in higher education.
What is a university anyway? It's some buildings and classrooms with professors and students. It should be SUPER CHEAP to run a university.
I'm struggling to understand why we have any current h-1b economist position when that job market is in "free-fall"? The FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF CHICAGO can't find an American economist?
i don’t expect the fed to fix everyone’s problems… let them hire the best of the best, and let us internalize the benefits… i’m sure i don’t fully understand the significance of this, but from where i sit, in my fancy office chair in front of a very fancy home office setup (not to brag ;P), i see absolutely no compelling reason as to why hiring the best is a bad thing. is the accusation that the FED is trying to lowball american economists? somehow i am dubious, but am beyond open to being wrong.
The sooner people realize that there is no such thing, the better. People are extremely incompetent in judging competence. With that said, the solution isn't to then just hire the person willing to do the work for the least amount of money. You americans should realize you live in a society together and have obligations to give each other chances. Plenty of bright people around. This new top down command and control culture that has taken root in the American corporate world will be the downfall of the nation. Everyone is just trying to screw over the next guy for a quick buck.
I could prove you wrong, but you don’t seem very open to it and I can’t under why you had to brag about how fancy your office is, so I’m not going to get started. But I don’t think you know what you’re talking about.
What intelligent economist would take work from this administration? There aren’t many unintelligent economists, and it’s not the sort of thing you can fake your way to a PhD in. With the U.S. branch of the field run aground on its refusal to identify the causal link from shareholder profits to inflation, failure to deliver solutions that don’t decrease profits is a certainty. So it makes perfect sense that they’d seek competent help offshore: any untried port in a storm of your own making.
Why hire an American who will ask for benefits, significant time off, work/life balance, etc. when you can hire an H-1B that you can treat like an indentured servant?
Its C. the market doesn't follow traditional models anymore.
The whole profession was basically centered around putting a dollar amount on risk.
For example, lets say I give you a chance of either taking $1k now, or playing a game where you have 1 in 10 chance to win $200k. What would you do? The right answer is "sell" the risk to someone. For example, on the average, if I "buy" the game from 10 people, at a price of $10k each, I can realistically win twice what I spend.
Repeat that over x number of steps and more complex games, and that is what the PhDs worked on in terms of pricing.
For most of the time it worked ok. In a few instances (most notably the Gaussian Copula that was a large reason for the subprime house market crisis in 2007) it didn't.
The problem is that now, its impossible to predict whether orange man is going to throw a hissy fit and cause the market to go up or down, or if large investors are going to artificially prop up stock like they did with Tesla.
You're right that the orange man has been a big factor, but not because of his effect on the stock market. The stock market isn't the economy, and most Econ PhDs are not working on modeling stock prices.
As the article indicates, a huge portion of the market for hiring PhDs is directly or indirectly dependent on federal funding. Universities are freezing hiring and reducing PhD cohort sizes, institutions like the IMF and World Bank are in crisis, and US government agencies have been reducing staff sizes. There was hope that the tech industry would provide another big source of jobs for PhD economists, but that hasn't panned out.
Source: the article, and my wife works in the UChicago economics department.
There was an electric vehicle stock I was watching for awhile (WKHS) hoping for a good time to short. All their reports showed what I believed was an unviable vehicle, there was simply no way to produce it that was anywhere near gross margin positive and they didn't have the money nor access to capital to lose hundreds of millions proving that out. All the economics of the company was going to zero, and they had a ticking time bomb of debt they were about to default on.
Shortly before this debt time-bomb went off, Trump magically showed up tweeting in support of the company and alluded to a deal getting pulled off with GM. [] Of course, this ended up being spun off as Lordstown motors, a company that has failed horribly, including Hindenburg Research publishing a video of one of the few trucks they had literally catching on fire on the road while the CEO was simultaneously claiming they had hundreds of millions of dollars in solid orders (later fined by the SEC for that and barred from being an executive of a company for N years).
I still don't understand how Trump magically got involved with this penny stock at the 11th hour, but I can tell you I feel something very fishy happened there.
To the extent that a single person can cause economists' predictions to be off, those predictions were never good in the first place. We will always have unstable people in power, it's just human nature. If your predictions can't hold up in the face of that, then you need to refine them.
CS and DS people are getting more applied and gaining domain expertise, and can do a lot of economics work now. Academic economists, especially those who primarily do data science / big data, seem to basically be doing Masters-level data science projects for their Ph.D. The hard part in their Ph.D.s is collecting the data, which used to be a very manual job that relied on connections, but more of them are getting them or imputing them from public sources so it's not that impressive anymore.
Speaking as someone who has attended 3 economics Ph.D. defenses in the past two years.
Data science wasn't even a degree you could get 20 years ago. Twenty years ago if you were interested in what is now called data science, you were getting a degree with some kind of exposure to applied statistics. Economics is one of those disciplines (through econometrics).
No. Data science is different than statistics, because it is done on computers. It also uses machine learning algorithms instead of statistical algorithms. These advances, and the shedding of generations of restrictive cruft - frees data scientists to craft answers that their bosses want to hear - proving the superiority of data science over statistics.
His work and department was very quant heavy. I'd say the majority of his students spend most of their time in Python/R cleaning datasets running models
I'm not disagreeing with you, and I also know political economists from that time who complain that their discipline is changing. It just has very little to do with what this article is discussing.
This. My undergrad was in Economics (a long time ago). There was a time I thought about doing a PhD, but ended up doing an MS in Quant Finance instead. It's hard to believe that anyone can take a DSGE model seriously as a model of how the economy works.
For the unaware - graduate level Economics is nothing like pop Economics, it's essentially an applied math degree. But the math in question is extremely wonky. Mostly using Convex Set Theory and Brouwer Fixed Point Theorem from topology to prove the existence, uniqueness, and stability of a general equilibrium solution for a "market" of price-quantity commodity pairs. The assumptions needed to make it work are literally absurd.
> Mostly using Convex Set Theory and Brouwer Fixed Point Theorem from topology to prove the existence, uniqueness, and stability of a general equilibrium solution for a "market" of price-quantity commodity pairs. The assumptions needed to make it work are literally absurd.
This is true for the first foundational courses in micro and macro. The profession has moved beyond this and the last forty plus years of research have been looking at various relaxations of these assumptions.
I'm a pure math major, and I took several economics classes. The whole field was very baffling for me.
The most reliable model was the dead simple IS–LM, which is based on observations. But you don't really need a lot of math for it, so it's boring.
As a result, researchers keep trying to generalize the microeconomic behavior of people to derive macroeconomic laws. Like we do with the ideal gas laws. And this produces reams of beautiful math that you can investigate and tweak endlessly. But it doesn't seem to have a lot of predictive power.
Thing is, the part about using math for economics is highly debatable and that's why Austrian School of economics doesn't use it. From that perspective, we use ranking systems for our preferences, at the individual level, so using math for aggregate behaviour is just not well substantiated. This point of view comes from Carl Menger, which started the whole marginalist revolution.
The theory you are discussing (grad micro 101 equilibrium existence) is not actually crazy if you think about what the mathematical assumptions actually imply. Really the economic assumptions boil down to "small changes in prices lead to small changes in demand" and the math is just rigorously defining small in terms of a general topology.
Small price changes don’t necessarily lead to small results. There’s a reason companies advertise 19.99 not 20 which has been experimentally verified many times.
People simply act irrationally, which is a fundamental issue when trying to treat economics as math.
Matter is not continuous and yet we don’t need atoms to predict how a metal sheet will bend. There are a lot of sound theories about how to deal with discontinuity, and how the problem solves itself when numbers get large enough.
Or think of it like weather and climate: we cannot predict that there will be a thunderstorm on a given day 2 months from now, but we can be fairly confident that in x years, the average global temperature will be y±z°C. Because when you aggregate enough events, statistical effects become dominant.
"But reality is not linear" is not really a gotcha.
Then why aren't all the quant shops snapping them up? It's not like their hiring needs are affected much by changes in the macro economy (except maybe trading volume and liquidity).
Because it's a very different type of math than that used in Quant Finance. Econ PhD programs don't want people with broad math skills, they want people who know the very narrow slice of math needed to solve these very unusual models. Quant Finance mainly uses PDEs and Brownian Motion stuff that all Math and Physics majors learn.
On the other hand Cliff Asness and AQR are perfectly happy to rake in money by using the "dogma" as you describe it to analyze and trade in financial markets.
The opportunities are in applications that lead to job opportunities in other departments, especially with the rise of secondary data analysis in other fields… I would sell myself as as a methodologist in a field of application, rather than an economist first.
For example, I do health systems research in an academic medical center. I work with a health economics research unit that doesn’t mint PhDs, but does hire at all stages of the academic career, and there’s been a lot of mobility for their “alums” - just not in traditional Econ departments.
I still couldn't quite grasp the underlying issue. People are not studying economics so schools are not creating those positions, but then it seemed to draw the line to people not studying economics due to the lack of positions in academia, so chicken and egg? I guess it's just that it compounds with the hiring freezes in the public sector mentioned?
I came away feeling unsatisfied, is there a bigger cultural thing going on here?
There are multiple issues in the Phd/Faculty market. Different fields are at different phases of the cycle. The biggest trend is that Universities expanded in the 1950s and 60s, and are now contracting as population declines. Universities continue to increase Phd production despite declining total employment numbers as Phd students provide cheap labor. Numerous non-tenure track positions have been created to fill the void with mixed results.
This is the case in many fields but not in Economics. There is little incentive to pad out PhD counts for cheap labor since the vast majority of the Econ PhD is either taking classes in first and second year or working on independent research after that. All job market candidates are expected to have a solo authored paper on the market with some asterisks I won't get into. There is little in the way of big labs or PIs who require endless RAs. To the extent we need RAs it's often undergrads or predocs doing data cleaning stuff.
When I was growing up the fear of WW3 was ever present and occupied the minds of intellectuals. One of the big questions was how can we prevent another Great Depression. The Great Depression was blamed for the rise of Fascism in Europe (the collapse of Weimar Germany and the rise of Hitler). There was genuine fear that Communism would also take root in the US during the Great Depression. People looked to economists for an explanation and a cure. For better or worse, the elites believe they have an answer. My understanding is that the consensus is that government must move heaven and earth to keep the financial machinery (banks and payment services)flowing. To prevent a chain reaction where the collapse of a big bank would lead to the preventable closures of many businesses and loss of jobs.
> The Great Depression was blamed for the rise of Fascism in Europe (the collapse of Weimar Germany and the rise of Hitler).
Fascism in Europe was already well underway when the Great Depression started in '29. Weimar Germany collapsed due to the terms of Treaty of Versailles which essentially broke Germany's economy (Germany was essentially already in a depression well before the US). However, there was a very real fear in the US that the downturn that would later become known as The Great Depression would lead to fascism in the US.
Quick edit:
I also dislike the persistent narrative of 'guaranteed' placement for certain degrees and occupations. This assumes a stagnant market and skill-set that does not at all hold for current-day markets.
Many academics that I've talked with say that their departments are cutting back to 50% of last year's PhD enrollment due to budget cuts and uncertainty. These were in biology and chemistry.
This needs to be stressed. It's not just uncertainty of grants. That's a given, even when fed is stable.
Schools are questioning basic financial aid now. If Trump follows through on eliminating ED, no one is confident that there's a plan for any of the essential services and payments. . . Because there's never really been a plan for anything else.
Academic salaries in the US are much higher than anywhere else. That's where every academic wants to work. Consider this, many places in Europe pay their junior faculty as little as PhD candidates in the US.
I know this is controversial but there are so many foreign students in the PhD programs across the country. Some programs actually favor non-US students. Some professors quite explicitly pick their own race despite that being highly illegal. I think higher ed in the US became a major scam.
What does this have to do with anything here? The only common thread is that it's related to PhDs. You just have a bone to pick with our higher education being so desirable that people upend their lives to come and participate in it at great expense? This has been a significant source of soft power for the US, as both a self-reinforcing function ensuring we attract and retain top research talent, and by seeding American-educated intellectuals back to their home countries to increase our global influence. Nothing about this was bad for any party involved.
Of course, with the rampant anti-intellectualism burning a path through our institutions, we're currently doing our best to kill that and make sure we fall behind in every respect.
It has everything to do with it considering where things are with current admin. Also why do you think people are sacrificing so much to study in the US? It’s mostly funded. They even get stipends. We are basically paying them to get their degrees here. But you seem to think that they’re doing us a huge favor. What an odd way to think about it.
The PhD student segregation was blatant even going back a few decades, but it was based on country of origin not race.
You’d have a Chinese professor and all his students were Chinese, an Indian professor and all hers were Indian etc… The American born professors tended to have mostly American born students, but it was a bit more mixed.
It’s hard to know whether this was based on the professor’s preference or the students’.
Well ya, when the richest and most powerful people/corporations/nations in the world actively work against established economic theory.
Trickle down economics, austerity, regressive tax policies, tariffs, appeasement, lax antitrust enforcement, slashing capital gains and inheritance tax, privatization of natural monopolies, quantitative easing instead of holding investment firms accountable, foreign aid for war instead of peace, defunding public universities to manufacture a student loan crisis, public sector layoffs, subsidizing extractive industries instead of renewables, sub-minimum wage in restaurants/farms/prisons, underpaying teachers and healthcare workers, rent seeking, payola, collusion, duopoly, usury, unpaid domestic labor, wage slavery..
And the inevitable aftermath of wishing the worst for others: stagflation, underemployment, civil unrest, eventually recession, depression and a raid on concentrated wealth if/when supply-side economics collapses because nobody has any money to buy anything anymore.
In spite of overwhelming evidence of public and private abuses, nobody cares what the experts think anymore. Because it's obvious to everyone that so much is wrong. People who try to help get blamed, people who participate in the grift get rewarded as things get worse.
Unfortunately as wealth inequality consumes us under self-colonization, all liberal arts degrees trend towards worthless. We're left with declining service work after passing peak wages and peak employment due to the rise of AI. Spending the rest of our lives fighting over scraps after the rug was already pulled out from under us due to the Dot Bomb, Housing Bubble, pandemic, private equity driving housing costs to the point of insanity and a trade war of choice.
Or we could like, follow economic theory and stuff. Do the opposite of everything I just mentioned. Can't have the Econ PhDs telling us that!
I was on the market last year as a fairly strong candidate, my advisors expected me to get a good tenure track job in a Finance department. I had first round interviews at multiple top 10 departments before things really went pear-shaped.
Here's what actually happened. The market looked pretty normal until November 5th, and then after that things went downhill. First the Fed Board of Governors stopped hiring (some regional banks kept hiring but had their offers explode on Jan 20). Then in January universities which had already done their first round interviews started imposing hiring freezes and cancelling flyouts. At the same time the Federal Government completely stopped hiring with DOGE coming in. Private sector hiring has been down for a few years since the ZIRP era ended so that part isn't new.
In the end I got a postdoc at a pretty good US university and will go on the market again in 2026-2027 with a much stronger portfolio than I had last year. Hopefully that will be enough for me, but I know for many others they may not be so lucky.
Good luck; we probably crossed paths (I was helping a bit on the hiring side at some point). A postdoc is a really great option, I've seen lots of people do that before going for a bschool so it can definitely can work.
BTW one other thing besides what you mentioned is not just the freeze but the firings. FDIC lost 30% of staff, BOG is going to reduce maybe 10%, CFPB is no more, etc. so the market is actually being flooded with senior economists. They won't compete directly with the posts you want but still flood the market.
Knowledge is not a hot industry right now. Being a confident moron is pretty hot, though. Best thing you can do for your career is get fired for being a jerk, post a lot about that, start a podcast, and maybe, as a stretch goal, choke a guy to death.
The biggest problem research has is that its almost never clear what the result will be to the bottom line.
People complain bitterly about two things with research
1. That it's looking at obvious things and they could have told the answer (What's really happened is some researcher has actually looked into some common school of thought to check its reliability)
2. That there's no "use" for the thing be researched (it's absurd). This type of research is really "document phenomena, try to understand it" the use of that phenomena is often not clear for decades, or centuries (our cryptographic systems currently rely on research into math that was once considered absolutely worthless)
"Here’s a very short, oversimplified history of modern economics. In the 1960s and 1970s, a particular way of thinking about economics crystallized in academic departments, and basically took over the top journals. It was very math-heavy, and it modeled the economy as the sum of a bunch of rational human agents buying and selling things in a market.
The people who invented these methods (Paul Samuelson, Ken Arrow, etc.) were not very libertarian at all. But in the 70s and 80s a bunch of conservative-leaning economists used the models to claim that free markets were great. The models turned out to be pretty useful for saying “free markets are great”, simply because math is hard — it’s a lot easier to mathematically model a simple, well-functioning market than it is to model a complex world where markets are only part of the story, and where markets themselves have lots of pieces that break down and don’t work. So the intellectual hegemony of this type of mathematical model sort of dovetailed with the rise of libertarian ideology, neoliberal policy, and so on."
>For decades, a doctorate in economics was a golden ticket. It promised a path to tenure, or at worst, a lucrative role at a central bank, think tank, or tech firm.
So, the field is being consumed by the ideology it espoused?
Automation and leaner government budgets were pushed hard by a number of schools of economic thought.
Of particular note is this section:
> REASON 4: Lying About Inflation
If you were there during the pandemic money printing, you remember the sequence all too well: first the confident insistence that government spending wouldn’t fuel inflation, then the soothing claim that inflation was merely “transitory,” and finally the outright gaslighting that prices weren’t rising at all. Each step was wrong, and each was delivered with smug certainty. Ordinary people—who watched their rent, groceries, and gas bills skyrocket—saw a profession more invested in protecting Democratic policy narratives than in telling the truth. The result is a self-inflicted torching of trust.
This isn't about protecting Democratic policy narratives. Arguably the single worst thing for inflation, the Paycheck Protection Program, happened under Trump. You had business owners taking out loans for pretty much anything and everything they thought they could possibly justify as business-related, no matter how tenuous that justification was, and then of course the government forgave massive amounts of it. Since business owners already tend to have more money and capital, this fueled their consumption of then-scarce products and services even more. Laws of supply-and-demand kicked in, which shouldn't be hard for the author to understand.
Ultimately the inflation that happened during the pandemic was due to the fact that for the last 45-ish years, the US has been running deficits not just in the public sector, but the private sector as well. Our economy is designed to run on debt that suddenly, people couldn't pay on time. They then looked to the government to offer a backstop, and since federal, state, and local governments have no "rainy day" fund to speak of, the federal government had to fire up the money printers.
I watched a video by Gary Stevenson the other day and it sheds light on our current issues.
He was a trader for Citibank and for awhile their highest paid trader. He essentially made a fortune (mostly for the bank but also for himself) by betting that after the 2008 GFC inequality would only increase, that we wouldn't go back to "normal".
He says that the best economists in the world are traders. Why? Because they have this big number over their head, their profit and loss ("P&L") that everyone at the bank can see. It also defines their bonus. All the finance and econ people in college are trying to become traders.
Then you have journalists. Any of them with an econ background have basically failed to become traders. Journalists self-select to reflect the views of their organization, famously articulated by Noam Chomsky in an interview [1].
And then you have Econ PhDs. Their only paths are to go work for academia, to produce more Econ PhDs or to work for think tanks and the like, essentially no different to the journalists. They play the same role medical researchers working for the tobacco did in the 20th century.
You see this with the dominance in Western economics academia of the Austrian School [2], which isn't precisely the same as neoliberalism but the differences are nuanced.
The Austrian school does not dominate academia, not even close. Even the Wikipedia article you linked to says it's a heterodox school, meaning it's not mainstream.
> He says that the best economists in the world are traders. Why? Because they have this big number over their head, their profit and loss ("P&L") that everyone at the bank can see. It also defines their bonus.
This is kinda like the difference between climate science vs. weather forecasting. Being good at making short-term returns without giving a shit about the long-term damage it does is not the same as economic policy.
It has never been a science. You can't run controlled experiments outside of small microeconomic scenarios, so nothing is falsifiable or repeatable. It's all just arguing about correlation and causation.
I'm sure you believe in climate change, and climatology is even more removed than meteorology...
I've consistently found that people talking about the unscientific nature of economics are actually just upset with what it says, similar to people who are upset with what climatology says.
Economics is largely a prestige circle jerk. Anyone outside the top ivy departments has near zero chance of publishing research that gets traction. There is a small cabal of people that perpetuate this behavior. The field also just isnt that useful
There are many careers like this, including management consulting and high finance. The hope is that AI flips the script and democratizes these important functions in society
Why wouldn't you assume that AI doing it would only increase the amount of bad journalism and bad science? If the cost of something goes down shouldn't the amount of it increase?
It tends to go the other way around; politicians and academia pick economists that favor the way they'd like economics to be managed.
Consider that Ludwig Von Mises, one of the most famous economists never held a tenure track position. And Milton Friedman won a nobel prize, including a study of monetary history that damned the fed for helping bring on the great depression -- later nobel prize to Bernanke for works that included the great depression held quite different or even opposing views to Friedman.
My sampling of my interactions with young PhD economists is that they were all Neo-Keynesian, the only people I’ve met who are of the Austrian school were Engineers.
I don’t doubt that the economics profession has been shaped by politics but it appears they are and have been rather willing participants.
Economics involves studying how the economy should be managed, it is an inherently political field. Declaring one school political and another non-political is itself a political sleight of hand.
> Declaring one school political and another non-political
If I were to make a distinction it would be that Austrian is a Positive Theory and Neo-Keynesian is a Normative theory, and I think it’s fair to say that normative theories are more open to political influence than positive ones.
I'm pretty sure UNLV still has Hoppe and they only let go of Rothbard because he died. Which pairs pretty well with the pretty laissez-faire roots of Nevada.
That's like finding that very few PhD evolutionary biologists are young earth creationists. People who study economics wind up being neo-keynesians because that's what the data supports.
What on earth are you talking about? Hayek won a Nobel prize for works in economics but isn't a reputable economist?
Friedrich August von Hayek
The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel 1974
Born: 8 May 1899, Vienna, Austria
Died: 23 March 1992, Freiburg, Germany
Prize motivation: “for their pioneering work in the theory of money and economic fluctuations and for their penetrating analysis of the interdependence of economic, social and institutional phenomena”
Bernanke's opposing views on the Great Depression??
"Let me end my talk by abusing slightly my status as an official representative of the Federal Reserve. I would like to say to Milton and Anna: Regarding the Great Depression. You're right, we did it. We're very sorry. But thanks to you, we won't do it again." - Bernanke
Read "Conflicting Lessons of the Great Depression"[] chapter of Ben Bernanke versus Milton Friedman The Federal Reserve’s Emergence as the U.S. Economy’s Central Planner for a summary of differing or opposing viewpoints.
From the introduction:
...As Bernanke, while still only a member of the Fed’s board of governors, said in an address at a ninetieth-birthday celebration for Friedman: “I would like to say to Milton and Anna: Regarding the Great Depression. You’re right, we did it. We’re very sorry. But thanks to you, we won’t do it again” (2002b). This seeming similarity, however, disguises significant differences in Friedman’s and Bernanke’s approaches to financial crises...
Von Mises was a hack. He got accolades as a form of early affirmative action, to somehow balance all the Keynesian economists getting awards.
The whole Austrian "school" of economists basically _prides_ itself on not making predictions but using their dogma to explain whatever happens later. They always have an explanation why everything is a result of rational decisions of individuals. And if anything can't be explained by that, it's just because the government interferes with the perfection of markets.
Keynesian Bernanke on famed Austrian Milton Friedman:
"Among economic scholars, Friedman has no peer. His seminal contributions to economics are legion, including his development of the permanent-income theory of consumer spending, his paradigm-shifting research in monetary economics, and his stimulating and original essays on economic history and methodology."
At some level you can run all the econometric models you want to get an answer, but you can just ask an LLM and you'll probably get an answer that's just as accurate.
Only if you're dealing with easily available and clean data. And that's a big if. A commenter below was talking data science skills, and I think if you have data science skills and econometric skills you're probably in good shape job-wise.
This highlights an unspoken danger of AI. People are up in arms about AI taking jobs in Human Resources, customer service, low level coding, etc. But education will take a massive hit. PhD, masters and even BS degrees will be devastated. Unless an individual has documented real benefits to a bottom line of some business, the CV will be window dressing. The only field that will continue to offer steady employment will be crime.
This does point to one of the problems the article highlights. The US graduates 1385 PhDs in economics for 400 faculty positions. Those faculty positions face global competition. While it's a net benefit to US institutions to have the best tenured professors in the world, the US must also deal with the less than fully employed US PhD graduates.
> The US graduates 1385 PhDs in economics for 400 faculty positions. Those faculty positions face global competition.
If correct thats actually a pretty good ratio. In science you basically don't get a faculty position after the PhD, which lasts 5-7 years. You have to do a postdoc. Used to be 2-3 years, now its more like 5-6. To the extent its rare for any new faculty to be under the age 35.
And who would do the remaining jobs? I assume scientists are too busy and important to farm, build infrastructure (roads, bridges) or provide healthcare.
UCSD this year said they are not taking any new math PhD students due to the fiscal situation. The world of academia is in more flux than I've seen in recent memory.
This is some long horizon impact. Really just wildly unfortunate to see a disruption that feels unique. It's not due to war, even if academics could 'flee' to another institution, its a discarding of the prioritization of knowledge generation. The thing humanity has been built on.
It’s more aggressive than that. It’s an intentional dismantling of higher education overall.
Higher education pissed off half of customers in their quest for moral purity, at the same time as birth rate decline post-2008 began hitting, while raising prices +93% on average since 2008. That's not a great way to survive.
Academia didn't choose trickle-down policy. Quite the opposite -- that was you guys, after you purged all the leftist economists in the McCarthy era. In fact, the think-tank driven economics departments of recent years are so notoriously to the right of most academic faculty that this is a point of frequent conflict.
This wasn't a response to any of his arguments.
I am interested in what people have to say about them though.
1. DEI and identity politics prioritization 2. cost
> pissed off half of customers in their quest for moral purity
I'm not sure what 'half' means here. It's neither true that men make up half of applicants (which are really what we should be focusing on), nor that so-called 'conservatives' make up half of this population.
> nor that so-called 'conservatives' make up half of this population
There it is; the quest for moral purity continues.
> There it is; the quest for moral purity continues.
I am neither a university nor 'academia'.
I am, however, still unclear about what your point is.
It’s funny that instead of making points or adding data, you just repeat the same slogan and act like a victim. Many of us have tried to listen for a long time but we have never found any intellectual meat on the slogans. It’s boring.
> That's not a great way to survive.
Wait until you see how well setting it all on fire works.
At this point, we might be just fine. The academics won't be, but they were the ones telling everyone to wait on having kids in the first place. Demographic trickle down, biting the hand that feeds academia, is a big part of this story.
At my college, birth control was as free as water. Teaching people to postpone marriage, children, for the sake of career, combined with record-high school debt... might be partly why academia finds themselves in this demographic decline. They told the next generation not to have kids, made it financially impossible to have kids, and lo and behold, there's less kids entering college now.
Academia didn't make it financially impossible to have kids. Just what control do you think academia has over the market? Over the government?
"Raise house prices now or I'll send you to the principal's office!"
The gays didn't send house prices to the moon. Mexicans didn't send the jobs to China. No, it's the people with assets who pursued asset-pumping policy to great effect. You're right to be angry, but you're a fool to believe them when they point at universities as the source of the problem.
You seem to argue that academia of all places made having children being a chore. Not like, dunno, job security, housing and child care costs?
Whatever beef you got is what 'media' fed you selected smug academics to piss you off.
> At this point, we might be just fine. The academics won't be, but they were the ones telling everyone to wait on having kids in the first place. Demographic trickle down, biting the hand that feeds academia, is a big part of this story.
> At my college, birth control was as free as water. Teaching people to postpone marriage, children, for the sake of career, combined with record-high school debt... might be partly why academia finds themselves in this demographic decline. They told the next generation not to have kids, made it financially impossible to have kids, and lo and behold, there's less kids entering college now.
Hard to tell if this is just parody.
I will say that if feel that providing something equates to mandating it... I don't know how we're going to be able to have logical exchanges
How does the phrase go? Facts don't care about your feelings?
When one side of the political spectrum not only abandons scientific rigor, rationality, and questioning beliefs but attacks those ideals instead of religious devotion to dogma over evidence, then acts outraged that educated people tend not to share their beliefs, it's on them.
Which side are you talking about?
Anecdotally I have heard similar things from top tier institutions in the US as well. They are all in recession mode basically and actively cutting classes, staff, and lecturers.
This all started when the govt began withholding federal funding in an attempt to clamp down on campus protests
> This all started when the govt began withholding federal funding in an attempt to clamp down on campus protests
This is definitely not why the 'govt began withholding federal funding'
I hope they're cutting their bloated administration departments before cutting classes and lecturers, but I'm not holding my breath.
> bloated administration departments
Can you demonstrate how those administration departments were bloated (in any way)
edit: re-added "administration" which I had, for some reason, neglected to add, thinking that it was obvious that that was what I was talking about.
Yes, this fact is well-known and has been widely discussed. The first two google search results provide the stats:
https://students.bowdoin.edu/bowdoin-review/features/death-b...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulweinstein/2023/08/28/admini...
Both of those links (thanks for providing them) only talk about raw numbers, no real in depth analysis of whether the administrators are needed at those levels, or not, nor even how they classify someone as being an administrator.
I don't have any serious evidence, but the idea of "bloated administration" has been a meme for many years and I remember this humorous article describing it as a new chemical element floating around since around a decade ago: https://meyerweb.com/other/humor/administratium.html
Yeah - I often hear politically motivated speakers talk about "bloat" in various parts of organisations, but I've never (literally) seen anything beyond "numbers"
That's not really helpful, because, as I said to the other poster and have subsequently been down voted for it - that's not genuine analysis, we don't know anything about who is being described as "administration" nor do we know why they're there in the first place.
This seems like a broad overgeneralization unless you believe zero fat in grad schools is available for trimming.
Most phd programmes are very, very low fat when it comes to salaries.
An academic CS department has to attract PhD level talent in hot areas like ML while only paying $30k a year.
Is there a long term financial payoff, or does it mostly attract people who are choosing academia over commercial for some other reason?
The fat (insofar as it exists) is almost entirely not in mathematics PhD student funding.
Compared to almost any activity a university could take, it is incredibly cheap to bring in mathematics PhD students.
The sources of university funding and spending on administration has been broken for a long time.
What does a graduate math program need? A building with some offices and classrooms, wifi, email service, maybe a couple of secretaries and janitors, office supplies, and salaries for students and researchers/instructors.
What need does a math program have for any but the most basic administration? That's where all the money is going, where the biggest growth in spending is going.
You could cut university admin costs by 75% and lose nothing. Start with the top 25 university presidents who all earn a slightly rounded up 2 million a year and more.
Who pays for all that? Usually it's not the students or even private funders / donors. Most of the money comes from one level of the government or another, and it comes with all kinds of regulations and requirements. Complying with that requires a lot of specialized administrative staff.
Most of the time, when you hear a politician saying that universities should / should not do X, they are effectively saying that universities should spend more on administration.
Universities with a residential campus have a lot of staff in functions unrelated to the academic mission, such as student housing, food services, healthcare, or sports facilities. If they have to compete for students instead of most people just automatically choosing the nearest university, focusing on these tends to make them more competitive. And while student amenities are not particularly important to PhD students, they are important to the university if it also educates undergraduates.
Then there is the organization chart. In a traditional university, the faculty senate (or another similar body) is in charge and all administrators are subordinate to it. But the modern world prefers centralized organizations, with administrators at the top. And whoever is in charge also determines the priorities of the organization.
…and money to go to conferences and summer schools, and money for software licenses (especially in applied programs), and department funds to bring visiting academics, and the following things that get lumped under administration: money for grad student food pantries and childcare because funding streams for PhDs don’t provide for good salaries outright, and job advising centers because the math job market is a crapshoot, and free student health clinics for psychological and physical health because doing a PhD in any condition is rough…
Their acceptance rate is in the 25% range. Clearly the demand is there, so why is there a "fiscal situation"?
In the mid 90's I went to a university that had cafeteria-style food, and dorms with no air conditioning. You don't need Waygu beef and massages in order to teach students. There shouldn't be any "fiscal situation" in higher education.
What is a university anyway? It's some buildings and classrooms with professors and students. It should be SUPER CHEAP to run a university.
I'm struggling to understand why we have any current h-1b economist position when that job market is in "free-fall"? The FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF CHICAGO can't find an American economist?
https://h1bdata.info/index.php?em=&job=economist&city=&year=...
i don’t expect the fed to fix everyone’s problems… let them hire the best of the best, and let us internalize the benefits… i’m sure i don’t fully understand the significance of this, but from where i sit, in my fancy office chair in front of a very fancy home office setup (not to brag ;P), i see absolutely no compelling reason as to why hiring the best is a bad thing. is the accusation that the FED is trying to lowball american economists? somehow i am dubious, but am beyond open to being wrong.
> let them hire the best of the best
The sooner people realize that there is no such thing, the better. People are extremely incompetent in judging competence. With that said, the solution isn't to then just hire the person willing to do the work for the least amount of money. You americans should realize you live in a society together and have obligations to give each other chances. Plenty of bright people around. This new top down command and control culture that has taken root in the American corporate world will be the downfall of the nation. Everyone is just trying to screw over the next guy for a quick buck.
I could prove you wrong, but you don’t seem very open to it and I can’t under why you had to brag about how fancy your office is, so I’m not going to get started. But I don’t think you know what you’re talking about.
What intelligent economist would take work from this administration? There aren’t many unintelligent economists, and it’s not the sort of thing you can fake your way to a PhD in. With the U.S. branch of the field run aground on its refusal to identify the causal link from shareholder profits to inflation, failure to deliver solutions that don’t decrease profits is a certainty. So it makes perfect sense that they’d seek competent help offshore: any untried port in a storm of your own making.
Why hire an American who will ask for benefits, significant time off, work/life balance, etc. when you can hire an H-1B that you can treat like an indentured servant?
Plus most PhD have spent their whole life in education and haven't got any real work experience.
My first thought is wondering if it's one of two things:
A. The bottom half of PhD Economists are not being trained in the data science/Big Data side of analysis increasingly needed
B. There is less demand for Theory-sided Economists over computationally trained ones
Its C. the market doesn't follow traditional models anymore.
The whole profession was basically centered around putting a dollar amount on risk.
For example, lets say I give you a chance of either taking $1k now, or playing a game where you have 1 in 10 chance to win $200k. What would you do? The right answer is "sell" the risk to someone. For example, on the average, if I "buy" the game from 10 people, at a price of $10k each, I can realistically win twice what I spend.
Repeat that over x number of steps and more complex games, and that is what the PhDs worked on in terms of pricing.
For most of the time it worked ok. In a few instances (most notably the Gaussian Copula that was a large reason for the subprime house market crisis in 2007) it didn't.
The problem is that now, its impossible to predict whether orange man is going to throw a hissy fit and cause the market to go up or down, or if large investors are going to artificially prop up stock like they did with Tesla.
You're right that the orange man has been a big factor, but not because of his effect on the stock market. The stock market isn't the economy, and most Econ PhDs are not working on modeling stock prices.
As the article indicates, a huge portion of the market for hiring PhDs is directly or indirectly dependent on federal funding. Universities are freezing hiring and reducing PhD cohort sizes, institutions like the IMF and World Bank are in crisis, and US government agencies have been reducing staff sizes. There was hope that the tech industry would provide another big source of jobs for PhD economists, but that hasn't panned out.
Source: the article, and my wife works in the UChicago economics department.
There was an electric vehicle stock I was watching for awhile (WKHS) hoping for a good time to short. All their reports showed what I believed was an unviable vehicle, there was simply no way to produce it that was anywhere near gross margin positive and they didn't have the money nor access to capital to lose hundreds of millions proving that out. All the economics of the company was going to zero, and they had a ticking time bomb of debt they were about to default on.
Shortly before this debt time-bomb went off, Trump magically showed up tweeting in support of the company and alluded to a deal getting pulled off with GM. [] Of course, this ended up being spun off as Lordstown motors, a company that has failed horribly, including Hindenburg Research publishing a video of one of the few trucks they had literally catching on fire on the road while the CEO was simultaneously claiming they had hundreds of millions of dollars in solid orders (later fined by the SEC for that and barred from being an executive of a company for N years).
I still don't understand how Trump magically got involved with this penny stock at the 11th hour, but I can tell you I feel something very fishy happened there.
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/08/trump-tweet-sends-penny-stoc...
Its the old axiom best expressed by the philosopher Sir Michael Tyson - "Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face".
To the extent that a single person can cause economists' predictions to be off, those predictions were never good in the first place. We will always have unstable people in power, it's just human nature. If your predictions can't hold up in the face of that, then you need to refine them.
CS and DS people are getting more applied and gaining domain expertise, and can do a lot of economics work now. Academic economists, especially those who primarily do data science / big data, seem to basically be doing Masters-level data science projects for their Ph.D. The hard part in their Ph.D.s is collecting the data, which used to be a very manual job that relied on connections, but more of them are getting them or imputing them from public sources so it's not that impressive anymore.
Speaking as someone who has attended 3 economics Ph.D. defenses in the past two years.
Data science wasn't even a degree you could get 20 years ago. Twenty years ago if you were interested in what is now called data science, you were getting a degree with some kind of exposure to applied statistics. Economics is one of those disciplines (through econometrics).
> Data science wasn't even a degree you could get 20 years ago.
It was called statistics
No. Data science is different than statistics, because it is done on computers. It also uses machine learning algorithms instead of statistical algorithms. These advances, and the shedding of generations of restrictive cruft - frees data scientists to craft answers that their bosses want to hear - proving the superiority of data science over statistics.
In 2017, I listened to a highly cited Political Economist rant about how
"The whole damn field is turning into a bunch of Data Monkeys"
Referring to the rise of CS and DS minded economists in the field. His top student was a computer science major...
> Political Economist rant about how
Political economists are explicitly less interested in the quantitative side of economics - which is why they call themselves political economists.
Thus, the comment about data makes a lot of sense, and isn't evidence of what is going on with economists
His work and department was very quant heavy. I'd say the majority of his students spend most of their time in Python/R cleaning datasets running models
I'm not disagreeing with you, and I also know political economists from that time who complain that their discipline is changing. It just has very little to do with what this article is discussing.
The bitter lesson is making it so all these people hand designing features with econometric models are being obsoleted by big models and lots of data.
Economics academia has become its own only client.
Very few outside academia are interested in vector autoregression models of inflation, DSGE or identification strategies.
Traditional macroeconomic data and all the models that complemented it is technical debt.
This. My undergrad was in Economics (a long time ago). There was a time I thought about doing a PhD, but ended up doing an MS in Quant Finance instead. It's hard to believe that anyone can take a DSGE model seriously as a model of how the economy works.
For the unaware - graduate level Economics is nothing like pop Economics, it's essentially an applied math degree. But the math in question is extremely wonky. Mostly using Convex Set Theory and Brouwer Fixed Point Theorem from topology to prove the existence, uniqueness, and stability of a general equilibrium solution for a "market" of price-quantity commodity pairs. The assumptions needed to make it work are literally absurd.
> Mostly using Convex Set Theory and Brouwer Fixed Point Theorem from topology to prove the existence, uniqueness, and stability of a general equilibrium solution for a "market" of price-quantity commodity pairs. The assumptions needed to make it work are literally absurd.
This is true for the first foundational courses in micro and macro. The profession has moved beyond this and the last forty plus years of research have been looking at various relaxations of these assumptions.
I'm a pure math major, and I took several economics classes. The whole field was very baffling for me.
The most reliable model was the dead simple IS–LM, which is based on observations. But you don't really need a lot of math for it, so it's boring.
As a result, researchers keep trying to generalize the microeconomic behavior of people to derive macroeconomic laws. Like we do with the ideal gas laws. And this produces reams of beautiful math that you can investigate and tweak endlessly. But it doesn't seem to have a lot of predictive power.
Thing is, the part about using math for economics is highly debatable and that's why Austrian School of economics doesn't use it. From that perspective, we use ranking systems for our preferences, at the individual level, so using math for aggregate behaviour is just not well substantiated. This point of view comes from Carl Menger, which started the whole marginalist revolution.
Economists are stuck at a ceteris paribus level of comprehending what's going on. Forget about differential equations.
The theory you are discussing (grad micro 101 equilibrium existence) is not actually crazy if you think about what the mathematical assumptions actually imply. Really the economic assumptions boil down to "small changes in prices lead to small changes in demand" and the math is just rigorously defining small in terms of a general topology.
Small price changes don’t necessarily lead to small results. There’s a reason companies advertise 19.99 not 20 which has been experimentally verified many times.
People simply act irrationally, which is a fundamental issue when trying to treat economics as math.
Matter is not continuous and yet we don’t need atoms to predict how a metal sheet will bend. There are a lot of sound theories about how to deal with discontinuity, and how the problem solves itself when numbers get large enough.
Or think of it like weather and climate: we cannot predict that there will be a thunderstorm on a given day 2 months from now, but we can be fairly confident that in x years, the average global temperature will be y±z°C. Because when you aggregate enough events, statistical effects become dominant.
"But reality is not linear" is not really a gotcha.
Then why aren't all the quant shops snapping them up? It's not like their hiring needs are affected much by changes in the macro economy (except maybe trading volume and liquidity).
Because it's a very different type of math than that used in Quant Finance. Econ PhD programs don't want people with broad math skills, they want people who know the very narrow slice of math needed to solve these very unusual models. Quant Finance mainly uses PDEs and Brownian Motion stuff that all Math and Physics majors learn.
Borrowing a line from Rentec, probably because they'd rather prefer pure-math or physics people not "tainted" by economic dogma
On the other hand Cliff Asness and AQR are perfectly happy to rake in money by using the "dogma" as you describe it to analyze and trade in financial markets.
The opportunities are in applications that lead to job opportunities in other departments, especially with the rise of secondary data analysis in other fields… I would sell myself as as a methodologist in a field of application, rather than an economist first.
For example, I do health systems research in an academic medical center. I work with a health economics research unit that doesn’t mint PhDs, but does hire at all stages of the academic career, and there’s been a lot of mobility for their “alums” - just not in traditional Econ departments.
I still couldn't quite grasp the underlying issue. People are not studying economics so schools are not creating those positions, but then it seemed to draw the line to people not studying economics due to the lack of positions in academia, so chicken and egg? I guess it's just that it compounds with the hiring freezes in the public sector mentioned?
I came away feeling unsatisfied, is there a bigger cultural thing going on here?
There are multiple issues in the Phd/Faculty market. Different fields are at different phases of the cycle. The biggest trend is that Universities expanded in the 1950s and 60s, and are now contracting as population declines. Universities continue to increase Phd production despite declining total employment numbers as Phd students provide cheap labor. Numerous non-tenure track positions have been created to fill the void with mixed results.
This is the case in many fields but not in Economics. There is little incentive to pad out PhD counts for cheap labor since the vast majority of the Econ PhD is either taking classes in first and second year or working on independent research after that. All job market candidates are expected to have a solo authored paper on the market with some asterisks I won't get into. There is little in the way of big labs or PIs who require endless RAs. To the extent we need RAs it's often undergrads or predocs doing data cleaning stuff.
When I was growing up the fear of WW3 was ever present and occupied the minds of intellectuals. One of the big questions was how can we prevent another Great Depression. The Great Depression was blamed for the rise of Fascism in Europe (the collapse of Weimar Germany and the rise of Hitler). There was genuine fear that Communism would also take root in the US during the Great Depression. People looked to economists for an explanation and a cure. For better or worse, the elites believe they have an answer. My understanding is that the consensus is that government must move heaven and earth to keep the financial machinery (banks and payment services)flowing. To prevent a chain reaction where the collapse of a big bank would lead to the preventable closures of many businesses and loss of jobs.
> The Great Depression was blamed for the rise of Fascism in Europe (the collapse of Weimar Germany and the rise of Hitler).
Fascism in Europe was already well underway when the Great Depression started in '29. Weimar Germany collapsed due to the terms of Treaty of Versailles which essentially broke Germany's economy (Germany was essentially already in a depression well before the US). However, there was a very real fear in the US that the downturn that would later become known as The Great Depression would lead to fascism in the US.
A specific market collapse, or a general one?
---
Quick edit: I also dislike the persistent narrative of 'guaranteed' placement for certain degrees and occupations. This assumes a stagnant market and skill-set that does not at all hold for current-day markets.
That will depend on if it fits the narrative or not.
Academic hiring has taken a big hit with the uncertainty and decline in federal funding.
Many academics that I've talked with say that their departments are cutting back to 50% of last year's PhD enrollment due to budget cuts and uncertainty. These were in biology and chemistry.
This needs to be stressed. It's not just uncertainty of grants. That's a given, even when fed is stable.
Schools are questioning basic financial aid now. If Trump follows through on eliminating ED, no one is confident that there's a plan for any of the essential services and payments. . . Because there's never really been a plan for anything else.
Higher education is scared right now.
It's the plan they've been saying all along, right? Seems like Trump / Project 2025 want to push apprenticeship programs instead. [1][2][3]
[1] https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/04/fact-sheet-pr...
[2] https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/04/prep...
[3] https://static.heritage.org/project2025/2025_MandateForLeade...
The article is focused exclusively on the US. What about the rest of the world? From what I've heard, it's a similar situation?
Academic salaries in the US are much higher than anywhere else. That's where every academic wants to work. Consider this, many places in Europe pay their junior faculty as little as PhD candidates in the US.
I know this is controversial but there are so many foreign students in the PhD programs across the country. Some programs actually favor non-US students. Some professors quite explicitly pick their own race despite that being highly illegal. I think higher ed in the US became a major scam.
What does this have to do with anything here? The only common thread is that it's related to PhDs. You just have a bone to pick with our higher education being so desirable that people upend their lives to come and participate in it at great expense? This has been a significant source of soft power for the US, as both a self-reinforcing function ensuring we attract and retain top research talent, and by seeding American-educated intellectuals back to their home countries to increase our global influence. Nothing about this was bad for any party involved.
Of course, with the rampant anti-intellectualism burning a path through our institutions, we're currently doing our best to kill that and make sure we fall behind in every respect.
It has everything to do with it considering where things are with current admin. Also why do you think people are sacrificing so much to study in the US? It’s mostly funded. They even get stipends. We are basically paying them to get their degrees here. But you seem to think that they’re doing us a huge favor. What an odd way to think about it.
The PhD student segregation was blatant even going back a few decades, but it was based on country of origin not race.
You’d have a Chinese professor and all his students were Chinese, an Indian professor and all hers were Indian etc… The American born professors tended to have mostly American born students, but it was a bit more mixed.
It’s hard to know whether this was based on the professor’s preference or the students’.
Not to mention the sexual misconduct and coercion
Well the economic framework they have been trained for is collapsing so there’s that
Can confirm that UK computer science PhD positions decrease too. This is largely due to departments and grants tightening their belts.
Well ya, when the richest and most powerful people/corporations/nations in the world actively work against established economic theory.
Trickle down economics, austerity, regressive tax policies, tariffs, appeasement, lax antitrust enforcement, slashing capital gains and inheritance tax, privatization of natural monopolies, quantitative easing instead of holding investment firms accountable, foreign aid for war instead of peace, defunding public universities to manufacture a student loan crisis, public sector layoffs, subsidizing extractive industries instead of renewables, sub-minimum wage in restaurants/farms/prisons, underpaying teachers and healthcare workers, rent seeking, payola, collusion, duopoly, usury, unpaid domestic labor, wage slavery..
And the inevitable aftermath of wishing the worst for others: stagflation, underemployment, civil unrest, eventually recession, depression and a raid on concentrated wealth if/when supply-side economics collapses because nobody has any money to buy anything anymore.
In spite of overwhelming evidence of public and private abuses, nobody cares what the experts think anymore. Because it's obvious to everyone that so much is wrong. People who try to help get blamed, people who participate in the grift get rewarded as things get worse.
Unfortunately as wealth inequality consumes us under self-colonization, all liberal arts degrees trend towards worthless. We're left with declining service work after passing peak wages and peak employment due to the rise of AI. Spending the rest of our lives fighting over scraps after the rug was already pulled out from under us due to the Dot Bomb, Housing Bubble, pandemic, private equity driving housing costs to the point of insanity and a trade war of choice.
Or we could like, follow economic theory and stuff. Do the opposite of everything I just mentioned. Can't have the Econ PhDs telling us that!
I was on the market last year as a fairly strong candidate, my advisors expected me to get a good tenure track job in a Finance department. I had first round interviews at multiple top 10 departments before things really went pear-shaped.
Here's what actually happened. The market looked pretty normal until November 5th, and then after that things went downhill. First the Fed Board of Governors stopped hiring (some regional banks kept hiring but had their offers explode on Jan 20). Then in January universities which had already done their first round interviews started imposing hiring freezes and cancelling flyouts. At the same time the Federal Government completely stopped hiring with DOGE coming in. Private sector hiring has been down for a few years since the ZIRP era ended so that part isn't new.
In the end I got a postdoc at a pretty good US university and will go on the market again in 2026-2027 with a much stronger portfolio than I had last year. Hopefully that will be enough for me, but I know for many others they may not be so lucky.
Good luck; we probably crossed paths (I was helping a bit on the hiring side at some point). A postdoc is a really great option, I've seen lots of people do that before going for a bschool so it can definitely can work.
BTW one other thing besides what you mentioned is not just the freeze but the firings. FDIC lost 30% of staff, BOG is going to reduce maybe 10%, CFPB is no more, etc. so the market is actually being flooded with senior economists. They won't compete directly with the posts you want but still flood the market.
Knowledge is not a hot industry right now. Being a confident moron is pretty hot, though. Best thing you can do for your career is get fired for being a jerk, post a lot about that, start a podcast, and maybe, as a stretch goal, choke a guy to death.
The biggest problem research has is that its almost never clear what the result will be to the bottom line.
People complain bitterly about two things with research
1. That it's looking at obvious things and they could have told the answer (What's really happened is some researcher has actually looked into some common school of thought to check its reliability)
2. That there's no "use" for the thing be researched (it's absurd). This type of research is really "document phenomena, try to understand it" the use of that phenomena is often not clear for decades, or centuries (our cryptographic systems currently rely on research into math that was once considered absolutely worthless)
Welcome to the world. A PhD guarantees nothing, tenured position barely exist anymore. Weird that economists did not realize this yet...
agree. All job markets are 'bad'. The number of openings is greatly exceeded by people applying. this is true for pretty much everything.
Excellent book review by Noah Smith that is relevant: https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/book-review-doughnut-economics.
"Here’s a very short, oversimplified history of modern economics. In the 1960s and 1970s, a particular way of thinking about economics crystallized in academic departments, and basically took over the top journals. It was very math-heavy, and it modeled the economy as the sum of a bunch of rational human agents buying and selling things in a market.
The people who invented these methods (Paul Samuelson, Ken Arrow, etc.) were not very libertarian at all. But in the 70s and 80s a bunch of conservative-leaning economists used the models to claim that free markets were great. The models turned out to be pretty useful for saying “free markets are great”, simply because math is hard — it’s a lot easier to mathematically model a simple, well-functioning market than it is to model a complex world where markets are only part of the story, and where markets themselves have lots of pieces that break down and don’t work. So the intellectual hegemony of this type of mathematical model sort of dovetailed with the rise of libertarian ideology, neoliberal policy, and so on."
>For decades, a doctorate in economics was a golden ticket. It promised a path to tenure, or at worst, a lucrative role at a central bank, think tank, or tech firm.
So, the field is being consumed by the ideology it espoused?
Automation and leaner government budgets were pushed hard by a number of schools of economic thought.
Of particular note is this section:
> REASON 4: Lying About Inflation
If you were there during the pandemic money printing, you remember the sequence all too well: first the confident insistence that government spending wouldn’t fuel inflation, then the soothing claim that inflation was merely “transitory,” and finally the outright gaslighting that prices weren’t rising at all. Each step was wrong, and each was delivered with smug certainty. Ordinary people—who watched their rent, groceries, and gas bills skyrocket—saw a profession more invested in protecting Democratic policy narratives than in telling the truth. The result is a self-inflicted torching of trust.
This isn't about protecting Democratic policy narratives. Arguably the single worst thing for inflation, the Paycheck Protection Program, happened under Trump. You had business owners taking out loans for pretty much anything and everything they thought they could possibly justify as business-related, no matter how tenuous that justification was, and then of course the government forgave massive amounts of it. Since business owners already tend to have more money and capital, this fueled their consumption of then-scarce products and services even more. Laws of supply-and-demand kicked in, which shouldn't be hard for the author to understand.
Ultimately the inflation that happened during the pandemic was due to the fact that for the last 45-ish years, the US has been running deficits not just in the public sector, but the private sector as well. Our economy is designed to run on debt that suddenly, people couldn't pay on time. They then looked to the government to offer a backstop, and since federal, state, and local governments have no "rainy day" fund to speak of, the federal government had to fire up the money printers.
I watched a video by Gary Stevenson the other day and it sheds light on our current issues.
He was a trader for Citibank and for awhile their highest paid trader. He essentially made a fortune (mostly for the bank but also for himself) by betting that after the 2008 GFC inequality would only increase, that we wouldn't go back to "normal".
He says that the best economists in the world are traders. Why? Because they have this big number over their head, their profit and loss ("P&L") that everyone at the bank can see. It also defines their bonus. All the finance and econ people in college are trying to become traders.
Then you have journalists. Any of them with an econ background have basically failed to become traders. Journalists self-select to reflect the views of their organization, famously articulated by Noam Chomsky in an interview [1].
And then you have Econ PhDs. Their only paths are to go work for academia, to produce more Econ PhDs or to work for think tanks and the like, essentially no different to the journalists. They play the same role medical researchers working for the tobacco did in the 20th century.
You see this with the dominance in Western economics academia of the Austrian School [2], which isn't precisely the same as neoliberalism but the differences are nuanced.
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvGmBSHFuj0
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_school_of_economics
The Austrian school does not dominate academia, not even close. Even the Wikipedia article you linked to says it's a heterodox school, meaning it's not mainstream.
Academia is dominated by Keynesianism.
> He says that the best economists in the world are traders. Why? Because they have this big number over their head, their profit and loss ("P&L") that everyone at the bank can see. It also defines their bonus.
This is kinda like the difference between climate science vs. weather forecasting. Being good at making short-term returns without giving a shit about the long-term damage it does is not the same as economic policy.
The "Dismal Science"?
It has never been a science. You can't run controlled experiments outside of small microeconomic scenarios, so nothing is falsifiable or repeatable. It's all just arguing about correlation and causation.
This is like saying meteorology is not a science.
I'm sure you believe in climate change, and climatology is even more removed than meteorology...
I've consistently found that people talking about the unscientific nature of economics are actually just upset with what it says, similar to people who are upset with what climatology says.
Weather reports are really accurate. Economic forecasts less so.
Economics is largely a prestige circle jerk. Anyone outside the top ivy departments has near zero chance of publishing research that gets traction. There is a small cabal of people that perpetuate this behavior. The field also just isnt that useful
There are many careers like this, including management consulting and high finance. The hope is that AI flips the script and democratizes these important functions in society
You lost me when you mentioned management consulting and high finance as important functions in society.
Doubtful the AI democratizes this. If anything it centralizes power and capital even more.
One of the more salutary effects of AI will be the removal of bad journalism and bad science (bad in the sense of slop).
Can I ask you why you think that will happen?
Because the job can be done by AI.
Yes, I was unprecise to the point of being wrong.
Why wouldn't you assume that AI doing it would only increase the amount of bad journalism and bad science? If the cost of something goes down shouldn't the amount of it increase?
Wrong. The bad journalism just now uses AI.
You're right
People in power (including the people running these Ai companies) love bad journalism and bad science.
Their predecessors should have done a better job managing the economy.
It tends to go the other way around; politicians and academia pick economists that favor the way they'd like economics to be managed.
Consider that Ludwig Von Mises, one of the most famous economists never held a tenure track position. And Milton Friedman won a nobel prize, including a study of monetary history that damned the fed for helping bring on the great depression -- later nobel prize to Bernanke for works that included the great depression held quite different or even opposing views to Friedman.
My sampling of my interactions with young PhD economists is that they were all Neo-Keynesian, the only people I’ve met who are of the Austrian school were Engineers.
I don’t doubt that the economics profession has been shaped by politics but it appears they are and have been rather willing participants.
Economics involves studying how the economy should be managed, it is an inherently political field. Declaring one school political and another non-political is itself a political sleight of hand.
> Declaring one school political and another non-political
If I were to make a distinction it would be that Austrian is a Positive Theory and Neo-Keynesian is a Normative theory, and I think it’s fair to say that normative theories are more open to political influence than positive ones.
One school consists of every university in the world. The other school is George Mason University, and, uh, the John Birch Society.
Also Grove City College has been dedicated to the Austrian School since 1956 apparently, when they hired Hans Sennholz: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Sennholz
I'm pretty sure UNLV still has Hoppe and they only let go of Rothbard because he died. Which pairs pretty well with the pretty laissez-faire roots of Nevada.
That's like finding that very few PhD evolutionary biologists are young earth creationists. People who study economics wind up being neo-keynesians because that's what the data supports.
It’s not surprising that aspiring economists prefer the theory which loads them with power.
Ludwig Von Mises was never qualified for a university appointment.
Even today he would never have a chance at a reputable economics department -- only GMU gives any credence to that kind of witch doctor nonsense.
It's amazing Hayek won a Nobel after being the student of such a washout.
People, both then and now, are fond of Hayek and Von Mises works in anti-communist polemic. At no point were they reputable economists.
What on earth are you talking about? Hayek won a Nobel prize for works in economics but isn't a reputable economist?
https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/economic-sciences/1974/hay...Bernanke's opposing views on the Great Depression??
"Let me end my talk by abusing slightly my status as an official representative of the Federal Reserve. I would like to say to Milton and Anna: Regarding the Great Depression. You're right, we did it. We're very sorry. But thanks to you, we won't do it again." - Bernanke
https://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/speeches/2002/20021...
Read "Conflicting Lessons of the Great Depression"[] chapter of Ben Bernanke versus Milton Friedman The Federal Reserve’s Emergence as the U.S. Economy’s Central Planner for a summary of differing or opposing viewpoints.
From the introduction:
https://www.sjsu.edu/people/tom.means/courses/econsymposium/...Von Mises was a hack. He got accolades as a form of early affirmative action, to somehow balance all the Keynesian economists getting awards.
The whole Austrian "school" of economists basically _prides_ itself on not making predictions but using their dogma to explain whatever happens later. They always have an explanation why everything is a result of rational decisions of individuals. And if anything can't be explained by that, it's just because the government interferes with the perfection of markets.
The Austrian school is economics for people who never learned calculus.
That doesn’t mean they don’t have interesting things to say now and then, but it’s mostly just a collection of folk wisdom.
Keynesian Bernanke on famed Austrian Milton Friedman:
"Among economic scholars, Friedman has no peer. His seminal contributions to economics are legion, including his development of the permanent-income theory of consumer spending, his paradigm-shifting research in monetary economics, and his stimulating and original essays on economic history and methodology."
https://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/speeches/2002/20021...
the people with economics PhDs are not the people in control of economic policy.
They're frequently the "oh ffs don't do that" folks, even.
At some level you can run all the econometric models you want to get an answer, but you can just ask an LLM and you'll probably get an answer that's just as accurate.
Only if you're dealing with easily available and clean data. And that's a big if. A commenter below was talking data science skills, and I think if you have data science skills and econometric skills you're probably in good shape job-wise.
This highlights an unspoken danger of AI. People are up in arms about AI taking jobs in Human Resources, customer service, low level coding, etc. But education will take a massive hit. PhD, masters and even BS degrees will be devastated. Unless an individual has documented real benefits to a bottom line of some business, the CV will be window dressing. The only field that will continue to offer steady employment will be crime.
This does point to one of the problems the article highlights. The US graduates 1385 PhDs in economics for 400 faculty positions. Those faculty positions face global competition. While it's a net benefit to US institutions to have the best tenured professors in the world, the US must also deal with the less than fully employed US PhD graduates.
> The US graduates 1385 PhDs in economics for 400 faculty positions. Those faculty positions face global competition.
If correct thats actually a pretty good ratio. In science you basically don't get a faculty position after the PhD, which lasts 5-7 years. You have to do a postdoc. Used to be 2-3 years, now its more like 5-6. To the extent its rare for any new faculty to be under the age 35.
What! Tradeskills are clearly in demand and pay great. A good plumber where I live is over $800/hr.
Dont forget the worlds oldest profession.
Thank god TikTok and Insta are grooming us already. We will be ready!
AI girlfriends are coming for that too
The scientific community needs a new safe haven. It would be
1. A country specifically tailor made for scientists and engineers.
2. A country with no first class citizens
Something like Switzerland or Dubai for science and engineering, but made from scratch.
And who would do the remaining jobs? I assume scientists are too busy and important to farm, build infrastructure (roads, bridges) or provide healthcare.
It did not say scientist-only.
It was greenspans favorite book after all