Winner of thexa0getAbstract International Book Award― getAbstract "Excellent...Few have grappled as energetically with the complexity of real life as Esther Duflo and Abhijit Banerjee, or got their boots as dirty in the process...A treasure trove of insight...[Readers] will be captivated by the authors' curiosity, ferocious intellects and attractive modesty."― The Economist A Wall Street Journal Bestseller A USA Today Bestseller "Carefully argued and backed with research... Good Economics is an effective response to Banerjee and Duflo's more thoughtful critics, some of whom argued that devotion to randomised trials had led to a narrowing of economics, in which complex questions that could not be scientifically tested should simply be set aside. The authors make a convincing case that empirical economics contains answers to many vexing problems, from populism to identity politics, especially when economists are willing to range outside their discipline's confines."― Financial Times "'Good Economics for Hard Times' lives up to its authors' reputations, giving a masterly tour of the current evidence on critical policy questions facing less-than-perfect markets in both developed and developing countries, from migration to trade to postindustrial blight."― Wall Street Journal "Their goal is to ground both sides of our national debate in hard evidence, and the process of coming up with ways to do that is pretty interesting in itself... Eager to distance themselves from the previous generation of economists who argued from first principles, Banerjee and Duflo say nothing that smells like special pleading. It would be hard to take umbrage with such studied humility. The authors admit, 'We clearly don't have all the solutions, and suspect no one else does either.' Even so, the prospect of a path towards consensus solutions through iterated experiments is enough to make for a compelling read."― National Review "The studies they cite probe hot topics such as climate change, immigration and the viability of continued economic growth. Banerjee and Duflo synthesize the literature on what is agreed and what is controversial in an accessible, often entertaining way."― Nature " Good Economics for Hard Times makes important policy connections and suggestions... Banerjee and Duflo explore traditional remedies (tariffs sure aren't the answer, they find, and job retraining and other trade adjustment tools are too narrow and take too long) and suggest some novel ideas... In crafting their carefully reasoned arguments, they marshal evidence assembled over decades from all sorts of areas-the fight against malaria, past efforts at tax reform, previous waves of migration-and propose commonsense solutions."― Foreign Policy "Lucid and frequently surprising... Banerjee and Duflo's arguments are original and open-minded and their evidence is clearly presented. Policy makers and lay readers looking for fresh insights into contemporary economic matters will savor this illuminating book."― Publishers Weekly, Starred Review "A canard-slaying, unconventional take on economics...This might look like yet another conventional state-of-the-world economics book, but it is anything but. It is an invigorating ride through 21st-century economics and a treasure trove of facts and findings."― The Times (UK) " Good Economics for Hard Times lives up to its authors' reputations, giving a masterly tour of the current evidence on critical policy questions facing less-than-perfect markets in both developed and developing countries, from migration to trade to postindustrial blight."― William Easterly, The Wall Street Journal "An excellent antidote to the most dangerous forms of economics bashing...Abhijit Banerjee and Esther Duflo, write beautifully and are in full command of their subject. Perhaps the greatest contribution of Good Economics ... is precisely this: it demonstrates both the brilliant insights that mainstream economics can make available to us and its limits, which a progressive internationalism has a duty to transcend."― Yanis Varoufakis, The Guardian "Not all economists wear ties and think like bankers. In their wonderfully refreshing book, Banerjee and Duflo delve into impressive areas of new research questioning conventional views about issues ranging from trade to top income taxation and mobility, and offer their own powerful vision of how we can grapple with them. A must-read."― Thomas Piketty, professor, Paris School of Economics, andauthor of Capital in the Twenty-first Century "A magnificent achievement, and the perfect book for our time. Banerjee and Duflo brilliantly illuminate the largest issues of the day, including immigration, trade, climate change, and inequality. If you read one policy book this year -- heck, this decade - read this one."― Cass R. Sunstein, Robert Walmsley University Professor,Harvard University, and author, How Change Happens "Banerjee and Duflo have shown brilliantly how the best recent research in economics can be used to tackle the most pressing social issues: unequal economic growth, climate change, lack of trust in public action. Their book is an essential wake-up call for intelligent and immediate action!"― Emmanuel Saez, professor of economics at UC Berkeley "One of the things that makes economics interesting and difficult is the need to balance the neat generalities of theory against the enormous variety of deviations from standard assumptions: lags, rigidities, simple inattention, society's irrepressible tendency to alter what are sometimes thought of as bedrock characteristics of economic behavior. Banerjee and Duflo are masters of this terrain. They have digested hundreds of lab experiments, field experiments, statistical studies, and common observation to find regularities and irregularities that shape important patterns of economic behavior and need to be taken into account when we think about central issues of policy analysis. They do this with simple logic and plain English. Their book is as stimulating as it gets."― Robert Solow, Nobel Prize winner and emeritus professor of economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology "In these tumultuous times when many bad policies and ideas are bandied around in the name of economics, common sense-and good economics-is even more sorely needed than usual. This wide-ranging and engaging book by two leading economists puts the record straight and shows that we have much to learn from sensible economic ideas, and not just about immigration, trade, automation, and growth, but also about the environment and political discourse. A must-read."― Daron Acemoglu, Elizabeth and James Killian Professor of Economics, MIT, and coauthor of Why Nations Fail "Banerjee and Duflo move beyond the simplistic forecasts that abound in the Twittersphere and in the process reframe the role of economics. Their dogged optimism about the potential of economics research to deliver makes for an informative and uplifting read."― Pinelopi Goldberg, Elihu Professor of Economics, Yale University, and chief economist of the World Bank Group "In Good Economics for Hard Times , Banerjee and Duflo, two of the world's great economists, parse through what economists have to say about today's most difficult challenges-immigration, job losses from automation and trade, inequality, tribalism and prejudice, and climate change. The writing is witty and irreverent, always informative but never dull. Banerjee and Duflo are the teachers you always wished for but never had, and this book is an essential guide for the great policy debates of our times."― Raghuram Rajan, Katherine Dusak Miller Distinguished Service Professor of Finance at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business Abhijit V. Banerjee is the Ford Foundation International Professor of Economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Esther Duflo is the Abdul Latif Jameel Professor of Poverty Alleviation and Development Economics in the Department of Economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. They are the winners of the 2019 Nobel Prize in Economics. Their previous book together is Poor Economics: A Radical Rethinking of the Way to Fight Global Poverty , winner of the 2011 Financial Times and Goldman Sachs Business Book of the Year Award.
Features & Highlights
The winners of the Nobel Prize show how economics, when done right, can help us solve the thorniest social and political problems of our day.
Figuring out how to deal with today's critical economic problems is perhaps the great challenge of our time. Much greater than space travel or perhaps even the next revolutionary medical breakthrough, what is at stake is the whole idea of the good life as we have known it.Immigration and inequality, globalization and technological disruption, slowing growth and accelerating climate change--these are sources of great anxiety across the world, from New Delhi and Dakar to Paris and Washington, DC. The resources to address these challenges are there--what we lack are ideas that will help us jump the wall of disagreement and distrust that divides us. If we succeed, history will remember our era with gratitude; if we fail, the potential losses are incalculable.In this revolutionary book, renowned MIT economists Abhijit V. Banerjee and Esther Duflo take on this challenge, building on cutting-edge research in economics explained with lucidity and grace. Original, provocative, and urgent,
Good Economics for Hard Times
makes a persuasive case for an intelligent interventionism and a society built on compassion and respect. It is an extraordinary achievement, one that shines a light to help us appreciate and understand our precariously balanced world.
Customer Reviews
Rating Breakdown
★★★★★
60%
(2.4K)
★★★★
25%
(982)
★★★
15%
(589)
★★
7%
(275)
★
-7%
(-276)
Most Helpful Reviews
★★★★★
3.0
AFKYM4RH7CQ4IMJIU6DB...
✓ Verified Purchase
Academic justification of neoliberal economic policy
I've studied economics quite a bit as a policy professional and picked this up basically because I liked the title and its a "best seller" , whatever that means. This book is an easy read for being written by economists. It makes considerable effort to refute the populist rhetoric espoused by Trump, Steve Bannon, and the people that voted for Trump.
I really wanted to enjoy the book, and it makes several good points. It is a good introduction to the application of economic theory in the real world, using plenty of easy to follow studies as examples. Perhaps I expected more from Nobel Prize winners? Because, to me, just another example of how out of touch the "coastal liberal elites" actually are. For example, the authors take hundreds of pages to explain all the ways how great immigration is for low-skilled workers, using plenty of convincing real world examples, but then comes to the tepid conclusion that, over the span of ten years, wages for low-skilled workers actually increase slightly as a result of immigration. As if that is somehow going to make up for the immediate problem of unemployment and housing shortages two or three years into a large immigration event. Yes they make the point that the economy is "sticky" but that's just applying an academic label to real people's lives, and it doesn't solve the stickiness problem.
Being an immigrant to the US myself, I can identify with all the qualities the authors describe immigrants possessing, but I still can understand how an American with my skill set would resent my arrival to compete with him or her for a good paying job. Furthermore, given that immigrants are less apt to be demanding of their employers for better working conditions, and less likely to engage in collective action, a greater supply of workers reduces the quality and conditions of employment in the USA, especially among the professional class. Put another way, the authors completely ignore the very real fact that immigration to the USA benefits employers and Wall Street moreso than any other demographic. I wish the authors would have addressed the fact that American workers have no right to paid vacation, paid parental leave, and work longer hours than their counterparts in other countries.
Here's the problem I have with the first half of this book: it attempts to provide distant, abstract, academic solutions to issues that often negatively affect people's lives on a personal level in the here and now. Try telling a low-skilled worker that he's better off losing his job because in ten years he'll have a better job when, two years into it, he and his friends are unemployed, addicted to opioids, and alternately ignored and scorned by their government.
This book is, at best, out of touch and, at worst, condescending to the working class struggling with the impacts of neoliberal economics. I really wish they would have addressed what is, to me, the biggest economic issue in the USA today: the absolute failure of the for-profit health care industry.
edit: I see my review has attracted some... criticism? Of my subjective opinion? OK. First of all, I have the kindle version of the book. I don't know how this can become a "verified" purchase. Also, I don't disagree with everything in the book. I support higher taxes on the wealthy and believe scapegoating immigrants is ignoring a much bigger, structural issue. It is encouraging that they at least look outside the US for policy fixes.
I am, in theory, a supporter of Schumpeterian creative destruction that inevitably causes job loss and/or displacement, if the outcome is more just, equal/less polluting. But the policy shifts described in this book are not resulting in a more just, equitable and less polluted world; it's the opposite. The concentration of wealth into the hands of the very wealthy is accelerating, increased global trade has most definitely accelerated carbon emissions, all because of the policies this book supports (or at least doesn't do a good job of critiquing). I agree with the chapter addressing the very real impending tsunami of low skill job loss caused by automation (Andrew Yang's major issue). Telling people to "learn to code" is both insufficient and condescending (another sign of a deeply polarized union). It seems to strawman every stereotype of the ignorant Trump supporter without addressing the actual underlying problems that people in the heartland are seeing. We need more policy and less politics. These economic issues were not caused by Trump; rather, Trump is a symptom of the underlying issues.
People need to turn off the TV and pick up a book, and if you're not an economist and not looking for concrete answers but some entertaining vignettes, this might be the book for you. Nevertheless, seeing as this is MY subjective opinion, and not a directive of what other folks should think, I, personally, will look elsewhere for answers.
516 people found this helpful
★★★★★
5.0
AHH5YDJMKFPDTWEUKRFW...
✓ Verified Purchase
Helps understand the economic issues in today's presidential campaigns!
Presidential candidate Andrew Yang postulates a fourth industrial revolution, where many people will be unemployed because of trade and technology—he proposes a “guaranteed basic income.” Elizabeth Warren thinks a “wealth tax” would solve our problems. They both agree with the authors of this book, who propose that people “tend to blame immigration and trade liberalization rather than the increasing vacuuming of resources toward the very rich.” If you wonder if such ideas promoted in the presidential campaigns would solve our problems (or even wonder what they are talking about!), this may be the book for you. Go to the experts: The Nobel prize in economics for 2019 was awarded jointly to Abhijit Banerjee, Esther Duflo and Michael Kremer "for their experimental approach to alleviating global poverty."
The authors throw out various theories about how the economy can be fixed. They find the data does not always back up what seems intuitive: For instance, “…tax cuts for the wealthy do not produce economic growth.” They include studies from other countries, as well as the U.S. “A recurring theme of this book is that it is unreasonable to expect markets to always deliver outcomes that are just, acceptable, or even efficient.” The economy is “sticky” because of the idiosyncrasies we humans have, such as reluctance to leave our home and loved ones to pursue a better job.
The authors started with the issues of immigration and trade, then went on to problems like inequality (“the evolution of inequality is not the byproduct of technological changes we do not control; it is the result of policy decisions.”) and climate change (how to pay for reducing pollution). They review some of the ideas that have been tried, and where available, data on the effects. They remind us that the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) doesn’t reflect things like time with a loved one or enjoying the beauty of nature, but only “those things priced and marketed.”
Some quotes: “The spirit of this book is to emphasize that there are no iron laws of economics keeping us from building a more humane world, but there are many people whose blind faith, self-interest, or simple lack of understanding of economics makes them claim this is the case.” “…if collectively we as a society do not manage to act now to design policies that will help people survive and hold on to their dignity in this world of high inequality, citizens’ confidence in society’s ability to deal with this issue might be permanently undermined.” “Good economics alone cannot save us. But without it, we are doomed to repeat the mistakes of yesterday.”
74 people found this helpful
★★★★★
1.0
AH6WUKOVAYPKS6KK3V5A...
✓ Verified Purchase
Rushed Political Garbage to Cash-In on Nobel Prize
Nobel Prize winners from MIT? Even with a background in economics, I'm going to learn something. Oh. After reading 50 pages, I only learned they don't like Trump. Scanned the next hundred; more of the same, and they think Amazon is interesting. Skimmed to end; only two basic diagrams to accompany all of this drivel.
Waste of time and money. I'd donate this book to my library, but why subject my neighbors to this garbage?
55 people found this helpful
★★★★★
2.0
AFMCVDMOC4AOXTXEF42R...
✓ Verified Purchase
What Can We Learn from Economists?
In the first chapter, the authors describe with alarm the increasing polarization between liberals and conservatives in the US, resulting in government policies which are often misguided and counterproductive. They claim that economists have much to say about "hot button" issues (such as immigration, trade, income inequality, etc), but complain that the public doesn't have much trust in economists. Ironically, the remainder of this book demonstrates why this is so, as the authors treat the reader to a mind-numbing parade of economic studies, some interesting but others not. To be fair to the authors, economics seems quite limited in its ability to explain and predict human behavior. In addition, academics often disagree about key assumptions and conclusions. Even when new research reveals useful results, this may only confirm common sense. For example, some younger economists defied traditional theory to research and discover that people who lose their jobs tend to stay put, and not hop on the next bus with their families to Silicon Valley (or wherever jobs may be more available). Even a sociologist could have figured that one out. In addition, the authors devote only a single thin chapter to our greatest challenge, climate change, with a brief discussion of a carbon tax. On the positive side, I did learn some valuable information, such as the minuscule amount the US invests in job training programs for displaced workers compared to several European countries. Also, the authors do make a convincing arguments that immigration is historically good for countries and their economies, and that taxing the wealthy more does not harm economic growth. However, this book lacks of a summary chapter which identifies recommended economic policies which our political leaders should adopt. Overall, this book is a mixed bag for me, but then I think that the authors (as well as economists) often promise more than they can deliver...
34 people found this helpful
★★★★★
5.0
AGXSD52Q7X26MCQ46OL2...
✓ Verified Purchase
The authors of this book have finally written what should be plain common sense.
This is a very engaging and readable book. The brilliance of the nobel prize winning authors is that they are able to
enlighten readers with counterintuitive concepts in a simple narrative, that is impactful and memorable.
Wow what a homerun. Thank you.
29 people found this helpful
★★★★★
1.0
AG7QKUB44W275SMUWDDX...
✓ Verified Purchase
A book about Politics - Not Economics
This is not a book about economics. It is a book providing the authors' political views supposedly supported by the authors' accomplishments in economics. For example, at one point in the book, the authors say that Hillary Clinton's reference to Trump's supporters (about 1/2 the voters) as a basket of deplorables was unwise. However, it is not unwise because it is not true, but it is unwise because it is not helpful. I doubt economic theory has anything to say on this topic. Whether we agree with the authors, whether we think Trump is evil (as the authors say), most would agree these things have little to do with economic theory.
The book is mainly about advocating old-fashioned progressive big government control over the economy. If you love big government, you will love this book. If you don’t trust big government, you will hate this book. If you think big government cares about you, I have some swamp land you might like. The book starts by telling us not to believe economists who work for business because they have self-interests. We should just believe the economists who work for big government or institutions that get their funding from big government. It is therefore not surprising that the authors spend considerable time on the evils of tax avoidance (we don't want those economists dependent on tax-supported government funding to starve). At one point, the authors acknowledge that government jobs often pay more than equivalent jobs in the private sector. I wonder why that is? Is it possible that rewarding based on political criteria rather than merit favors government workers. Maybe people, who spend other people's money taken by force (i.e., taxes), are not as careful with their spending as people who spend their own money.
Worse, the authors go on to tell us not to listen to economists who disagree with the authors because those stupid economists are either right-wing (specifically mentioning the University of Chicago - which also has plenty of Nobel prize winners and even behavioral economists like Dick Thaler) or they are out-dated economists who have not accepted modern research. Better would be to provide logical arguments why these economists are wrong.
The authors then seem to criticize the foundations of economics (consumer rationality, firms maximizing profits, efficient markets, consumers acting in their own self-interests) but inexplicably argue that somehow we should believe the predictions of economics even though the authors dismiss the foundations as weak (or wrong). BTW, the psychologists who have won the Noble prize in Economics (cited by the authors) are also highly critical of using economic theory.
The authors use the common political arguments that conflates legal with illegal immigration. Maybe colonization is also the same as immigration (explain that to the Aztecs). Global warming (an observation) is the same a man-made global warming (a theory). BTW, the scientific method is based on the foundation that no theory can be proved, only falsified. The authors also conflate equity with high-taxation. Given average world-wide income of about $10,000 per household - be careful what equity you wish for.
The authors go on to tell us not to listen to economists who disagree with the authors because those stupid economists are either right-wing (specifically mentioning the University of Chicago - which also has plenty of Nobel prize winners and even behavioral economists like Dick Thaler) or they are out-dated economists who have not accepted modern research. The authors then seem to criticize the foundations of economics (consumer rationality, firms maximizing profits, efficient markets, consumers acting in their own self-interests) but inexplicably argue that someone we should believe the predictions of economics even though the authors dismiss the foundations as weak (or wrong). BTW, the psychologists who have won the Noble also agree that economic predictions are often faulty. The authors also strongly believe that consumers need big government (I guess under the guidance of economists) to do what is good for them because they are not capable of making their own decisions. The authors spend considerable time on trade and immigration. I am a libertarian who believes in free trade but the authors only cherry-pick the research that they cite rather than providing a good discussion of the issues. Obviously, given that few (or no) countries have completely free trade or completely open citizenship, there are obviously people who oppose it because they hurt by it.
Finally, I have often seen two economists come to opposite conclusions with the same data. This often occurs in civil litigation but also occurs in scholarly journals. Although, as the authors note, one can usually say that one analysis seems better than another, the fact that conclusions differ so much should give us pause. If the authors cite one study in India, in one time period, under one set of conditions and the study is never replicated, we should only conclude that we have some support for the author's hypothesis and not that we have proof (or even strong evidence) for anything.
26 people found this helpful
★★★★★
5.0
AEDCS6N3XRBQYMKDLVKB...
✓ Verified Purchase
An antidote to the simplistic coverage of economics in the news
Aristotle warned us against expecting more precision from a subject than it allows. As Aristotle wrote, “for it is the mark of an educated mind to seek only so much exactness in each type of inquiry as may be allowed by the nature of the subject-matter.”
The idea that economics commands the same level of precision as physics has led to the perpetuation of several misconceptions and dogmas. That the authors fully understand this is a testament to the book. The authors are not dogmatic, nor are they apologists for any particular ideology; in each chapter, they summarize what the latest economic research tells us, and, more importantly, what it does not or cannot establish with any degree of certainty.
Like any book with complex arguments and subtle distinctions, the criticism will come from all sides. While the authors undoubtedly lean left, there will be those who feel they don’t lean left far enough, while those on the right are destined to label the book as “socialist propaganda.” The truth, of course, is somewhere in between, as the authors summarize the latest economic research on each topic to arrive at intellectually honest interpretations of the data, making this book a model for how economics should be taught and studied.
The authors don’t pretend to be all-knowing, but if you think that tax cuts for the wealthy stimulates growth, for example, you have more than 40 years of contradictory research and statistics to contend with. Likewise for immigration as the cause of depressed local wages or the reliance on the “free market” for efficient (or desirable) outcomes. The research just does not support these common beliefs or the simplistic theory that holds them up. The real world acts very differently than the economic models predict, so if you’re interested in actual results and statistics—rather than what economic theories tell us should happen—then this book is for you.
So what is the way forward? No one knows for sure, but we do know that sacrificing the common good in the name of economic growth is almost always misguided. In addition to not knowing what stimulates growth in the first place, economic growth (as measured by GDP) means little to most of us if all the growth goes to the super-wealthy. Perhaps the job of the government is not to identify the factors of economic growth so much as to make the standard of living higher for the average person.
17 people found this helpful
★★★★★
2.0
AEWAX5OX55JGNHYKWJTZ...
✓ Verified Purchase
Disappointing. Too heavy on assertions and anecdotes and too light on data.
I was disappointed with this book. The reviews promised a refreshing, data-driven analysis of cutting edge economic research to help answer today's most challenging questions. I thought the first couple chapters started off with some of this, particularly with some counter-intuitive data on the impact of trade policy, but as the book progresses the arguments become increasing less "fact-based" and more anecdote or assertion driven. For example, at one point the authors just assert that everyone in finance is likely earning "rents" or that few high-earners from Denmark have left because of the country's high tax rate, and they then proceed to build policy conclusions from these assertions. I kept looking for convincing data to support assertions like these, but in their absence, these points felt more much like reverse engineered "facts" to support the progressive policy solutions the authors wanted to put forth. As someone who grabbed this book with the hope of seeing more hard data and evidence to support progressive policies, it was pretty disappointing. Perhaps the most interesting or refreshing part of the book is the interwoven discussion of economic and social challenges faced in the third world, especially India, which offered some fresh perspective on policy solutions - like Affirmative Action - that we typically only view from a very US-centric lens.
8 people found this helpful
★★★★★
2.0
AENS56HI6FYUZXDXG6KA...
✓ Verified Purchase
Biased anti-Trump/anti-Republican propaganda, disguised as science
TL;DR: The book is thinly veiled anti-Trump propaganda full of confirmation bias. If you are a tenured professor at an elite college - this book is for you. Otherwise, skip it. Read "Poor Economics" by the same authors instead. That one is an excellent book, lots of great scientific insights and no political bias.
(Among many questionable things, the authors explain Harvard's discrimination of Asian applicants by essentially saying that Asian applicants just don't have such great personalities as underrepresented minority applicants, so assigning them low personality scores is fair and not discrimination. One simply cannot get lower than that.)
I am sure that years from now the authors will regret writing this book.
About 2/5 of the book are indeed scientific and interesting, so giving 2 out 5 stars.
8 people found this helpful
★★★★★
2.0
AGL3WURANCUBCEEWRO2R...
✓ Verified Purchase
Disappointing Work with Lazy Writing
I was looking forward to reading this work after it landed on Bill Gates carefully curated 2020 summer reading list of 5 books. The opening chapters were well done, laying out the strengths and limitations of economics and related theories as well as thoughtful exposition on why humans migrate, written with humility on the heels of winning a Nobel prize. Written in easily digestible language, perhaps not particularly common for such well-educated economists.
However, as the authors delved more deeply into ostensible reasons for income inequality and the impact of immigration on residents, I became very disappointed in the simplistic and unsupported analyses. For example, chapter 5 (The End of Growth?) included a section on the impact of marginal income tax rates on the productivity of those at the highest end of the scale, citing the very high marginal rates from the 1930's to 1970's (70% to as high as 94%). Yet, they omitted one essential fact: No one actually paid taxes at the top end of those rate scales and instead there were both constraints on individual economic activity as well as evasion and engagement in less productive activities (over-investing in assets or activities were characterized as 'loopholes').
The last half of the book continued to make broad sweeping statements where there is significant data-supported political disagreement, as if they were basic facts. Including the assumption that those higher paying jobs replaced by automation would necessarily only be replaced by lower skilled/paid work (omitting that with displacement and the net increase in wealth opens new opportunities for boutique, high-value services as well as lower end work). Another section refers to professional sports team salary caps as a method for the 'cartel of team owners' to suppress payments to players and keep more for themselves. Rather, the caps force more equity between small and large market teams and then split revenue earned by the league based on a periodic negotiation. There is reference to polls that 'Americans think high earners should pay more taxes.' Sure, I'm sure we could also find out through polls that Americans, or all humans, want cool stuff for free too. Dispersed throughout the text are opinions-stated-as-fact that tax rates have no material impact on capital creation or human efforts, nor that there is evidence that giving no-strings-attached money to poorer people impacts the incentive to pursue work and wealth creation through effort.
For the last couple decades in the US there have been several million higher paying professional and/or tech jobs that cannot be filled by native born residents and so are either left unfilled or are filled via the H1B visa process. At the same time much of rural America suffers economically along with much associated physical and mental illness. I think few would dispute that it is no easy task to retrain (and encourage to uproot a family to a new part of the country) a displaced 52 year old coal miner to work towards many of these professional/tech jobs. I was truly hoping to read some innovative, data-supported analysis about policies to pursue such a transformation in communities over time. But sadly, I found no such thoughtful analysis from Ms. Duflo and Mr. Banerjee.
