Afleveringen
-
The 2010s were an unusual economic decade as there was a long recovery from the Great Recession without a major economic shock in the United States. We look at the trends that defined the era, including falling unemployment, the rise of smartphones, the growth of the gig economy, and the emergence of Bitcoin. Along the way, we debate whether Obamacare was the decadeâs most important policy and whether low interest rates set the stage for some of todayâs economic challenges. The result was a fascinating look at how many of todayâs economic realities were built during the 2010s.
In this episode, we talk about:
* Why the 2010s may be remembered as the ârecovery decade.â
* The economic impact of smartphones, apps, and Bitcoin.
* Which trends from the 2010s still shape the economy today.
* The rise of gig work and changing labor markets.
* Obamacare and the decadeâs biggest policy battles.
If you liked this conversation, you might also enjoy
This Weekâs Drinks đ»
Jadrian is still working through a Sam Adams variety pack, with this weekâs contribution being a Breakaway Blonde. Matt just got back from a cruise up to Halifax, and heâs cracking open a Tiny Angus from Breton Brewing Co. The beer itself wasnât the entire story, though. The real adventure involved hauling a giant box of Canadian beer off the cruise ship after discovering that local liquor stores sold individual cans from regional breweries.
Name That Stat đ
Our numbers this week ranged from timely to topical. Matt shared the annual compensation of FIFA President Gianni Infantino, sparking a conversation about whether that figure is too high, too low, or about right compared to leaders of other major sports organizations.
We initially skipped Jadrianâs number entirely, but remembered it midway through the episode. Fortunately, his statistic fit perfectly with our discussion of the 2010s, focusing on the amount of Bitcoin involved in the first-ever commercial purchase of two pizzas.
Show Notes
When people think back on economic history, they usually remember dramatic moments: crashes, recessions, bubbles, or breakthroughs. Thatâs what makes the 2010s such an interesting decade. One of the defining features of the period may have been the lack of a single major disruptive economic event in the United States. Instead, the decade was largely shaped by a long recovery from the Great Recession and a steady return to economic normalcy.
While events like the European debt crisis, concerns over government debt, and political movements such as Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party captured headlines, much of the economic story centered on slowly improving labor markets, rising household incomes, and a return to economic stability.
Unemployment fell from nearly 10% at the start of 2010 to just 3.6% by the end of 2019. At the same time, labor force participation drifted lower as Baby Boomers retired and some workers left the labor market altogether. The result was an economy that slowly but consistently tightened, eventually producing stronger income growth in the latter half of the decade.
With the benefit of hindsight, there are several candidates for the decadeâs most important economic development. One contender was the rise of the gig economy. Companies like Uber and Lyft normalized flexible work arrangements and created entirely new ways for people to earn income. What felt revolutionary at the time now feels so commonplace that itâs easy to forget how quickly these platforms transformed labor markets.
Several other developments quietly reshaped the economy. Fracking dramatically increased domestic energy production and helped keep energy prices lower than they otherwise would have been. Meanwhile, Bitcoin and cryptocurrency emerged from niche internet experiments into assets that would eventually become part of mainstream financial conversations.
But if there was one innovation that connected nearly every major trend of the decade, it was the smartphone, which fundamentally changed how Americans navigate, shop, pay for goods, consume media, communicate, and even work. Ride-sharing apps, mobile banking, streaming services, social media, GPS navigation, and countless other conveniences all became possible because powerful computers migrated into our pockets. Looking back, itâs hard to imagine any other technology having a larger effect on daily life during the 2010s.
Finally, no discussion of the decade would be complete without policy. The Affordable Care Act dominated political and economic debates throughout the 2010s, generating intense disagreement that continues today. Of course, this decade also saw regulatory reform, rising federal debt, and the broader political backdrop of the Tea Party movement and Occupy Wall Street. Whether you view these developments as successes, failures, or something in between, they helped define the economic and political landscape that carried into the 2020s.
Economists love making lists, and weâre willing to admit ours might be incomplete. What did we miss? If thereâs a defining economic moment from the 2010s that deserves more attention, tell us in the comments and make your case.
Pop Culture Corner đż
Jadrian kept things topical with a look back at Shark Tank, one of the defining television hits of the 2010s. Beyond the memorable pitches and dramatic negotiations, the show offers a surprisingly useful way to teach economics. In the middle of the decade, a group of economists developed lesson plans and classroom activities built around selected clips from the show, using them to explore entrepreneurship, costs of production, and business decision-making.
Mattâs selection was Hadestown, the acclaimed musical inspired by the myth of Orpheus and Eurydice. While the story is set in a post-apocalyptic world with strong Great Depression-era influences, it raises questions about migration, opportunity, labor, and economic hardship that connect surprisingly well to many of the issues discussed throughout the episode.
Have a question or topic idea? Reply to this email or drop it in the comments!
This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.econhappyhour.com -
The 2020s have already delivered one of the strangest economic decades in modern history. We unpack how the pandemic reshaped work, inflation, housing, consumer behavior, and even the way economists think about recessions. We debate whether the pandemic or AI will ultimately define the decade, revisit the policy decisions that still shape the economy today, and talk through why everything from used cars to mortgage rates suddenly felt upside down. Along the way, we explore why the economy has seemed surprisingly resilient despite nonstop shocks, disruptions, and uncertainty.
In this episode, we talk about:
* Whether the pandemic or AI will be remembered as the defining economic event of the 2020s
* Inflation, stimulus policies, tariffs, and the strange post-pandemic economy
* How housing, work-from-home, and consumer habits permanently changed
* Why the 2020s economy has felt unusually weird and unpredictable
If you liked this conversation, you might also enjoy
This Weekâs Drinks đ»
Jadrian cracked open a Hardywood Pils, leftover from an end-of-semester cookout with his TAs. He almost grabbed the PBR x Grilloâs Pickle Beer, but decided to save that adventure for a future episode. Matt went with a Hammerhead IPA from Big Oyster Brewery, a West Coast-style IPA brewed with six hop varietals for an intense citrus and grapefruit character with notes of pine.
Name That Stat đ
We originally planned to talk about the economics of higher education, so Jadrian brought in a stat on the number of graduate programs in the U.S., which has grown by roughly 69% since the early 2000s. But once we decided to launch our âeconomics by the decadeâ series, Matt pivoted to one of the defining economic indicators of the 2020s: the inflation rate that peaked in June 2022 at its highest level since the early 1980s.
Show Notes
Weâre kicking off a new series that looks back at the biggest economic stories of every decade, starting with the 2020s and working backward through history. Weâre taking a shot at making sense of the economic chaos of the 2020s. Honestly, âchaosâ might undersell it a little. It should be no surprise that we start with the pandemic, which instantly disrupted employment, supply chains, education, consumer habits, and everyday life. But twenty years from now, will we remember the pandemic as the biggest story, or will the introduction of generative AI ultimately eclipse it?
Perhaps the most common theme of the episode is how weird the economy has behaved this decade. Historically, recessions, unemployment, inflation, and growth tended to move together in more predictable ways. The 2020s constantly break those expectations. One easy example: the NBER determined that the pandemic recession officially lasted only two months, even though the traditional shorthand definition of a recession involves two quarters, or six months, of decline. Of course, the disruption lasted much longer than two months, which allowed educators the chance to explain the ways economists define and measure different indicators.
The 2020s also included large spikes in inflation without the kind of sustained unemployment that economists might typically expect. The decade saw regional bank collapses, sweeping tariffs, and repeated uncertainty, but markets often just kept chugging along. Even the stock market wasnât immune to the weirdness.
There were also some pretty big policy decisions this decade, not all of which have been consensus picks. A lot of people would argue that the earliest rounds of pandemic relief were necessary to prevent economic collapse, while later stimulus packages may have contributed to inflation once the economy had already stabilized.
But did policymakers really know the economy was in a good place at the time? Maybe not. There was no serious economic justification for imposing widespread tariffs on our trading partners, notwithstanding that tariffs are almost universally disliked by economists. One takeaway for listeners is that nearly every major decision of the decade came with enormous trade-offs and very little certainty.
Not to be left out, but housing and consumer trends were also contenders for the defining stories of the decade. Ultra-low pandemic-era mortgage rates locked many homeowners into staying put, while newer buyers suddenly faced dramatically higher borrowing costs. Meanwhile, consumers saw a massive uptick in online ordering, curbside pickup, delivery apps, and mobile-first shopping experiences that never really disappeared afterward.
In many ways, the 2020s feel like a decade where the economy keeps absorbing shocks that would have seemed unimaginable only a few years earlier. And somehow, despite all of it, things keep moving forward, even if nobody is entirely sure what ânormalâ is supposed to look like anymore.
So tell us: what did we miss? What do you think will define the 2020s economically? And which decade are you most excited for us to cover next?
Leave a comment and let us know how wrong we were.
Pop Culture Corner đż
While itâs not a traditional pop culture contribution, Jadrian shared a book recommendation: Financial Diaries by Jonathan Morduch and Rachel Schneider. The authors draw on the lives of 235 low- and middle-income families over the course of a year, using those diaries to challenge popular assumptions about how Americans earn, spend, borrow, and save. The book highlights how income volatility, not just low income, creates financial stress for many working families.
Matt has recently been working on expanding his pop culture reach across new disciplines, including political science and accounting. His contribution this week included a classic scene from Office Space, where âThe Bobsâ are brought in to audit Initech.
The second clip comes from a project on helping accounting professors teach their courses. In the following scene from The Office, Michael Scott puts discount tickets randomly into boxes. The accounting question: how does that liability factor onto the balance sheet?
Have a question or topic idea? Reply to this email or drop it in the comments!
This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.econhappyhour.com -
Zijn er afleveringen die ontbreken?
-
Teenagers today are far less likely to work than previous generations. This episode explores the long decline in teen labor force participation and tries to identify some possible causes. The conversation also turns personal, with reflections on the skills we gained from working early. Along the way, we debate whether teenage jobs still provide important lessons in responsibility, communication, and independence.
In this episode, we talk about:
* Why teen labor force participation has fallen so dramatically since the 1970s
* Whether modern teenagers value independence differently than previous generations
* How working as a teenager builds confidence, responsibility, and communication skills
* The role of extracurriculars and college competition in shaping teen time use
* Whether colleges undervalue work experience compared to other activities
If you liked this conversation, you might also enjoy
This Weekâs Drinks đ»
Jadrian cracked open a Hardywood Fighting Hokie Hefeweizen, although the real story was that he found the unopened can under the seat of his car and has absolutely no idea how it got there. Matt kept things classic with a Dogfish Head 60 Minute IPA. Itâs not quite as mysterious, but a reliable go-to.
Name That Stat đ
This weekâs statistics covered two very different topics. Jadrian shared an estimate on the share of websites created since 2022 that may have been generated with artificial intelligence. Matt brought data on the share of teenagers participating in the labor force back in 1978, which set up the broader conversation for todayâs episode.
Show Notes
This weekâs episode centered on a deceptively simple question: why arenât teenagers working as much anymore? The decline in teen labor force participation seems to happen in waves, but the long-term trend is unmistakable. One possible explanation is surprisingly simple: fewer teenagers are getting driverâs licenses, which means fewer have the independence or transportation needed to get to work. If thereâs no rush to get out of the house and get a car, perhaps teenagers arenât finding that same rush to get out and go to work.
Another possible explanation is financial. With higher household incomes and smaller family sizes, parents may be more able to support their children without requiring them to earn their own spending money. That removes one of the biggest traditional incentives for teenagers to work in the first place.
We also discussed how teenagers spend their time differently today. Thereâs growing pressure to focus on extracurricular activities, sports, leadership positions, and resume-building experiences, especially as college admissions have become more competitive. But that raises an interesting question: why are unpaid extracurriculars often viewed as more valuable than paid work experience?
Finally, we explored the idea that some teenagers may avoid work because they donât see a direct connection between a part-time job and their future career goals. If the payoff is not immediate or obvious, working may feel less worthwhile. In that sense, the decision not to work can become a strategic one rather than simply a matter of laziness or lack of opportunity.
We want to hear from the parents out there: do your teenagers want part-time jobs? If not, what do you think changed compared to when you were growing up?
Pop Culture Corner đż
Jadrianâs contribution had absolutely nothing to do with teen employment. Instead, he used the opportunity to recommend a new book from friend-of-the-show Brian OâRoark. His new book, Potternomics, explores economics through the world of Harry Potter. Hopefully, we can get Brian to join a future episode and talk Hogwarts economics with us.
Turns out Matt also didnât have a teen employment pop culture reference ready to go, so he pivoted to a guest lyric from Jay-Z on a Diamonds from Sierra Leone (Remix) track: âIâm not a businessman, Iâm a business, man.â Itâs a surprisingly useful way to think about personal finance and self-investment.
Have a question or topic idea? Reply to this email or drop it in the comments!
This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.econhappyhour.com -
This episode breaks down what non-compete agreements are and why theyâve become such a hot topic in labor economics. Matt and Jadrian explore when these contracts make sense and when they might go too far. They weigh the trade-offs between protecting company investments and limiting worker mobility, while also digging into recent policy debates and what non-competes mean for innovation and entrepreneurship.
In this episode, we talk about:
* What non-compete agreements are and why companies use them
* Whether itâs reasonable to restrict employees from working for competitors
* The fairness (or unfairness) of non-competes after leaving a job
* The role of non-competes in limiting job mobility and career growth
* State-level bans and the brief FTC attempt to outlaw non-competes nationally
* Whether non-competes function similarly to patents in protecting investments
If you liked this conversation, you might also enjoy:
This Weekâs Drinks đ»
This week featured a couple of solid, no-nonsense beer picks. Jadrian went with a Sam Adams Cold Snap White Ale, a citrusy, spiced brew with clementine and orange peel that paired perfectly with chips and homemade salsa. Matt opted for a Founders Centennial IPA, a go-to choice that balances quality with value. Nothing says economist like getting a 15-pack for the price of a 12. Classic Matt.
Name That Stat đ
This weekâs stats covered two very different corners of the economy. Matt brought in the surprisingly large number of Bitcoin ATMs in the U.S. after spotting one at a gas station. Jadrian followed up with a stat tied to last weekâs conversation, showing that households spend about 5% more on groceries when men do the shopping compared to women.
Show Notes
Non-compete agreements sound simple at first: you work for a company, and in return, you agree not to work for their competitors. But the reality is much more nuanced. There are two main types: those that apply while youâre employed and those that extend after you leave. The first type makes a lot of intuitive sense. If youâre working for a company, itâs reasonable they donât want you splitting time or sharing insights with competitors.
Things get trickier with post-employment non-competes. On one hand, companies invest real resources into training employees and developing proprietary knowledge. From that perspective, it makes sense to protect that investment. Itâs similar to how patents give firms time to profit from innovation before competitors can copy their ideas. But on the other hand, restricting workers after they leave can limit career opportunities and slow down the natural movement of talent in the economy.
There can be some vagueness to these agreements that make the situation even stickier. Saying âyou canât work for a competitorâ sounds straightforward, but defining a competitor isnât always obvious. Is LinkedIn a competitor to a job board? Is Google? Without clear boundaries, these agreements can create uncertainty and risk for workers trying to make career moves.
Non-competes may reduce job mobility, which is generally seen as healthy for both workers and firms. Thereâs also the argument that they suppress entrepreneurship. If people canât leave to start competing businesses, fewer new ideas make it to market. While some claims (like thousands of startups being lost each year) may be overstated, the underlying concern is real.
So, do the benefits of non-competes outweigh the economic costs? Weâre in another familiar space for economists: it depends. Non-competes can be reasonable in some contexts, but they can also be overused or abused. The challenge is likely in balancing incentives for firms with freedom for workers.
Have you ever been subject to a non-compete agreement? If so, did it actually change how you approached your next job search or the opportunities you considered?
Pop Culture Corner đż
This weekâs topic stumped us at first. We couldnât quickly name a pop culture tie-in for non-competes. After a quick search, we found a great example from Hacks, where Deborahâs non-compete agreement becomes a major plot point. You can see what led up to that moment here:
We usually stick to movies, TV, and music, but this time weâre also throwing in a real-world pop culture moment. A quick search reminded us of the famous story of Conan OâBrien navigating a non-compete agreement with NBC in 2010. Itâs a good example of how these contracts can play out on a very public stage.
Have a question or topic idea? Reply to this email or drop it in the comments!
This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.econhappyhour.com -
Explore the current state of financial literacy as we celebrate Financial Literacy Month. We walk through the âBig 3â financial literacy questions and discuss how surprisingly few people answer them correctly. For many people, financial knowledge is learned through experience rather than formal education, but thatâs starting to change as more states push for personal finance requirements.
In this episode, we talk about:
* What Financial Literacy Month highlights and why it matters
* The âBig 3â financial literacy questions and how people perform on them
* Gaps in financial knowledge across education levels
* How personal experiences shape financial understanding
* Simple, practical advice for managing money more effectively
If you liked this conversation, you might also enjoy
This Weekâs Drinks đ»
Jadrian is working through a spring variety pack from Samuel Adams, featuring the Breakaway Blonde. Matt has cracked open an Edelmeister IPA from Poland, even though heâs never been to Poland and isnât entirely sure where this one came from. Itâs the middle of April, which means the end of the academic year is approaching. Things are getting busy, but itâs also a time filled with celebrations, ceremonies, and opportunities to recognize studentsâ accomplishments.
Name That Stat đ
April is Financial Literacy Month, which sets the stage for a conversation about how well people actually understand basic financial concepts, and the answer is: not as well as you might expect. Matt shares a statistic on the average retirement balance for people in their early forties, while Jadrian highlights how people perform on the Big 3 financial literacy questions across different education levels.
Show Notes
This weekâs conversation focuses on how little formal financial education many people receive growing up, and how most people end up learning about money in practice. Even with advanced degrees in economics, itâs easy to feel unprepared when making real financial decisions for the first time. Much of our own understanding came through trial and error: credit card mistakes, missed payments, and learning how interest works in real life. These experiences can be costly, but they often become important turning points in building financial awareness.
The âBig 3â questions cover topics on compound interest, inflation, and diversification, and can serve as a simple benchmark for financial literacy. Many people struggle with them, even though these concepts appear in economics courses. That raises a bigger question: are we teaching these ideas in a way that connects to peopleâs everyday financial decisions? There may be room to better bridge the gap between economic theory and personal finance.
Finally, we share some practical advice based on both experience and common guidance. The most consistent recommendations tend to be: (1) build an emergency fund, (2) understand how interest works, especially on debt, (3) avoid carrying credit card balances, and (4) take advantage of employer retirement matches. More than anything, financial success comes down to building consistent habits rather than chasing perfect strategies. Small, steady decisions matter more than people often realize.
Do you think we missed something that should be on that list? Let us know in the comments!
Pop Culture Corner đż
Jadrian went with the song $ave Dat Money by Lil Dicky, which humorously focuses on cutting costs and avoiding unnecessary spending. Heâs trying to do something that other rappers just canât seem to understand. (Warning - NSFW.)
Matt brings up an episode of Cheers where Rebecca, facing financial struggles at the bar, thinks the best plan is to use petty cash to buy lottery tickets. Itâs definitely an example of questionable financial decision-making.
Matt also recommends two books for those interested in personal finance: To Die with Zero and The Simple Path to Wealth. Both offer thoughtful perspectives on money, though they approach the topic from very different angles.
Have a question or topic idea? Reply to this email or drop it in the comments!
This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.econhappyhour.com -
How early is too early to get to the airport? This episode looks at that question through an economic lens. We explore the tradeoffs between time, risk, and the cost of missing a flight, using data and real travel experiences. What seems like a simple decision turns out to reflect how we think about uncertainty, incentives, and risk.
In this episode, we talk about:
* The tradeoff between arriving early and risking missed flights
* How opportunity cost shapes airport arrival decisions
* Real-world data on how early people actually arrive at airports
* Why small airports vs. major hubs change optimal timing
* Risk aversion in travel decisions and flight planning
* Airline incentives, overbooking, and voluntary bumping decisions
If you liked this conversation, you might also enjoy
This Weekâs Drinks đ»
Spring break might be over, but the drinks still feel like spring. Jadrian is trying a Sam Adams Blackberry Wheat Beer from a new variety pack, and Matt is pouring a Kalik from his recent cruise to the Bahamas. Itâs a fitting way to celebrate some big news: Susquehanna has been ranked third in the country for undergraduate business experience by Poets & Quants.
Name That Stat đ
Matt kicked off our new segment with a number that highlights the recent jump in fuel prices from late February to mid-March. Jadrian kept things going with another price increase: how much fresh fruit and vegetables have risen over the past year.
Show Notes
Todayâs episode was motivated by an article Matt read about a family who spent $30,000 on a cruise but lost it all at the gate. The issue? They were scheduled to fly into the cruise port the morning of departure, but their flight was delayed just enough that they missed the cruise entirely.
Weâre not diving into the economics of delays or cancellations, but the story got us thinking about a different question: how early should you get to the airport? Itâs a simple setup that highlights a classic tradeoff. Arrive too early and youâre wasting time at the airport. Arrive too late and you risk missing your flight. The ârightâ choice depends on how you balance time versus risk.
Survey data suggests many travelers aim to arrive one to two hours early, though actual behavior varies widely depending on experience and preferences. We share some of our own strategies, but it turns out that Nate Silver has been thinking about this too.
Drawing on data from 800 flights, he offers a framework for when travelers should arrive at the airport. His approach considers many of the same factors we talked about, including things like drive time, airport size, and whether youâre flying through a regional airport or a major hub.
George Stigler famously observed, âIf you never miss a plane, youâre spending too much time at the airport.â Itâs a common experience that is also a useful way to think about everyday decision-making. People differ in their tolerance for risk, how they value time, and how flexible they can be if something goes wrong. Whether itâs arriving early, cutting it close, or accepting compensation to take a later flight, each choice reflects a personal optimization problem shaped by constraints and incentives.
Would you rather arrive early and wait, or risk missing your flight to save time?
Pop Culture Corner đż
In a podcast first (we think), Matt ceded his pop culture segment so Jadrian could share two clips. The first comes from Brooklyn Nine-Nine, where a risk-averse character plans to arrive at the airport five hours early for a domestic flight. His coworkers convince him to go even earlier (seven hours ahead of departure). Despite all that, he still ends up missing the flight, though he had (of course) booked a backup flight just in case.
In Jadrianâs second clip, he turns to the question of whether to accept airline vouchers to take a later flight. In Life in Pieces, one family repeatedly volunteers to get bumped in exchange for vouchers, only to end up stuck overnight when the last flight is canceled. They take it in stride, though, because the airline covers the hotel.
Have a question or topic idea? Reply to this email or drop it in the comments!
This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.econhappyhour.com -
Prediction markets allow people to bet on future events, from elections to economic data releases, with prices reflecting the crowdâs expectations. Economists often view them as powerful forecasting tools because participants have money at stake, which can lead to more accurate predictions than traditional polling. But these markets also raise concerns about manipulation, insider information, and ethical questions about what events should be traded. Together, we explore both the promise and the risks of prediction markets.
In this episode, we talk about:
* What prediction markets are and how event contracts work
* Why prediction markets often outperform traditional polling
* The role of incentives and âskin in the gameâ in improving forecasts
* The potential for insider information or manipulation in these markets
* Whether prediction markets should be regulated like gambling or financial markets
If you liked this conversation, you might also enjoy
This Weekâs Drinks đ»
Weâre checking in together a little earlier than normal since we each have Spring Break trips coming up soon. Matt brings a Ring the Bell American Lager from Conshohocken Brewing Company. In a rare day when he has an IPA and Matt does not, Jadrian opens Liftoff, a West Coast IPA from Daredevil Brewing Company in Indiana, courtesy of a colleague who brought beers to JETSet.
Name That Stat đ
Jadrian shared the number of companies that have filed lawsuits against the federal government seeking tariff reimbursements after a recent Supreme Court ruling. Matt followed with a second number that sparked todayâs conversation: the amount a tax economist bet on a prediction market that last yearâs DOGE push wouldnât meaningfully reduce federal spending.
Show Notes
Mattâs contribution helped us set up a broader discussion of prediction markets. These platforms allow participants to buy and sell contracts based on the outcomes of future events. Contracts usually trade between zero and one dollar, paying out one dollar if the event occurs and nothing if it doesnât. In practice, the price reflects the marketâs estimate of the probability of an event happening. These markets cover everything from elections and economic indicators to corporate decisions and sports outcomes.
The tax economist in the story reportedly wagered his life savings that federal spending would remain high despite political pressure to reduce it. His reasoning was grounded in a simple economic insight: entitlement programs make up such a large share of federal spending that short-term policy pushes are unlikely to meaningfully reduce overall expenditures. The bet paid off and illustrates how people with specialized knowledge can profit when they believe markets are mispricing an outcome.
We also discuss why economists have long been fascinated by prediction markets. Unlike opinion polls, participants have money on the line, which encourages them to reveal their true beliefs. This âskin in the gameâ helps prediction markets aggregate information across many individuals and often makes them surprisingly accurate. Some companies have even experimented with internal prediction markets to forecast sales or project outcomes, sometimes outperforming traditional forecasting methods.
Of course, prediction markets also raise difficult questions. If someone has inside knowledge or the ability to influence an outcome, they could potentially manipulate the market. Examples range from bets about public speeches to speculation about political behavior. These situations blur the line between information discovery and market manipulation.
That leads to the broader policy question: how should prediction markets be regulated? They sit somewhere between gambling and financial markets, and itâs not always clear which rules should apply. Some regulation may be necessary to prevent manipulation or insider trading, but too much could eliminate a tool economists believe provides valuable information about future events.
If you could create a prediction market about anything, what event would you want people betting on?
Pop Culture Corner đż
Jadrian contributed a clip from an Anderson Cooper segment highlighting a man who spent hundreds of dollars trying to win an Xbox at carnival games, but eventually drained his life savings in the process. It should be seen as a cautionary tale about gambling and risk-taking.
Matt shares a short clip from a YouTube creator who bets $100 per day on different events in prediction markets. In the clip, the bettor wagers that a State of the Union speech will last longer than 115 minutes and nervously watches the speech unfold as applause and interruptions stretch the clock. The bet ultimately loses when the speech ends just short of the target time.
Have a question or topic idea? Reply to this email or drop it in the comments!
This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.econhappyhour.com -
A recent headline claimed that Canadaâs GDP per capita has fallen below Alabamaâs. That sparked a broader conversation about what GDP per capita actually measures and why it can change in surprising ways. We explored possible explanations, including immigration patterns, post-pandemic growth differences, and policy environments. Along the way, we asked a bigger question: what really drives long-run economic growth?
In this episode, we talk about:
* Why GDP per capita in Canada now trails Alabamaâs
* The difference between GDP per capita and median income
* How immigration can lower averages even if individuals are better off
* Why U.S. GDP per capita has grown steadily since 2020 while Canada, Germany, and the U.K. have stalled
* Whether pro-growth business climates actually explain the recent divergence
* How stereotypes about âpoorâ regions can lag behind economic reality
If you liked this conversation, you might also enjoy
Show notes & references
Weâre nearing the halfway point of the semester, which is a great time to check in with each other. Matt has been working on international initiatives, and Jadrian has been deep in the redesign of his sports economics course. For drinks this week, Matt just returned from a trip to Cyprus and brought back a Shockwave Pale Ale from a small bottle shop. Unfortunately, the pint glass didnât survive the trip home. Jadrian opted for a Blackberry Lemon Shandy from Rusty Rail, courtesy of a friend in State College.
Our data point challenge this episode started with how long itâs been since the U.S. menâs hockey team last won gold at the Winter Olympics. Matt followed that up with two numbers that sparked todayâs main topic: Canadaâs GDP per capita compared to Alabamaâs.
From there, we unpacked what GDP per capita actually measures. Itâs an average, and averages can move in ways that donât always reflect individual well-being. We compared this to U.S. median household income data from FRED, which can tell a very different story than GDP per capita. The distinction between median and average matters, especially when population changes are involved.
We also looked at recent trends across other developed economies. While U.S. GDP per capita has steadily increased since the pandemic dip, Germany and Canada both saw initial rebounds followed by declines in the past few years. The United Kingdom experienced a similar bounce but has been largely flat more recently. That raises a broader question: what explains the divergence?
So what can (and canât) GDP per capita tell us about well-being? Thereâs a straightforward âmath storyâ here. Even if everyone in a country is better off than they were before, averages can fall if the population grows quickly and new workers enter at lower wages. True statistics can still be interpreted in misleading ways.
We also spent time discussing two popular measures of economic freedom: one from the Heritage Foundation and another from the Fraser Institute. According to the Heritage Foundationâs index, Canada has ranked higher than the U.S. in recent years. That gap may be influenced in part by trade policy uncertainty in the United States, though the full story is more nuanced.
While much of our focus was on what might be happening in Canada, we also asked whether Alabama deserves more credit. Cities like Huntsville have worked hard to attract business investment and lower unemployment. The authors of the original article traveled to Alabama expecting one story and came away with another. Stereotypes about regions can linger long after the underlying data changes.
If youâre in Canada or Alabama (or Germany, or the U.K.), weâd love to hear your perspective. What are we missing?
Pop Culture Corner đż
Matt brought up an example of creative destruction, one of the key forces behind long-run income growth. In a classic Friends episode, Joey flips through the Yellow Pages to find a guitar instructor. At the time, those thick books were a household staple. Today, theyâre mostly obsolete, replaced by web searches, Yelp, and online directories.
Jadrian chose a classic South Park episode that a graduate student recently shared with him. In the scene, immigrants from the future arrive in town and begin undercutting local wages. Residents storm a city council meeting to complain that the newcomers are âtaking their jobsâ and demand action. Itâs exaggerated, but it highlights a real economic tension around immigration, wage competition, and public perception.
Have a question or topic idea? Reply to this email or drop it in the comments!
This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.econhappyhour.com -
Weâre joined by Doug McKee to talk about how economists can use assessments and experiments to improve teaching and learning. Doug explains how learning assessments can reveal what students actually understand, not just how they feel about a course. We also discuss the Economic Education Network for Experiments (EENE) and why large, multi-institution studies matter for credibility. Our conversation highlights how economics classrooms can double as powerful research labs for understanding learning itself.
In this episode, we talk about:
* Dougâs path into economics teaching and education research
* Why student learning assessments matter more than course evaluations
* How Cornell built a culture around prerequisite and skills-based assessments
* The origins and goals of the Economic Education Network for Experiments (ENEE)
* Using large, multi-school experiments to test what really works in the classroom
If you liked this conversation, you might also enjoy
Show notes & references
Weâre joined this week by Doug McKee, a senior lecturer in economics at Cornell University and one of the leaders behind the Economic Education Network for Experiments. Heâs keeping it simple with high-pulp orange juice, while Jadrian braces for another impending snowstorm with a Dark Starr Dry Irish Stout. Matt has logged in with a flight of beers from the back booth at East End Brewing Company in Pittsburgh.
Our data point challenge this episode focused on the age of Trumpâs most recent announcement regarding the next potential Chair of the Federal Reserve, the number of undergraduate students enrolled at Cornell University, and the number of people who have been killed by ICE agents in Minneapolis so far this year.
Doug kicked off the show by sharing his fairly unconventional path into economics education research. After becoming frustrated with the traditional publication process, he realized that he couldnât stop thinking about teaching. That shift eventually led him to Cornell, where institutional support made it possible to treat teaching as a serious research agenda.
A big part of his research agenda involves measuring what students actually learn. Doug has helped Cornell faculty work together to clearly define learning goals and then build assessments around them. Instead of relying only on student evaluations, these tools provide concrete evidence about which skills students gain before and after course redesigns. The assessments started as internal tools and eventually became the foundation for larger studies across institutions.
By pooling data from many courses and universities, researchers can separate what works in one classroom from what works more generally, across different student populations and institutional types. This motivation led to the creation of ENEE, a collaborative network that allows instructors to run coordinated experiments in real classrooms. Doug walks through current projects, including studies on team contracts in group work and earlier work on AI and classroom practices.
If you could run one large-scale classroom experiment across many universities, what question would you want it to answer?
Pop Culture Corner đż
Jadrian shared a clip that was sent his way earlier in the week by Charlie Ben-Nathan, an economics educator in London. The clip comes from Yes, Prime Minister and highlights the economic logic behind cigarette taxes, healthcare costs, and unintended consequences. Itâs a great illustration of the tradeoffs policymakers face, especially when dealing with goods that generate externalities.
With award season underway and the Oscars approaching, Matt took the opportunity to revisit La La Land. A decade after its release, the film still holds up for its music and storytelling, and it turns out to be surprisingly useful for economics examples as well, including ideas like search costs.
Doug recommended Ninth House, an adult dark fantasy novel set at Yale and centered on the universityâs secret societies. The book blends dark magic, murder, and elite privilege, and itâs written by an author with deep familiarity with Yaleâs campus and lore. It makes the setting feel especially vivid for those with New Haven connections.
Have a question or topic idea? Reply to this email or drop it in the comments!
This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.econhappyhour.com -
This episode looks at a JPMorgan survey of billionaires and what it reveals about how the ultra-wealthy think. We talk about their biggest fears, especially the fear of losing wealth, even when they have more money than they could ever spend. The conversation connects those fears to ideas from behavioral economics like loss aversion and risk tolerance. Along the way, we ask whether having more money actually makes people more cautious rather than more daring.
In this episode, we talk about:
* How many billionaires exist, and what their combined wealth adds up to
* What a JPMorgan focus group reveals about billionaire fears and priorities
* Loss aversion and why losing money feels worse than gaining the same amount
* Whether extreme wealth makes people more risk-averse in investing decisions
* The habits billionaires credit most for their success, and what actually matters
If you liked this conversation, you might also enjoy
Show notes & references
The semester is back underway, so we start with a quick check-in after the first week of classes and all the energy associated with students back on campus. Jadrian is recording from his campus office with a Coke Zero in hand, while Matt is sipping a classic Moscow mule.
This episodeâs data point analysis begins with the cost of a 30-second Super Bowl commercial this year: a staggering $8 million. For context, the average ad spot first crossed the $1 million mark back in 1994. We also briefly talk about how Netflix pulled in $1.5 billion in advertising revenue last year before landing on the number that drives the main conversation: there are currently 3,028 billionaires worldwide with a combined net worth of about $16.1 trillion.
Have you ever wondered what billionaires think about the economy, the future, or life more broadly? Wonder no longer. JPMorgan Bank surveyed billionaires on exactly these questions, drawing insights from 111 billionaire principals across 28 countries and more than 15 industries. Peter Coy (Economics for Everyone) helpfully summarized the findings on his Substack. One result stood out in particular: some of these billionaires (especially those who inherited their wealth) say theyâre genuinely afraid of losing it all.
That fear opens the door to a broader behavioral economics discussion. How does loss aversion work when â1%â translates into tens of millions of dollars? Is there a meaningful difference between thinking about losses in percentage terms versus absolute dollars? And if someone suddenly became a billionaire, would they take more risks or actually become more cautious? Itâs a useful reminder that risk tolerance can change with both income and life experience.
We wrap up the episode by walking through the list of âsuccess habitsâ identified in the billionaire survey: reading, exercise, consistency, waking up early, prioritizing tasks, goal setting, and deep thinking time. The big takeaway is that consistency may be the hidden engine behind all the rest. None of these habits matters much if theyâre tried once and quickly abandoned.
If you had to pick one habit from the list thatâs helped you the most, which would it be? Weâd love to hear in the comments.
Pop Culture Corner đż
Matt shares a clip from Hard Knocks where NFL player Carl Nassib passionately tries to teach his teammates about the glory of compound interest. Matt also quickly recommended The Simple Path to Wealth as a straightforward, low-stress introduction to personal finance and investing.
Jadrian shares a scene from Brooklyn Nine-Nine in which Gina returns from maternity leave and jokes about juggling work and a newborn. Her punchline: juggling must be easy because if it were hard, there would be rich jugglers.
Have a question or topic idea? Reply to this email or drop it in the comments!
This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.econhappyhour.com -
Ticket prices are in the spotlight as the NCAA football championship and the upcoming World Cup push demand to extremes. We dig into why resale markets exist, why prices can explode, and why face value often has little to do with what fans actually pay. Using real examples from college football, the World Cup, and concerts, we talk through supply, demand, and who really benefits from ticket resale. Along the way, we wrestle with whether thereâs a âbetterâ system or if frustration is just part of the market.
In this episode, we talk about:
* Why national championship tickets can cost $3,000 before teams are even announced
* How World Cup ticketing systems create confusion, scarcity, and frustration
* The role of resale platforms like Ticketmaster and StubHub in shaping prices
* Why events often underprice tickets initially and let secondary markets take over
* Whether thereâs a better way to price tickets without banning resale or rewarding bots
If you liked this conversation, you might also enjoy
Show notes & references
Jadrian checked in from Pittsburgh, where a hotel stay unexpectedly came with complimentary nightly drinks. He enjoyed The Oaklander, a hazy IPA brewed by Two Frays Brewery. Matt stuck with a Bud Zero as part of âhealthy January,â and shared some updates on cutting snacks, eating better lunches, and trying to keep habits sustainable during the semester.
This weekâs data point analysis featured a look at how large language models like ChatGPT have changed the way programmers use Stack Overflow. The number of questions posted on the site has collapsed from hundreds of thousands per month to just a few thousand last month. Mattâs contribution helped form the basis of this weekâs post by offering up a headline claiming that the 2026 World Cup would generate $47 billion in economic impact. Weâre skeptical.
With several major sporting events approaching, ticket prices have become a natural case study in supply and demand. The upcoming NCAA football championship tickets are pushing past $3,000 on verified resale sites, even though we donât know which teams will be in the game. Tickets for the semifinal games can still be found for under $200. Same sport, same stakes, wildly different prices.
Even with really high prices, sometimes the sellers require buyers to jump through several hoops to secure tickets. Matt shared a firsthand account of navigating FIFAâs multi-step ticketing process. Buying the âright to buyâ tickets, long before matchups are known, highlights how firms profit from scarcity. While the experience may be memorable, the system itself feels opaque and, at times, deliberately confusing.
So, why donât leagues and artists just charge the market-clearing price up front? Drawing on research by Eric Budish, we explore explanations ranging from public relations concerns to atmosphere effects. Teams may want âtrue fansâ in the seats, not just the highest bidders. Thereâs also the uncomfortable possibility that venues and platforms benefit from resale fees changing hands multiple times.
The episode wraps with a broader question: is there a fix? Verified fan systems, limits on resale, airline-style non-transferable tickets, and even UK-style resale bans all come with tradeoffs. In the end, the market mostly works, but not without frustration, high fees, and the lingering sense that the wrong people are capturing too much of the value.
Whatâs the worst ticket-buying experience youâve had, and why?
Pop Culture Corner
Jadrian went with a classic episode from The Simpsons centered on ticket scalping. Homer waits in line for several days to buy tickets, but gets shut out by a buyer who grabs all remaining tickets. Heâs left to purchase much higher-priced resale tickets later.
Matt highlights a student-led project analyzing game theory in Bridgerton. The video breaks down strategic decision-making in how Daphne and Simonâs relationship can be modeled with multiple possible Nash equilibria.
Have a question or topic idea? Reply to this email or drop it in the comments!
This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.econhappyhour.com -
To kick off Season 4, we reflect on our personal and professional journeys over the past year. We discuss the challenge of sticking to goals like healthier living and academic productivity, sharing what worked and what didnât. Along the way, we talk about prediction markets, resolutions, teaching in the age of AI, and how faculty think about setting goals under uncertainty.
In this episode, we discuss:
* What prediction markets say about the probability of a recession, and why those forecasts matter.
* How our goals from 2025 held up and what changes are coming in 2026
* What academic publishing really looks like (and why itâs so frustrating)
* Reflections on teaching wins and evolving classroom strategies
* Making professional trade-offs between teaching and research
* And a whole lot more!
Catch up on some old episodes:
You can also subscribe to us on Spotify, TuneIn Radio, Amazon Music, and Apple Podcasts. If one of these is your go-to podcast service, be sure to rate us and subscribe!
Some show notes:
Season 4 kicks off with a reflection on 2025, both personally and professionally. Jadrian is celebrating the New Year with a Shiner Premium lager while Matt is getting an early start on Dry January with a Diet Coke. Weâll revisit our goals from the previous year throughout the episode, but letâs state upfront that we didnât move the needle much on weight loss. Perhaps weâll enter 2026 with renewed motivation and a more intentional focus on fitness, finances, and structure.
We kicked off our data point analysis with a look at how prediction markets are showing a 27% chance of a U.S. recession before 2027 and how that number has changed throughout the year. Unlike surveys, prediction markets are different because they impose real costs for being wrong. From there, we turn to New Yearâs resolutions. Americans under the age of 45 are twice as likely as older Americans to say theyâll make one, which naturally leads us into a broader reflection on goals, incentives, and realism.
Academically, Jadrian is happy with his newsletter's growth (nearing 10,000 subscribers), media interviews (including Marketplace, NPR, and the New York Times), and record-setting course evaluations. Meanwhile, Matt was on sabbatical last Spring and was able to wrap up several research projects, including a policy-relevant experimental economics study and a Broadway-focused data paper.
We close the episode by looking forward. For Jadrian, that means being open to new opportunities with teaching and writing. For Matt, it means focusing on the things only a dean can do, especially expanding international internship opportunities for students and continuing to think carefully about teaching and learning in an AI-heavy environment.
As with most economic decisions, the theme of the episode is familiar: maximize what matters, subject to limited time, imperfect information, and a lot of uncertainty.
This weekâs pop culture references:
One of the best parts of teaching is when students start spotting economics outside of the classroom. Jadrian often brings pop culture into his classroom, but it had been a few semesters since a student brought something back to him. That changed this past semester when a student told him she was binge-watching Psych and caught a reference to game theory.
Matt taught game theory for the first time in a while and assigned a project where students applied the concepts to something theyâre passionate about. With permission, heâs turned a few of those projects into presentations for a broader audience. In this episode, he shared one where a student analyzed the popular game Clash Royale and explained how mixed strategies can help in high-pressure scenarios.
This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.econhappyhour.com -
We reflect on what economics can teach us about work, technology, and the future. A new report by LinkedIn found that one in five Americans now work in jobs that didnât exist in 2000. We consider the economic implications of new roles driven by technology, the gig economy, and changing workplace demands. We touch on the decline of now-obsolete jobs, and question how educators can help students prepare for an unpredictable employment future.
In this episode, we discuss:
* The surprising stat that 1 in 5 Americans have jobs that didnât exist in 2000
* What kinds of new jobs have emerged in the past 25 years
* The decline of older job types and industries, like video rental
* How institutions and firms adapt to new tech by creating new roles
* Teaching strategies to help students understand labor market changes
* And a whole lot more!
Catch up on some old episodes:
You can also subscribe to us on Spotify, TuneIn Radio, Amazon Music, and Apple Podcasts. If one of these is your go-to podcast service, be sure to rate us and subscribe!
Some show notes:
Weâre sitting down in the middle of December, which means our classes are nearly over. By the time youâre reading this, grades have been posted, and we likely have auto replies on our emails. Jadrian celebrates the end of the term with a Shiner Bock (Texas pride intact), while Matt braved a Mad Elf, with a water on standby.
Our mystery stat game included estimates of holiday spending across the U.S. and Canada, and the motivation for todayâs conversation: roughly 20% of Americans now work in jobs that didnât exist 25 years ago. That stat, based on LinkedIn data cited by The Wall Street Journal, set the stage for our discussion on how the economy has evolved over the past 25 years.
Itâs easy to spot the jobs that have emerged in recent years: prompt engineers, social media managers, app developers. Even long-standing institutions like universities now rely on roles in IT, marketing, and cybersecurity that simply didnât exist 25 years ago. And beyond traditional workplaces, the gig economy has exploded, with Uber drivers, Instacart shoppers, and Grubhub couriers becoming a visible part of daily life.
But thereâs a flip side: jobs that fade away. One of the clearest examples is video rental, where employment dropped from over 120,000 in 2000 to fewer than 13,000 by 2017. Itâs a reminder that as technology and habits shift, entire industries can disappear.
Students often struggle with this dual reality. New tech can destroy some jobs while creating others we couldnât have predicted. The fear that automation will leave everyone unemployed reflects a common economic mistake: the lump-of-labor fallacy, or the idea that thereâs a fixed number of jobs to go around.
Labor market change can feel uncertain, even threatening. If 20% of todayâs jobs didnât exist a generation ago, what does that mean for the value of a college degree? For us, it reinforces the point: teaching students how to think, adapt, and collaborate may be the most reliable form of job security. Majors and tools will change, but curiosity, communication, and decision-making wonât be outdated anytime soon.
Cheers, and happy holidays!
This weekâs pop culture references:
Jadrian brought a fun throwback clip from a 1994 episode of The Today Show, where the hosts puzzle over what the internet is and how email addresses work. Itâs a great reminder of just how recent (and confusing) the digital age once felt.
Matt shared a scene from Sunset Boulevardâs âWith One Look,â where a former silent film star (Norma Desmond) reflects on losing her place in Hollywood. Itâs a striking example of creative destruction. New technology (talking pictures) can erase entire careers, even for once-iconic stars.
This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.econhappyhour.com -
College is often framed as the bridge between adolescence and adulthood, but how much should professors âstep inâ to guide student behavior along the way? In this episode, we dig into the economics of teaching choices: attendance policies, deadlines, nudges, and classroom rules. We reflect on how these decisions affect student outcomes and engagement, and whether support in the short run may come at the cost of long-run independence.
In this episode, we discuss:
* What paternalism looks like in college classrooms
* Should attendance be required in higher education?
* How paternalistic policies affect learning and engagement
* Trade-offs between student freedom and faculty expectations
* Whether âhand-holdingâ helps or hinders student success
* And a whole lot more!
Catch up on some old episodes:
You can also subscribe to us on Spotify, TuneIn Radio, Amazon Music, and Apple Podcasts. If one of these is your go-to podcast service, be sure to rate us and subscribe!
Some show notes:
Itâs early December, and the semester is just about coming to an end at Virginia Tech and Susquehanna. Jadrian opted for a Prickly Pear Fruit Beer from Shiner, while Matt went with a Voodoo Ranger Juice Force Hazy Imperial IPA in a small 7.5 oz can. Mattâs was high in ABV but âefficient.â
We kicked off this episode with a new game, and it might just become a regular segment. One of us brings a specific number from a recent news story, and the other has to guess what it represents. Jadrian chose a stat from a new survey on whether adults think college is worth the cost, while Matt focused on gains in the S&P 500. Let us know what you thought of the segment in the comments!
Weâve touched on paternalism before, but this felt like the right moment to give it a full episode. As the semester winds down, we naturally start asking which policies should stay and which should change next term. A lot of those decisions come down to how much we should shape student behavior. Take attendance, for example. Should professors require it, track it, and tie it to grades? Or is it enough to show up, teach well, and let students make their own choices?
From there, we expand into a broader design challenge. Every classroom policy (e.g., attendance, phone or laptop bans, email rules, assignment deadlines) is a lever that nudges behavior. Jadrian shares his use of Friday night deadlines as a way to protect studentsâ weekends and reduce procrastination. Itâs a deliberate nudge that some students dislike at first but often come to value by the end of the course (he thinks!).
Matt frames these choices as a kind of mechanism design problem: how do we build classes that support learning and accountability, without overwhelming students? And how do we balance short-term support with long-term independence? Thereâs also a practical question of whether being too hands-on now ends up leaving students unprepared for less flexible environments after graduation.
We also zoom out to look at institutional choices, like Susquehannaâs common lunch hour on Tuesdays and Thursdays. That break in the schedule encourages students to eat, meet with faculty, and build community. Even small decisions like that carry a bit of paternalism baked in.
We donât land on a one-size-fits-all answer. But we agree on this: every classroom rule, even something as simple as a deadline or device policy, is an economic choice. Whether intentional or not, it shapes how students behave and what they learn about navigating structure.
This weekâs pop culture references:
Jadrian passed on his pop culture pick this week to keep the conversation going about Susquehannaâs campus-wide lunch break. But Matt came prepared with a clip from Jadrianâs favorite show (Parks and Recreation) where Leslie Knope argues for a soda tax to reduce overconsumption in Pawnee.
This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.econhappyhour.com -
Behind every pint of beer is a surprisingly complex story about choices, local identity, supply chains, and a maze of regulations. This week, we sit down with Trey Malone of Purdue University to unpack the economics of beer. We talk about everything from tap lists and terroir to hop farmers, regulations, and what it really means to âbuy local.â
In this episode, we discuss:
* How Treyâs research career evolved to include beer economics
* The explosion of product variety in grocery stores and how beer exemplifies that
* Why too many choices on a tap list can lower beer sales
* How local identity and terroir shape demand for craft beer, hops, and cider.
* What 110,000 regulatory restrictions reveal about entrepreneurship in the beer industry.
* And a whole lot more!
Catch up on some old episodes:
You can also subscribe to us on Spotify, TuneIn Radio, Amazon Music, and Apple Podcasts. If one of these is your go-to podcast service, be sure to rate us and subscribe!
Some show notes:
After three years hosting a show titled âEconomics Happy Hourâ, we figured it was finally time to discuss the economics of beer. We thought it best to bring on an expert, Trey Malone, the Boehlje Endowed Chair for Managerial Economics in Agribusiness at Purdue University. Our drink line-up for this episode was eclectic: Jadrian with a Maine Blueberry sour, Matt with a Dogfishhead 90 Minute IPA, and Trey with a nostalgic Strohâs.
Trey shared some of the background to his journey into economics and eventually research interest in the economics of the beer industry, which grew out of broader questions about food marketing and product diversity. When he was born, grocery stores carried around 8,000 unique products, but that number is around 50,000 today. Beer, in particular, went from being dominated by a small number of similar-tasting brands to a vibrant, diverse craft beer landscape. That shift made it a great case study for exploring consumer preferences and market evolution.
One of his key research findings when studying beer was that more choices arenât always better for businesses. In a field experiment featuring a partnership with a local brewery, he was able to find that doubling the number of beers on tap actually reduced the likelihood that customers ordered one, a classic case of choice overload. However, adding a small signal on the beer (like highlighting its rating or awards) restored demand by lowering search costs.
Trey also talked about how supply chains and local identity shape consumer preferences. In Michigan, hop growers leaned into the concept of terroir and crafted narratives around their unique Chinook hops to build demand, even in markets outside the state. His research on cider showed that âlocalâ doesnât always mean geographic proximity. Instead, itâs tied to community identity. For example, many Detroit consumers prefer cider from Michiganâs Upper Peninsulaâhundreds of miles awayâover cider from Windsor, Ontario, just across the river.
On the production side, Treyâs work also explores regulation in the beer industry. Using machine learning, he and his collaborators identified over 110,000 regulatory restrictions across the beer supply chain. While that sounds like a lot of red tape, the research finds that clear and consistent rules often help entrepreneurs more than vague or inconsistent policies.
It turns out that beer is more than just a beverage. Itâs a powerful case study for understanding how incentives, identity, and business decisions intersect across the economy.
This weekâs pop culture references:
Jadrian yielded his time to Trey to hear more about his teaching-related scholarship. Trey shared two recent papers published in Applied Economics Teaching Resources. One explores how podcasts can be used for extension and outreach, especially in agricultural colleges, to build connections beyond the classroom. The other applies the Ignatian Pedagogical Paradigm (IPP) to create a day-long event focused on Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) farm ownership, developed within a college of agriculture at a midsouth university.
Matt shared a quick analysis he did on how much Cheers character Norm Peterson likely spent on beer during his run on the show. It was a fun, light look at fictional bar tabs and a clever nod to this weekâs beer theme.
This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.econhappyhour.com -
College football is big business. While universities often talk about tradition, rivalries, and student spirit, the finances tell a story of massive contracts, enormous buyouts, and constant leadership churn. This week, Matt and Jadrian explore the economics behind college football coach buyouts and ask why schools pay millions to people who they consider bad at their job. We explore what these buyouts say about incentives, risk, and market competition in college sports.
In this episode, we discuss:
* Why coach buyouts are structured the way they are and what they signal.
* How risk, reputation, and recruiting drive buyout decisions.
* The role of agents in inflating buyouts and securing job security.
* How schools balance donor pressure, fan expectations, and contract costs.
* And a whole lot more!
Catch up on some old episodes:
You can also subscribe to us on Spotify, TuneIn Radio, Amazon Music, and Apple Podcasts. If one of these is your go-to podcast service, be sure to rate us and subscribe!
Some show notes:
Both our universities are in the midst of course registration, which means students are simultaneously stressed about their current classes and determining the classes theyâll take next semester. That stress has spilled over to Jadrian and Matt, which meant it was a good time to sit down, have a drink, and talk about economics. Jadrian was able to enjoy a Shiner Light from the great state of Texas (but purchased in North Carolina), while Matt opted for a non-alcoholic Bud Zero.
This weekâs episode looked at the structure and rationale of college football coach buyouts thanks to a recent article published in The Wall Street Journal. For those who havenât heard, a lot of major college football programs are on the hook for multi-million dollar buyouts of their head football coachesâa payment owed if their employer fires them before their contract ends. Schools like Penn State, Louisiana State, and Florida all owe their most recent coaches more than $100 million combined in buyouts. But why?
These high-profile buyouts arenât just about poor performance. Sometimes, schools are willing to pay tens of millions to remove a coach simply because theyâre not meeting expectations fast enough. Of course, theyâre also there to disincentivize coaches from leaving for a better job. Buyouts, then, serve both as a penalty for early termination and a retention incentive.
Schools canât perfectly predict how a coach will perform, but large contracts and buyouts can signal confidence or act as a commitment device. Itâs also worth considering the financial discipline of athletic departments and athletic directors, and whether these clauses represent a principal-agent problem or a winnerâs curse.
This weekâs pop culture references:
Neither Matt nor Jadrian had a pop culture tie-in this week, but Matt shared a classroom experiment related to the episodeâs theme. In his game theory course, students bid on a jar of pennies worth $6.01. Most bids come in well below that. One student, however, bid just over $8 and won, perfectly illustrating the winnerâs curse discussed earlier in the episode.
This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.econhappyhour.com -
We break down the 2025 Economics Nobel Prize, which was awarded to Joel Mokyr, Philippe Aghion, and Peter Howitt for their âhaving explained innovation-driven economic growth.â We discuss why these contributions matter and reflect on the broader importance of understanding long-term economic growth. Along the way, we also share our own reactions and what stood out about this yearâs selection.
In this episode, we discuss:
* The 2025 Nobel Prize in Economics and how it was split among three researchers
* Joel Mokyrâs work on the conditions needed for technological progress
* Philippe Aghion and Peter Howittâs model of creative destruction
* The idea of the âhockey stick of growthâ and what triggered the Industrial Revolution
* Why understanding long-run growth matters in todayâs economy
* And a whole lot more!
Catch up on some old episodes:
You can also subscribe to us on Spotify, TuneIn Radio, Amazon Music, and Apple Podcasts. If one of these is your go-to podcast service, be sure to rate us and subscribe!
Some show notes:
Itâs that time of semester where the the to-do lists seem to grow faster than our patience. But it also means that itâs Nobel Prize Week! To celebrate, Jadrian went with a non-alcoholic cucumber-watermelon refresher since he was in the office. Matt, on the other hand, was able to crack open a New Trail Conifer Cosmos Hazy IPA.
This weekâs episode centered on the 2025 Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences, awarded to Joel Mokyr, Philippe Aghion, and Peter Howitt for their research on innovation-driven growth. Mokyr received half the prize for explaining the prerequisites for sustained technological progress, while Aghion and Howitt shared the other half for their work on creative destruction.
Mokyrâs work has been grounded in economic history, and highlights the importance of institutional and social foundations in sustaining technological progress. Aghion and Howittâs model builds on Schumpeterâs idea of creative destruction, where innovation continuously disrupts old technologies and drives growth forward.
There has been a great metaphor that often gets tossed around to describe modern growth: the âhockey stickâ of economic growth. For centuries, global income remained largely flat until the Industrial Revolution, when technological advancement caused a steep rise in prosperity. Mokyr, Aghion, and Howittâs work focused on the theoretical models that explained the dramatic turning point in history.
Itâs hard to overstate how vital these ideas are. Understanding growth may be the single most important question in economics.
Both of us were familiar with the stories surrounding the hockey stick of growth, but neither of us were familiar with the three individuals who were selected. In no way is that a knock on the winners, but rather a highlight of the many subjects that economists study. Because there are so many topics to pick from, many economists tend to specialize in their frield. That makes it challenging to keep up with major work outside your own fields.
This weekâs pop culture references:
Matt pointed out the lack of economic growth in Game of Thrones, noting that overhead shots of Kingâs Landing look nearly identical to those shown 200 years earlier in House of the Dragon. Itâs a fun example of what it looks like when an economy doesnât experience technological progress or creative destruction. Itâs just the same buildings and no evidence of any hockey sticks.
Jadrian grabbed a funny scene from Talladega Nights where Ricky Bobby claims that with modern medicine, he might live to be 245 years old. Itâs a humorous take on how the technological progress studied by this yearâs Nobel Laureates shapes expectations about the future.
This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.econhappyhour.com -
Letâs dive into a surprisingly tricky topic to teach: tax incidence. In this episode, we explore why this seemingly simple concept trips up so many students, how elasticity shapes âwho pays,â and what strategies actually help the idea stick. Itâs a candid mid-semester check-in thatâs full of travel stories, fall-break frustrations, and creative teaching analogies.
In this episode, we discuss:
* Why tax incidence is frustrating to teach compared to other topics.
* How elasticity determines the division of tax burdens between buyers and sellers.
* Whether professors should ânudgeâ better study habits or let students learn through consequences.
* And a whole lot more!
Catch up on some old episodes:
You can also listen to us on Google Podcasts, TuneIn Radio, and Apple Podcasts. If one of these is your go-to podcast service, be sure to rate us and subscribe!
Some show notes:
October marks the midpoint of the semester for each of us, which is a good enough reason to share a drink. Jadrian went with a âtoplessâ Pride Cream Ale, which is really only possible thanks to a nifty gadget that removes the can lid. Matt stuck with a classic Brooklyn Brewery Pale Ale.
Our main topic for this episode focused on challenging topics to teach, and for Jadrian, that would be the elusive concept of tax incidence. It seems like every year, students misinterpret how taxes affect buyers and sellers, even though Jadrian has tried different techniques for teaching that concept. Many assume that a 50-cent tax applied to an item costing $1 results in a new price of $1.50, which means theyâre missing the concept of tax burdens affecting both sellers and buyers.
This is such a great time to be teaching tax incidence because weâre seeing this play out in the news with tariffs on imports. The big question when tariffs were announced focused on who would be paying the tariffs, foreign countries or American consumers. Economists are usually quick to point on tax incidence in that consumers would likely pay a portion of the tariff through higher prices.
This was also a good chance to talk about the limits of what we can do as instructors. If it takes hours of revisions to get the class 1% better on a particular topic, perhaps there are better uses of our time? That led us into a brief conversation on instructional paternalism and how much oversight professors should place on shaping student behavior around deadlines and pacing. That, however, may become a future episode.
This weekâs pop culture references:
Jadrian jumped in quickly to block Matt from reusing one of his favorite clips. Jadrianâs contribution is from J. Cole, in which he sings about the frustration many people feel about paying taxes without having a real say in how theyâre spent.
Matt went with two Broadway hits from Lin-Manuel Miranda. In the Heights has a great song where characters recognize that their lottery winnings would be reduced because of taxes. And then in Hamilton, the characters talk about the resistance to British taxation.
This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.econhappyhour.com -
We explore what the looming demographic cliff means for colleges and universities. As the number of high school graduates begins to shrink, institutions are grappling with how to adapt, especially smaller and regional schools. We discuss which types of schools are most vulnerable and why elite and flagship universities may be somewhat insulated from the effects. We also look at the structural and financial implications this demographic shift brings to the future of higher ed.
In this episode, we discuss:
* What the demographic cliff is and where it came from
* Why the decline in high school graduates is hitting some schools harder than others
* How large research universities are expanding while smaller schools struggle
* The uneven distribution of enrollment pressure across higher education
* Mergers, closures, and financial strategies schools are using to survive
* Long-term risks for access and affordability in college education
* And a whole lot more!
Catch up on some old episodes:
You can also listen to us on Google Podcasts, TuneIn Radio, and Apple Podcasts. If one of these is your go-to podcast service, be sure to rate us and subscribe!
Watch this episode on YouTube:
Some show notes:
Itâs still early in the term, but Matt and Jadrian have been hard at work with the latest batch of students. Thereâs some controversy at Susquehanna, so itâs a perfect time for a drink. Matt went with a One to One Hazy IPA from Hitchhiker Brewing featuring Mosaic and Simcoe hops, while Jadrian opted for a lighter Watermelon Ranch Water hard seltzer from Karbach Brewing in Houston.
This weekâs episode centers on the demographic cliff: an anticipated drop in the number of college-age students due to declining birth rates after the Great Recession. Why does this matter? Although high school graduation rates havenât dropped, the number of graduates will fall by as much as 12â15% over just a few years. That creates significant pressure on colleges that rely on a steady pipeline of new students for financial sustainability.
While we often talk about the enrollment cliff as affecting higher education as a whole, this shift wonât impact all colleges equally. Large research universities and highly-ranked liberal arts colleges are more insulated, often continuing to grow or maintain enrollment. Smaller private schools, regional public universities, and lesser-known liberal arts colleges are already seeing financial strain, leading to campus closures and mergers. Examples like the creation of PennWest and branch campus closures at Penn State illustrate how some schools are consolidating to survive.
This is more than a numbers game. The drop in prospective students also means fiercer competition, with many institutions increasing aid offers to fill seats. This forces schools to discount tuition more heavily, squeezing budgets even further. And while some schools expand dorms and programs to attract top-tier students, others face hard questions about long-term viability.
We round out our discussion with concerns about what this means for educational access, especially for students in rural areas or from low-income backgrounds. If regional colleges disappear, students may lose the ability to attend college close to home, risking broader educational and social implications.
This weekâs pop culture references:
This isnât really a pop cultureâfriendly topic, but we had a few moments worth noting. Matt went with a classic quote from Animal House with Brother Blutoâs deadpan line: âSeven years of college down the drain.â Itâs a fitting clip for an episode focused on the future (and fragility) of college as an institution.
This was a reading-heavy segment, fueled by our own curiosity about the future of higher ed. Matt has been diving into Let Colleges Fail, a provocative book that compares the failure rate of colleges to public companies and argues that society might benefit if more struggling schools were allowed to close.
Jadrian recently picked up Hacking College, which focuses on how universities can better prepare students for life after graduation. It looks at structural and practical changes that could make higher ed more relevant and responsive to student needs.
This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.econhappyhour.com -
Letâs dive into the unexpected legacy of Boris Yeltsinâs 1989 visit to a Houston grocery store. We explore how that moment shaped the Russian leaderâs perspective on economic systems and why it's a favorite teaching example in economics classes. Itâs a great introduction to consumer choice, abundance, and market economies, thanks to Yeltsinâs astonishment captured on film.
In this episode, we discuss:
* The story of Boris Yeltsinâs 1989 grocery store visit in Houston.
* How the trip challenged his view of command economies.
* How to use this story in an economics class to explain different economic systems.
* The symbolism and impact of everyday abundance in American supermarkets.
* And a whole lot more!
Catch up on some old episodes:
You can also listen to us on Google Podcasts, TuneIn Radio, and Apple Podcasts. If one of these is your go-to podcast service, be sure to rate us and subscribe!
Watch this episode on YouTube:
Some show notes:
Itâs the first week of classes, which means itâs time to introduce foundational economic ideas to a new group of students. Before diving into the main topic, we share some alcohol-free drinks. Jadrian is recording from the office, so he went with a Diet Coke. Matt is gearing up for a trivia night, which means he went with a Bud Zero.
Jadrianâs favorite story to tell in principles of economics is a summary of Boris Yeltsinâs impromptu stop at a Randallâs grocery store during a diplomatic visit to Houston in 1989. What was meant to be a simple public-relations stop became a moment of genuine shock for the Russian leader, who was stunned by the variety and availability of consumer goods, particularly frozen pudding pops.
His visit turned out to be more than just a funny anecdote. It became a moment that highlighted the difference between market-based and command economies. Yeltsinâs visible awe (and later disbelief) showcased how removed the Soviet Union's system was from the consumer abundance present in the U.S. During his visit, he initially believed the store was staged and later insisted on stopping at a second one just to confirm it was real.
Yeltsin shared with his entourage that âthere would be a revolutionâ if Soviet citizens saw the conditions of American supermarkets. While the entire Houston Chronicle story is a great read, the photos of Yeltsin marveling at freezers and checkout scanners are the best part.
Before logging off, we also explored the broader context of American agriculture and global influence, based on a great Freakonomics podcast summarizing how the U.S. government used subsidized food exports to economically undercut the Soviet Union.
Americans have been blessed with a domestic food system with an overwhelming variety, but itâs often something most Americans take for granted. Perhaps when you celebrate Boris Yeltsin Supermarket Day on September 16, youâll stop to marvel at the variety that is available every day thanks to our market-based system.
This weekâs pop culture references:
Alongside the Yeltsin story in class, Jadrian shares a scene from Moscow on the Hudson, a film starring Robin Williams that explores immigration and cultural adjustment. One memorable scene ties directly to this episodeâs theme: Williamsâs character visits a grocery store to buy coffee and is overwhelmed by the lack of lines and the sheer variety of choices. It was a moment that mirrors Yeltsinâs own experience in Houston.
Mattâs contribution comes from an early scene in The Hunger Games, where Katniss is given a simple piece of bread. Her reaction of genuine excitement reflects the level of scarcity that exists in their command economy. Even basic goods arenât always available. It's a quick but powerful illustration of economic systems in action.
This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.econhappyhour.com - Laat meer zien
