Tuesday, February 25, 2014 1:55pm

Robots

Question A: Advancing automation has not historically reduced employment in the United States.

Responses
 

© 2014. Initiative on Global Markets.
9%
0%
2%
7%
58%
18%
Source: IGM Economic Experts Panel
www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel

Responses weighted by each expert's confidence

© 2014. Initiative on Global Markets.
0%
4%
8%
63%
25%
Source: IGM Economic Experts Panel
www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel

Question B: Information technology and automation are a central reason why median wages have been stagnant in the US over the past decade, despite rising productivity.

Responses
 

© 2014. Initiative on Global Markets.
11%
2%
18%
29%
33%
0%
Source: IGM Economic Experts Panel
www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel

Responses weighted by each expert's confidence

© 2014. Initiative on Global Markets.
4%
24%
30%
43%
0%
Source: IGM Economic Experts Panel
www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel

Question A Participant Responses

Participant University Vote Confidence Comment Bio/Vote History
Acemoglu Daron Acemoglu MIT Agree 9
Bio/Vote History
         
Alesina Alberto Alesina Harvard No Opinion
Bio/Vote History
         
Altonji Joseph Altonji Yale Strongly Agree 9
Bio/Vote History
         
Auerbach Alan Auerbach Berkeley Agree 5
Bio/Vote History
         
Autor David Autor MIT Strongly Agree 8
Temporarily yes. Over the long run, no. Labor force participation has risen throughout most of the 20th century.
Bio/Vote History
         
Baicker Katherine Baicker Harvard No Opinion
Bio/Vote History
         
Banerjee Abhijit Banerjee MIT Uncertain 8
It is not easy to find evidence one way or the other that it did not shift the aggregate labor demand curve down.
Bio/Vote History
         
Bertrand Marianne Bertrand Chicago Agree 3
Bio/Vote History
         
Brunnermeier Markus Brunnermeier Princeton Agree 8
new employment opportunities opened up e.g. in the service sector.
Bio/Vote History
         
Chetty Raj Chetty Harvard Strongly Agree 6
Bio/Vote History
         
Chevalier Judith Chevalier Yale Agree 8
Bio/Vote History
         
Currie Janet Currie Princeton Agree 8
Bio/Vote History
         
Cutler David Cutler Harvard Agree 5
Bio/Vote History
         
Deaton Angus Deaton Princeton Strongly Agree 8
Bio/Vote History
         
Duffie Darrell Duffie Stanford Agree 1
Bio/Vote History
         
Edlin Aaron Edlin Berkeley No Opinion
Bio/Vote History
         
Eichengreen Barry Eichengreen Berkeley Strongly Agree 10
Bio/Vote History
         
Einav Liran Einav Stanford Uncertain 7
Bio/Vote History
         
Fair Ray Fair Yale Agree 5
Bio/Vote History
         
Finkelstein Amy Finkelstein MIT Agree 2
Bio/Vote History
         
Goldberg Pinelopi Goldberg Yale Did Not Answer
Bio/Vote History
         
Goolsbee Austan Goolsbee Chicago Agree 7
Over the long run, that is true
Bio/Vote History
         
Greenstone Michael Greenstone MIT Agree 7
Bio/Vote History
         
Hall Robert Hall Stanford Did Not Answer
Bio/Vote History
         
Hart Oliver Hart Harvard Agree 7
There has been temporary displacement but displaced workers have found jobs elsewhere, as theory might predict
Bio/Vote History
         
Holmström Bengt Holmström MIT Agree 8
Bio/Vote History
         
Hoxby Caroline Hoxby Stanford Agree 5
Hard to be certain b/c a GE issue, but little econ history supports mechanization having reduced employment.
Bio/Vote History
         
Hoynes Hilary Hoynes Berkeley Disagree 9
Bio/Vote History
         
Judd Kenneth Judd Stanford Agree 7
Productivity increases options. Employment becomes more beneficial, but it is irrelevant if people choose to work less.
Bio/Vote History
         
Kaplan Steven Kaplan Chicago Agree 9
Automation has increased greatly over last 100 years. Employment has increased. Labor participation rates have varied.
Bio/Vote History
         
Kashyap Anil Kashyap Chicago Agree 7
Bio/Vote History
         
Klenow Pete Klenow Stanford Agree 6
To a first order approximation.
-see background information here
Bio/Vote History
         
Levin Jonathan Levin Stanford Agree 4
Bio/Vote History
         
Maskin Eric Maskin Harvard Agree 6
Bio/Vote History
         
Nordhaus William Nordhaus Yale Agree 8
Really would say unemployment. Otherwise need to incorporate income effects.
Bio/Vote History
         
Obstfeld Maurice Obstfeld Berkeley Agree 5
Bio/Vote History
         
Saez Emmanuel Saez Berkeley Strongly Agree 6
Bio/Vote History
         
Samuelson Larry Samuelson Yale Agree 8
Automation can cause significant displacement and can require costly adjustments, but has not reduced long-run employment.
Bio/Vote History
         
Scheinkman José Scheinkman Princeton Agree 7
Bio/Vote History
         
Schmalensee Richard Schmalensee MIT Did Not Answer
Bio/Vote History
         
Shapiro Carl Shapiro Berkeley Agree 7
Bio/Vote History
         
Shimer Robert Shimer Chicago Strongly Agree 8
Automation has not reduced net employment, but some workers have lost their jobs due to automation
Bio/Vote History
         
Stokey Nancy Stokey Chicago Strongly Agree 10
If this had been true over the last two centuries, almost no one would be working anymore.
Bio/Vote History
         
Thaler Richard Thaler Chicago No Opinion
Bio/Vote History
         
Udry Christopher Udry Yale Uncertain 6
Mixed effects across the distribution of skills
-see background information here
Bio/Vote History
         

Question B Participant Responses

Participant University Vote Confidence Comment Bio/Vote History
Acemoglu Daron Acemoglu MIT Agree 9
Bio/Vote History
         
Alesina Alberto Alesina Harvard No Opinion
Bio/Vote History
         
Altonji Joseph Altonji Yale Agree 7
Bio/Vote History
         
Auerbach Alan Auerbach Berkeley Uncertain 3
Bio/Vote History
         
Autor David Autor MIT Agree 7
Technology and trade/globalization are probably two largest factors. Would also include deunionization.
Bio/Vote History
         
Baicker Katherine Baicker Harvard No Opinion
Bio/Vote History
         
Banerjee Abhijit Banerjee MIT Disagree 6
There are so many other factors including trade (including in services).
Bio/Vote History
         
Bertrand Marianne Bertrand Chicago Agree 3
Bio/Vote History
         
Brunnermeier Markus Brunnermeier Princeton Disagree 7
Winner-takes-it-all technologies are more prevelant than only in IT. Moreover, globalization (containers), ... are also important factors.
Bio/Vote History
         
Chetty Raj Chetty Harvard Agree 5
Bio/Vote History
         
Chevalier Judith Chevalier Yale Disagree 5
Bio/Vote History
         
Currie Janet Currie Princeton Disagree 7
Rising health care costs may actually be more important for the median worker.
Bio/Vote History
         
Cutler David Cutler Harvard Agree 4
Bio/Vote History
         
Deaton Angus Deaton Princeton Strongly Disagree 8
Bio/Vote History
         
Duffie Darrell Duffie Stanford Uncertain 1
Bio/Vote History
         
Edlin Aaron Edlin Berkeley Uncertain 7
Bio/Vote History
         
Eichengreen Barry Eichengreen Berkeley Uncertain 6
They are A reason, among others. And a reason is not the same as a result; there could have been offsetting policy/policies.
Bio/Vote History
         
Einav Liran Einav Stanford Uncertain 7
Bio/Vote History
         
Fair Ray Fair Yale No Opinion
Question is too broad.
Bio/Vote History
         
Finkelstein Amy Finkelstein MIT Agree 3
Bio/Vote History
         
Goldberg Pinelopi Goldberg Yale Did Not Answer
Bio/Vote History
         
Goolsbee Austan Goolsbee Chicago Agree 7
Bio/Vote History
         
Greenstone Michael Greenstone MIT Uncertain 5
Stagnant education levels and the financial crisis are almost certainly culprits. Work on assigning shares will go on for a long time.
Bio/Vote History
         
Hall Robert Hall Stanford Did Not Answer
Bio/Vote History
         
Hart Oliver Hart Harvard Agree 6
Unskilled jobs have been lost which may well be a factor, although not the only one, behind stagant median income and increasing inequality
Bio/Vote History
         
Holmström Bengt Holmström MIT Agree 7
Bio/Vote History
         
Hoxby Caroline Hoxby Stanford Uncertain 8
Skill biased tech probably a cause of flat median wages,but there are MANY other causes. GE problems like this cannot be sorted definitively
Bio/Vote History
         
Hoynes Hilary Hoynes Berkeley Disagree 5
Bio/Vote History
         
Judd Kenneth Judd Stanford Agree 5
It may have a short-run impact but there is no reason to believe that it is permanent.
Bio/Vote History
         
Kaplan Steven Kaplan Chicago Uncertain 3
IT and automation have helped the "top 1%." Not clear what that has done to median relative to financial crisis, government policy, etc.
Bio/Vote History
         
Kashyap Anil Kashyap Chicago No Opinion
Bio/Vote History
         
Klenow Pete Klenow Stanford Agree 6 Bio/Vote History
         
Levin Jonathan Levin Stanford Agree 6
Bio/Vote History
         
Maskin Eric Maskin Harvard Disagree 6
Bio/Vote History
         
Nordhaus William Nordhaus Yale Disagree 8
Many other factors going on.
Bio/Vote History
         
Obstfeld Maurice Obstfeld Berkeley Uncertain 4
Bio/Vote History
         
Saez Emmanuel Saez Berkeley Disagree 4
Bio/Vote History
         
Samuelson Larry Samuelson Yale Uncertain 1
Bio/Vote History
         
Scheinkman José Scheinkman Princeton Uncertain 5
Bio/Vote History
         
Schmalensee Richard Schmalensee MIT Did Not Answer
Bio/Vote History
         
Shapiro Carl Shapiro Berkeley Uncertain 3
Bio/Vote History
         
Shimer Robert Shimer Chicago Agree 7
Trade is likely also important for median wages.
Bio/Vote History
         
Stokey Nancy Stokey Chicago Uncertain 6
The wage distribution has expanded and compressed over long periods. Technology is probably, involved, but it is unclear exactly how.
Bio/Vote History
         
Thaler Richard Thaler Chicago No Opinion
Bio/Vote History
         
Udry Christopher Udry Yale Agree 3
Bio/Vote History
         

10 New Economic Experts join the IGM Panel


For the past two years, our expert panelists have been informing the public about the extent to which economists agree or disagree on important public policy issues. This week, we are delighted to announce that we are expanding the IGM Economic Experts Panel to add ten new distinguished economists. Like our other experts, these new panelists have impeccable qualifications to speak on public policy matters, and their names will be familiar to other economists and the media.

To give the public a broad sense of their views on policy issues, each new expert has responded to a selection of 16 statements that our panel had previously addressed. We chose these 16 statements, which cover a wide range of important policy areas, because the original panelists' responses to them were analyzed in a paper comparing the views of our economic experts with those of the American public. You can find that paper, by Paola Sapienza and Luigi Zingales, here. The paper, along with other analyses of the experts' views, was discussed during the American Economic Association annual meetings, and the video can be found here.

The new panelists' responses to these statements can be seen on their individual voting history pages. Our ten new economic experts are:

Abhijit Banerjee (MIT)
Markus K. Brunnermeier (Princeton)
Liran Einav (Stanford)
Amy Finkelstein (MIT)
Oliver Hart (Harvard)
Hilary Hoynes (Berkeley)
Steven N. Kaplan (Chicago)
Larry Samuelson (Yale)
Carl Shapiro (Berkeley)
Robert Shimer (Chicago)


Please note that, for the 16 previous topics on which these new panelists have voted, we left the charts showing the distribution of responses unchanged. Those charts reflect the responses that our original panelists gave at the time, and we have not altered them to reflect the views of the new experts.

We have also taken this opportunity to ask our original panelists whether they would vote differently on any of the statements we have asked about in the past. Several experts chose to highlight statements to which they would currently respond differently. In such cases, you will see this "revote" below the panelist's original vote. We think you will enjoy seeing examples of statements on which some experts have reconsidered.

As with the 16 previous statements voted on by new panelists, these "revote" responses are not reflected in the chart that we display showing the distribution of views for that topic: all the charts for previous questions reflect the distribution of views that the experts expressed when the statement was originally posed.

About the IGM Economic Experts Panel

This panel explores the extent to which economists agree or disagree on major public policy issues. To assess such beliefs we assembled this panel of expert economists. Statistics teaches that a sample of (say) 40 opinions will be adequate to reflect a broader population if the sample is representative of that population.

To that end, our panel was chosen to include distinguished experts with a keen interest in public policy from the major areas of economics, to be geographically diverse, and to include Democrats, Republicans and Independents as well as older and younger scholars. The panel members are all senior faculty at the most elite research universities in the United States. The panel includes Nobel Laureates, John Bates Clark Medalists, fellows of the Econometric society, past Presidents of both the American Economics Association and American Finance Association, past Democratic and Republican members of the President's Council of Economics, and past and current editors of the leading journals in the profession. This selection process has the advantage of not only providing a set of panelists whose names will be familiar to other economists and the media, but also delivers a group with impeccable qualifications to speak on public policy matters.

Finally, it is important to explain one aspect of our voting process. In some instances a panelist may neither agree nor disagree with a statement, and there can be two very different reasons for this. One case occurs when an economist is an expert on a topic and yet sees the evidence on the exact claim at hand as ambiguous. In such cases our panelists vote "uncertain". A second case relates to statements on topics so far removed from the economist's expertise that he or she feels unqualified to vote. In this case, our panelists vote "no opinion".

The Economic Experts Panel questions are emailed individually to the members of the panel, and each responds electronically at his or her convenience. Panelists may consult whatever resources they like before answering.

Members of the public are free to suggest questions (see link below), and the panelists suggest many themselves. Members of the IGM faculty are responsible for deciding the final version of each week’s question. We usually send a draft of the question to the panel in advance, and invite them to point out problems with the wording if they see any. In response, we typically receive a handful of suggested clarifications from individual experts. This process helps us to spot inconsistencies, and to reduce vagueness or problems of interpretation.

The panel data are copyrighted by the Initiative on Global Markets and are being analyzed for an article to appear in a leading peer-reviewed journal.

chicago booth