Liveblogging World War II: March 24, 1943
Liveblogging World War II: March 25, 1943

Noted for March 25, 2013: Larry Katz and Bob Margo on the Very Long Run Skill Bias of Technological Change, etc.

  • Owen Zidar sends us to Larry Katz and Bob Margo: Technical Change and the Relative Demand for Skilled Labor: The United States in Historical Perspective: "This paper examines shifts over time in the relative demand for skilled labor in the United States. Although de-skilling in the conventional sense did occur overall in nineteenth century manufacturing, a more nuanced picture is that occupations “hollowed out”: the share of “middle-skill” jobs – artisans – declined while those of “high-skill” – white collar, non-production workers – and “low-skill” – operatives and laborers increased. De-skilling did not occur in the aggregate economy; rather, the aggregate shares of low skill jobs decreased, middle skill jobs remained steady, and high skill jobs expanded from 1850 to the early twentieth century. The pattern of monotonic skill upgrading continued through much of the twentieth century until the recent “polarization” of labor demand since the late 1980s. New archival evidence on wages suggests that the demand for high skill (white collar) workers grew more rapidly than the supply starting well before the Civil War."

  • Ezra Klein interviews Chrystia Freeland: ‘Romney is Wall Street’s worst bet since the bet on subprime’: "I found the hostility towards Obama astonishing. I found the commitment to getting him out astonishing. I found the absolute confidence that it would work astonishing…. The Romney comments to his donors, for which he was roundly pounced on by Republican politicians… accurately reflected the view of a lot of these money guys… this 47 percent idea. They believe that Obama has been shoring up the entitlement society, and if you give enough entitlements to enough people, they’ll vote for you…. [T]his class… [is] convinced that it just so happens that their self-interest coincides perfectly with the collective interest. That’s where you get this idea of the “job creators”. The view is that to seek a low tax environment or less regulation, that’s not special pleading for yourself, it’s not transactional politics. It’s that this set of rules is the most conducive to economic growth for everybody…. By his own definition, Romney’s single strongest qualification to become president was analytically based, managerial excellence. And if the election campaign were the test of that, and even if you were ideologically his fan, you should think it right that he lost [because his campaign was so managerially un-excellent]…. I find it truly mystifying. I don’t claim to have particularly unique insight. I think it could be a combination of things. One is a generic belief that in order to run for president you have to think you’re going to win…. A second thing, and this is not so much about the rich guys as about the Republican Party in America, I think Republicans have felt since the time of Ronald Reagan that they are the party that represents the true America…. And when it comes to the super-rich guy dimension… it can make it hard to see reality, especially when you’re paying your campaign staff great salaries, as Romney was."

Kathleen Geier: The Siren Song Of War: Why Pundits Beat The Drums For Iraq | Jared Bernstein: Growth and Debt: It’s What Everyone’s Talkin’ About! | Paul Krugman: Why Don't We Have Deflation? |

  • Jonathan Portes: Not the Treasury view...: A Socratic dialogue with @ToryTreasury: "Where does this leave us?  As I said above, I am not endorsing Labour's specific policy proposals; nor do I wish to rehearse yet again here the broader case for an alternative fiscal policy.  It is perfectly legitimate for ToryTreasury to use whatever assumptions it wants to assess the impact of Labour's plans on growth, borrowing and so on.  But making a quantitative statement without any underlying quantitative assumptions; then making incorrect statements about those assumptions (or their absence) and then refusing to correct such statements, means that any such assessment has little credibility."

On March 24, 2013: