Stochastic Trend

I think that robots/artificial intelligence and the future of work is a hugely important topic. This is a very active research field but it seems to me that people (some informed by this research but most without referring to the research) are rushing to one of two conclusions. The first of these conclusions is that up till now economic growth has resulted in rising wages and full employment and so it surely will in the future too. The other is that robots must mean structural unemployment and so the solution is to introduce universal basic income or some similar redistributive policy.

I don't think either is necessarily true. In the past, the elasticity of substitution between labor and capital seems to have been less than one - both inputs were essential in production. Also, the two inputs are q-complements - an increase in capital per worker results in an increase in the marginal product and, therefore, wage of a worker. But it's possible that now, or in the future, that the elasticity of substitution between labor and capital is or will be greater than unity so that labor is not an essential input. Or that there are techniques that are designed just to use machines. Acemoglu and Restrepo (2016) assume that as some low-skilled tasks become automated other new high-skilled tasks are introduced. But there may be limits to people's cognitive ability. Most people aren't intelligent enough to be engineers and scientists. And the people that are intelligent enough now, might be worse than artificial intelligences in the future.

The other premature conclusion is that, definitely things are different now, and robots will result in structural unemployment or immiserizing growth, so that government intervention is needed. Usually, universal basic income is mentioned. Sachs et al. (2015) argue immiserizing growth is possible. This is one of the better papers out there I think, but still the framework is quite limited. as technological change is exogenous. It is possible that there is some self-correcting mechanism similar to that in Acemoglu's (2003) paper on capital- and labor-augmenting technical change. In that model, capital-augmenting technical change is possible for a while, but it introduces forces that return the economy to a pure labor-augmenting technical change path. Another important question is whether people have a preference to have at least some of the goods and services they consume produced by humans. Sachs et al. assume that utility is a Cobb-Douglas function of automatable and non-automatable goods. That means that consumption of human made goods could become infinitesimally small in theory.

I think we need to consider a range of models as well as empirical evidence before we can say what kind of policy, if any, is needed.

I wanted to do research on this and started doing some research on this but concluded that it is not realistic given my limited time for research because of my administrative - I am still director of our International and Development Economics Program - and parenting roles and my existing research commitments. Twitter isn't the only reason that I haven't updated this blog in 2 1/2 months. Comparative advantage suggests to me that I remain focused on energy economics. However, I think that the Crawford School of Public Policy should be looking at these kind of issues, and I am trying to encourage that. This is going to be one of the key policy questions going forward I think.

I started writing this on Twitter but it got too long :) Peter Martin proposes taxing superannuation contributions at ordinary income tax rates and then not taxing earnings or payouts of superannuation funds. This would greatly simplify the superannuation system and is the logical progression of Costello's introduction of tax free superannuation pensions and the recent move to increase the contributions tax people earning more than $300k p.a. It is equivalent to the U.S. Roth IRA. It could, in theory make running a self-managed super fund as simple as having an ordinary brokerage account (as it is in the U.S.) as the funds wouldn't owe tax.

There is one drawback, though. Taxing up front, leaves less capital to accumulate and so super payouts and the tax collected will be smaller than if instead we followed the U.S. 401k model. This is where payouts are taxed at regular income tax rates and contributions and earnings are tax free.* But, at this point, this would be a more radical change than the Roth IRA route. Existing superannuants would have to be grandfathered or they would complain about double taxation compared to current contributors. So, it's more likely we go down the Roth IRA route.

Most likely, of course, is a relatively minor change that complicates the system further or doesn't reduce the complication such as reducing the contributions tax concession to 15% across the board. Or eliminates the up-front concession but doesn't eliminate taxing superannuation earnings.

* There are probably some equilibrium effects that reduce the difference between the two....

After seeing that Alison Booth's paper from the Quarterly Journal of Economics was the most downloaded paper from ResearchGate at Crawford this week, I was curious what fraction of employees at Australian universities belonged to the National Tertiary Education Union. Apparently NTEU has 26,000 members. It also seems that there are 113,000 employees in the university sector. On that basis the unionization rate would be only 23%. Of course, quite a lot of those are casuals or PhD students working as lecturer A etc.* But the total number of full-time staff is 86,000. That implies 30%. Also there were 67,933 staff on continuing contracts. If the latter is the real target market for the union then the rate is 38%. Based on this, social custom doesn't work well in the university sector to overcoming free-riding. Let me know if any of my assumptions are wrong as this is the first time I've ever looked at this issue.

* There were 41,730 academics at levels B and above, but the union also represents non-academic staff.

I expect that, like the "male organ" paper I commented on a couple of years ago, a new paper by Nick Drydakis on "Sexual Activity and Wages" will get a lot of hits. My wife saw it mentioned on this Chinese website.

Using Greek survey data, the paper finds that the frequency of sexual activity is positively correlated with wages and that this result is robust to a large number of control variables including psychological traits, age, incidence of various health problems, and marital status. But you can't control for everything and you have to work with the data you have available. One thing that I think is likely to be very important isn't controlled for - having children. I would expect that this is negatively correlated with frequency of sexual activity and, for women at least, is associated with lower wages. What do you think? Is this is a critical issue for this paper?