Robert Pollin, UMass Amherst economics professor and co-director of the Political Economy Research Institute (PERI), discusses the prospects for national economic recovery and what that could mean for the federal budget deficit. (The Real News Network, 2/6/10)
In her recent New York Times Economix blog, UMass Amherst economics professor Nancy Folbre explains that we don’t really have an accurate calculation of the cost of caring for family (which includes elder care, child care, college education and so on) because we have not developed a Dependent Price Index.
Many social scientists, myself included, are struggling to quantify and analyze these trends. We need to develop a more systematic and unified approach.
Trends in real wages are typically adjusted for changes in the cost of living, as measured by the consumer price index. While this index needs improvement, no economist I know would ignore the need for it.
Trends in family income, however, are never adjusted for changes in the cost of caring for dependents, because we have not developed a comprehensive Dependent Price Index. The Department of Agriculture regularly estimates family expenditures on children, but ignores both the costs of college and the value of parental time.
After the Santa Fe Reporter profile piece on Samuel Bowles was published, many economics bloggers have linked to the article which focuses on the work of Samuel Bowles, UMass Amherst professor emeritus and Arjun Jayadev ’01 MA and ’05 Ph.D.
A recent Santa Fe Reporter article, Born Poor? Santa Fe economist Samuel Bowles says you better get used to it, profiles UMass Amherst economics professor emeritus, Samuel Bowles. His ideas, sometimes described as radical, are gaining momentum in light of the current state of the economy. The implication of Bowles’ basic ideas is that New Mexico and the United States will continue to fall behind until they learn to share the wealth.
“Sam Bowles is somebody who straddles the boundary. He maintains the idea that there should be radical redistribution—that the current system is a terrible system in a variety of ways—but he’s also somebody who believes the methodological tools of economics have some real value,” GWU’s Farrell says. “I think what he’s doing is very smart. And it actually has some promise for a future, coherent research agenda.”