Economics (Theory and Philosophy)

More stories

  • 100 Shares149 Views

    in Economy

    When Amazon Raises Wages, Local Companies Follow Suit

    by

    #masthead-section-label, #masthead-bar-one { display: none }The Jobs CrisisCurrent Unemployment RateWhen the Checks Run OutThe Economy in 9 ChartsThe First 6 MonthsAdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyWhen Amazon Raises Wages, Local Companies Follow SuitNew research suggests that when big companies increase wages, they drive up pay in the places where they operate — without a notable loss in jobs.An Amazon fulfillment center in Kent, Wash. The company lifted starting pay to $15 an hour three years ago.Credit…Ruth Fremson/The New York TimesBen Casselman and March 5, 2021, 5:00 a.m. ETAmazon has embarked on an advertising blitz this winter, urging Congress to follow the company’s lead and raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour. American workers “simply can’t wait” for higher pay, the company said in a recent blog post.In the areas where Amazon operates, though, low-wage workers at other businesses have seen significant wage growth since 2018, beyond what they otherwise might have expected, and not because of new minimum-wage laws. The gains are a direct result of Amazon’s corporate decision to increase starting pay to $15 an hour three years ago, which appears to have lifted pay for low-wage workers in other local companies as well, according to new research from economists at the University of California, Berkeley, and Brandeis University.The findings have broad implications for the battle over the federal minimum wage, which has stayed at $7.25 an hour for more than a decade, and which Democrats are trying to raise to $15 by 2025. For one, the research illustrates how difficult it can be for low-wage workers to command higher pay in the modern American economy — until a powerful outside actor, like a large employer or a government, intervenes.Most directly, there is little evidence in the paper that raising the minimum wage would lead to significant job loss, even in low-cost rural areas, a finding consistent with several recent studies. Other research, including a recent report from the Congressional Budget Office, has found a larger negative effect on jobs, although still smaller than many economists believed in the past.The authors of the latest study — Ellora Derenoncourt of Berkeley and Clemens Noelke and David Weil of Brandeis — studied Amazon, Walmart and Target, which operate in areas where wages tend to be low. But even in those places, the researchers found, wage increases by the large corporate employers appear to drive up wages without driving down employment.“When you have major changes in the wage policies of large actors in the labor market, this has ripple effects,” Dr. Derenoncourt said in an interview.At the same time, Dr. Weil added, “the sky doesn’t fall.”The researchers used the federal government’s Current Population Survey, supplemented by evidence from the online job posting site Glassdoor, to estimate what happened in communities where Amazon, Target or Walmart operate after those companies increased entry-level wages in recent years. What they found in many ways confounds traditional economic models: Raising pay did not put the large companies at a disadvantage. Instead, it gave local workers a reason to push their own employers for a raise.At Mooyah Burgers, Fries and Shakes, a chain with 87 locations in 21 states, the Amazon effect is clear. Employees routinely go to their managers and point out that Amazon is hiring at a significant pay increase.“When you have those corporations paying that much, it just puts pressure on the smaller business owners,” said Tony Darden, Mooyah’s president. Franchisees can try to have good relationships with their employees, he said, but there is only so far that can go.“At some point, it always comes down to money,” he said. “And so if there’s an employee who has the ability to make two or three or four or five bucks an hour more at another location, they go directly to the owner or to their manager.”Many restaurants will grant the pay increase, Mr. Darden said, but at the cost of giving workers fewer hours or hiring fewer employees — a common contention among small-business owners. But while that may be true in individual cases, the Berkeley and Brandeis researchers found little evidence of broad-based job cuts as wages rose. A 10 percent increase in the base wage at a company like Amazon, they found, translated into a 1.7 percent loss in local jobs — and a 0.4 percent loss in jobs for low-wage workers.On raising wages, an Amazon executive said, “We knew that by doing it, we would encourage other employers to do the same.”Credit…Gabriella Demczuk for The New York TimesA mounting body of research in recent years suggests that labor markets don’t work in practice the way they do in some economic models. Employees often have less information about their worth than employers, or face greater risks to changing jobs, or can’t readily move between employers the way a pure market assumes. These “frictions,” in economic jargon, often benefit employers over employees, pushing down wages below where supply and demand suggest they should be.But that leaves room for other forces — in the form of political pressure, organized bargaining or a minimum wage — to push wages up.“In a very simple supply-and-demand, competitive market, firms are just paying the market wage,” said Arindrajit Dube, a University of Massachusetts economist who has studied the minimum wage. In reality, he said, wages “are shaped by market forces but also by norms, pressure as well as policies.”Dr. Dube said that in the 1980s, the spread of Walmart and other national retailers helped push down wages, as they displaced smaller, often unionized local chains. Now big national retailers seem to be helping to push wages up.Many small-business owners do not welcome the pressure.Tad Mollnhauer, who runs two printing and shipping retail stores near Orlando, Fla., said entry-level workers typically earned about $10 to $12 an hour. But these days, anyone paying that rate risks losing workers to Amazon. (The state’s minimum wage is under $9 an hour but will rise to $10 this year under a referendum approved by voters in November. The minimum will rise a dollar a year after that, hitting $15 an hour in 2026.)Mr. Mollnhauer said it was hard for small companies like his to match Amazon’s pay.“Their network and their resources are spread out around the country,” allowing Amazon to pay above-market wages in some places, he said. “For me, as two stores, I can’t do that.”Jay Carney, a senior vice president for Amazon, said the company was conscious of the impact its policy might have on other employers. “We knew that by doing it, we would encourage other employers to do the same, and if that happened then it would put upward pressure on wages in general, which would be good,” he said.But he rejected suggestions that Amazon is using its political power to hurt its rivals. “We have no power to force anybody to do this, only Congress does,” he said.Jared Bernstein, a member of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, said the paper showed both the potential spillover effects for workers from raising the federal minimum wage — which studies suggest would help workers who earn more than the minimum also get raises — and the limits of private company efforts.“There’s just no way to be sure to reach the tens of millions of hardworking but poorly paid workers without significantly raising the national minimum wage,” he said.No Republican senator supports the $15-an-hour bill that Amazon has endorsed, and several Democrats have reservations about it. Given those headwinds and an adverse ruling from the Senate parliamentarian, the provision will almost certainly not make it into the final version of President Biden’s relief package.But the researchers’ findings suggest that there are other ways to raise pay for low-wage workers. Political pressure on big companies can lift pay not just for their direct employees but also for other workers in the same area. Other policies could mimic that effect: If the federal government requires its contractors to pay more, as Mr. Biden has directed by executive order, it could help increase wages throughout the private sector.Many people are skeptical of Amazon’s motives in pushing the federal $15-an-hour effort, noting that the company faces scrutiny from Democrats over its treatment of workers, accusations that it has stifled competition and its moves to fight unionization.Other business groups accused Amazon of using its scale and political influence to squeeze smaller competitors.A Walmart in Charlottesville, Va. Minimum-wage increases in major cities have spread to other areas through companies like Walmart.Credit…Eze Amos for The New York Times“Amazon is clearly doing very well in the current economy,” said Misty Chally, executive director of the Coalition of Franchisee Associations, which represents franchise owners. But gyms, hair salons and many other businesses that compete with Amazon are “all struggling to stay in business right now,” she said.Mr. Dube said he had concerns about the power of companies like Amazon and Walmart. But the upward pressure they put on wages, he said, wasn’t one of them.The “Amazon effect” on wages comes as no surprise to organizers of the Fight for $15 campaign. From its start in 2012, the movement sought to put pressure on private employers, not just elected officials.The two fed each other, said Mary Kay Henry, president of the Service Employees International Union, which has backed the campaign: Minimum-wage increases in big cities encouraged companies like Walmart and Target to raise pay nationwide, which in turn prompted more minimum-wage increases and helped fuel the effort to raise the federal wage floor.Policies like Amazon’s are particularly significant in places where the minimum-wage argument has never gained much of a foothold, like the South.“It shifts the politics of minimum wage in those corners of the country,” Ms. Henry said. “It busts the myth it can’t happen here.”AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

  • 100 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    Women in Economics Face Hostility When Presenting Research

    by

    AdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyWomen in Economics Face Hostility When Presenting ResearchStudies have found that the field is plagued by a singular problem of gender bias. The latest evidence comes from the types of questions posed at seminars.The American Economic Association conference in San Diego early last year. New research details how men and women are treated differently when they make economic presentations.Credit…Sandy Huffaker for The New York TimesFeb. 23, 2021, 5:00 a.m. ETA few years ago, the economists Alicia Sasser Modestino and Justin Wolfers sat at the back of a professional conference and watched Rebecca Diamond, a rising star in their field, present her latest research on inequality. Or at least she was meant to present it — moments after she began her talk, the audience began peppering her with questions.“She must have gotten 15 questions in the first five minutes, including, ‘Are you going to show us the data?’” Dr. Modestino recalled. It was an odd, even demeaning question — the session was in the data-heavy field of applied microeconomics. Of course she was going to show her data.Later that morning, Dr. Modestino and Dr. Wolfers watched as another prominent economist, Arindrajit Dube, presented a paper on the minimum wage. But while that was one of the most hotly debated topics in the field, the audience allowed Dr. Dube to lay out his findings for several minutes with few interruptions.Over a drink later, Dr. Modestino and Dr. Wolfers wondered: Had the audiences treated the two presenters differently because of their genders?They couldn’t be sure. Maybe the audience treated Dr. Dube differently because he was more senior. Maybe they had simply found his paper more convincing, or less interesting. Maybe the observations of Dr. Modestino and Dr. Wolfers were a result of their own biases — Dr. Dube, in an email, recalled getting lots of questions, some of them quite skeptical. (He added that he didn’t know how his reception compared with Dr. Diamond’s, and he said didn’t challenge Dr. Modestino’s recollection over all.)So Dr. Modestino and Dr. Wolfers, who has written on economics in The New York Times, did what economists often do: They gathered data. Along with two other economists, they recruited dozens of graduate students across the country to attend hundreds of economics presentations to record what happened. Their findings, according to a working paper that is expected to be published next week by the National Bureau of Economic Research: Women received 12 percent more questions than men, and they were more likely to get questions that were patronizing or hostile.“It measures something that we thought couldn’t be measured,” Dr. Modestino said. “It links it to a potential reason that women are underrepresented in the profession.”The paper is the latest addition to a mounting body of evidence of gender discrimination in economics. Other researchers in recent years have found that women are less likely than men to be hired and promoted, and face greater barriers to getting their work published in economic journals. Those problems aren’t unique to economics, but there is evidence that the field has a particular problem: Gender and racial gaps in economics are wider, and have narrowed less over time, than in many other fields.In response to those concerns, the American Economic Association commissioned a survey of more than 9,000 current and former members that asked about their experiences in the field. The results, released in 2019, revealed a disturbing number of cases of harassment and outright sexual assault. And it found that subtler forms of bias were rampant: Only one woman in five reported being “satisfied with the overall climate” in the field. Nearly one in three said they believed they had been discriminated against. And nearly half of women said they had avoided speaking at a conference or seminar because they feared harassment or disrespectful treatment.“Half of women are saying they don’t even want to present in a seminar,” Dr. Modestino said. “We’re losing a lot of ideas that way.”The harsh reception faced by women is particularly striking because they are also less likely to be invited to present their research in the first place. Women accounted for fewer than a quarter of the economic talks given over recent years, according to another paper. Racial minorities were even more underrepresented: Barely 1 percent of the speakers were Black or Hispanic.“It’s just embarrassingly bad,” said Jennifer Doleac, an economist at Texas A&M University who is one of the study’s authors. Only about 30 talks have been delivered by Black or Latina women since the authors began tracking the data, she noted. “These scholars are just not being invited, ever.”The lack of representation is so significant that Dr. Modestino and her colleagues could not study whether Black and Latino economists were treated differently in seminars than their white counterparts — there were too few examples in their data to analyze.The lack of opportunities has potentially significant career consequences. Research presentations, known as seminars, are an important way that academics, particularly those early in their careers, disseminate their research, build their reputations and get feedback on their work.Seminars play a particular role in economics. In other fields, they tend to be collegial affairs, with mostly respectful questions and few interruptions. In economics, however, they often resemble gladiatorial battles, with audience members vying to poke holes in the presenter’s argument. Seemingly every economist, regardless of gender, has at least one horror story of losing control of a presentation. Many say they have been brought to tears.Most economists acknowledge that there are bad actors who are more interested in scoring debating points than raising legitimate questions. But many defend the field’s culture of aggressiveness, saying it is helpful to get feedback — even critical feedback — from colleagues.“I expect a room full of economists to speak up and have their own opinions and ideas,” said Ioana Marinescu, a University of Pennsylvania economist. “To me, if they’re not asking questions, they might be a little bit zoned out.”Dr. Marinescu recalled a talk she gave at a prestigious conference several years ago, where she, too, faced frequent interruptions. It was terrifying, she said — but also stimulating.“The questions were incessant, but they were awesome questions from the top people in the profession,” she said. “From my perspective, it was one of the best experiences I ever had.”Still, Dr. Marinescu said, reforms are needed. And in recent years, some economists have begun to question the field’s culture of aggressiveness, arguing that it discourages people from entering the field. Several universities have instituted rules meant to cut down on bad behavior, such as banning questions for the first 10 or 15 minutes of a talk so that speakers can get through at least the beginning of their presentations uninterrupted.But Judith Chevalier, a Yale economist who chairs the American Economic Association’s Committee on the Status of Women in the Economics Profession, said rules intended to improve seminars wouldn’t address the underlying problems that Dr. Modestino’s research revealed.“Seminars are a public setting — seminars are when they are on their good behavior,” Dr. Chevalier said. “We can’t declare victory even if we fix seminars. We need to re-examine everything. Are we biased when we hire? Are we biased when we mentor? Are we biased in seminars? Are we biased when we promote?”AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

  • 88 Shares169 Views

    in Economy

    Should the Feds Guarantee You a Job?

    by

    #masthead-section-label, #masthead-bar-one { display: none }The Jobs CrisisCurrent Unemployment RateWhen the Checks Run OutThe Economy in 9 ChartsThe First 6 MonthsAdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyShould the Feds Guarantee You a Job?Not long ago, the question was rarely asked. Now, politicians and economists of various stripes are willing to consider it.Credit…Tom HaugomatFeb. 18, 2021, 5:00 a.m. ETWhat should the president do about jobs?For 30 years, Democratic administrations have approached the question by focusing on the overall economy and trusting that a vibrant labor market would follow. But there is a growing feeling among Democrats — along with many mainstream economists — that the market alone cannot give workers a square deal.So after a health crisis that has destroyed millions of jobs, a summer of urban protest that drew attention to the deprivation of Black communities, and another presidential election that exposed deep economic and social divides, some policymakers are reconsidering a policy tool not deployed since the Great Depression: to have the federal government provide jobs directly to anyone who wants one.On the surface, the politics seem as stuck as ever. Senator Cory Booker, the New Jersey Democrat, introduced bills in 2018 and 2019 to set up pilot programs in 15 cities and regions that would offer training and a guaranteed job to all who sought one, at federal expense. Both efforts failed.And after progressive Democrats in Congress proposed a federal jobs program as part of their Green New Deal in 2019, Representative Liz Cheney of Wyoming, the No. 3 House Republican, asked, “Are you willing to give the government and some faceless bureaucrats who sit in Washington, D.C., the authority to make those choices for your life?”But when it comes to government intervention in the economy, the political parameters have shifted. A system that balked at passing a $1 trillion stimulus after the financial crisis of 2008 had no problem passing a $2.2 trillion rescue last March, and $900 billion more in December. President Biden is pushing to supplement that with a $1.9 trillion package.“The bounds of policy discourse widened quite a bit as a consequence of the pandemic,” said Michael R. Strain, an economist at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank.On the left, there is a sense of opportunity to experiment with the unorthodox. “A job guarantee per se may not be necessary or politically feasible,” said Lawrence Katz, a Harvard professor who was the Labor Department’s chief economist in the Clinton administration. “But I would love to see more experimentation.”And Americans seem willing to consider the idea. In November, the Carnegie Corporation commissioned a Gallup survey on attitudes about government intervention to provide work opportunities to people who lost their jobs during the Covid-19 pandemic. It found that 93 percent of respondents thought this was a good idea, including 87 percent of Republicans.Even when the pollsters put a hypothetical price tag on the effort— $200 billion or more — almost nine out of 10 respondents said the benefits outweighed the cost. And hefty majorities — of Democrats and Republicans — also preferred government jobs to more generous unemployment benefits.The question is, would the Biden administration embrace a policy not deployed since the New Deal?“We tried to set the bar at a federal job guarantee,” said Darrick Hamilton, an economics professor at the New School for Social Research. He was among advisers to Senator Bernie Sanders who worked with Mr. Biden’s representatives before the November election to devise an economic strategy the Democratic Party could unite behind. “It was the cornerstone of what we brought in.”On paper, at least, a job guarantee would drastically moderate recessions, as the government mopped up workers displaced by an economic downturn. But unlike President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s programs to provide jobs to millions displaced by the Great Depression, the idea now is not just to address joblessness, but to improve jobs even in good times.If the federal government offered jobs at $15 an hour plus health insurance, it would force private employers who wanted to hang on to their work force to pay at least as much. A federal job guarantee “sets minimum standards for work,” Dr. Hamilton said.The president does not seem ready to go all the way. “We suspected we weren’t going to get there,” Dr. Hamilton said.Mr. Biden’s recovery plan includes efforts to train a cohort of new public health workers, and to fund the hiring of 100,000 full-time workers by public health departments. His commitment to expand access to child care and elder care comes paired with a promise to create good, well-paid jobs in caregiving occupations. And he has pledged — in ways not yet translated into programs — to foster the creation of 10 million quality jobs in clean energy.“There are a number of proposals to pair programs for people to be at work with the needs of the nation,” said Heather Boushey, a member of Mr. Biden’s Council of Economic Advisers.And yet the idea of a broad job guarantee is still an innovation too far. For starters, it would be expensive.Dr. Hamilton and William A. Darity Jr. of Duke University, who favor a federal job guarantee, published a 2018 study in which they sought to estimate the cost. Based on 2016 employment figures, and assuming an average cost per job of $55,820, including benefits, they found it would cost $654 billion to $2.1 trillion a year, which would be offset to some extent by higher economic output and tax revenue, and savings on other assistance programs like food stamps and unemployment insurance.And the prospect of a large-scale government intervention in the labor market raises thorny questions.First, there’s determining the work the government could offer to fulfill a job guarantee. Health care and infrastructure projects require workers with particular skills, as do high-quality elder care and child care. Jobs, say, in park maintenance or as teaching aides could encroach on what local governments already do.What’s more, the availability of federal jobs would drastically change the labor equation for low-wage employers like McDonald’s or Walmart. Dr. Strain argues that a universal federal guarantee of a job that paid $15 an hour plus health benefits would “destroy the labor market.”Some wealthy countries have job guarantees for young adults. Since 2013, the European Union has had a program to ensure that everyone under 25 gets training or a job. But those programs are built on subsidizing private employment, not offering government jobs.Many European countries have also subsidized private payrolls during the pandemic, allowing employers to cut hours instead of laying off workers.The United States has a limited wage-subsidy program, the Work Opportunity Tax Credit, passed in 1996. It extends a credit of up to $9,600 for employers who hire workers from certain categories, like food-stamp recipients, veterans or felons.Developing countries have tried job guarantees, which the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development said in 2018 “go beyond the provision of income and, by providing a job, help individuals to (re)connect with the labor market, build self-esteem, as well as develop skills and competencies.” But in more advanced economies, the report added, “past experience with public-sector programs has shown that they have negligible effects on the post-program outcomes of participants.”A 2017 overview of research on the effectiveness of labor market policies — by David Card of the University of California, Berkeley; Jochen Kluve of Humboldt University in Berlin; and Andrea Weber at Vienna University — concluded that programs that improve workers’ skills do best, while “public-sector employment subsidies tend to have small or even negative average impacts” for workers. For one, private employers seem not to value the experience workers gain on the government’s payroll.Another economist, David Neumark of the University of California, Irvine, is skeptical that new policies are needed to ensure a decent living for workers. Programs like the earned-income tax credit, which supplements the earnings of low-wage workers, just need to be made more generous, he said.“I’m not sure we are missing the tools,” he said. “Rather, we have been too stingy with the tools we have.”Dr. Neumark notes that the idea of government intervention to help working Americans is gaining traction even on the political right. “Republicans are at least talking more about the fact that they need to deliver some goods for low-income people,” he said. “Maybe there is space to agree on some stuff.”While opposed to a broad guarantee, Dr. Strain of the American Enterprise Institute sees room for new efforts. “If the question is ‘Do we need more aggressive labor market policies to increase opportunities for people?’ the answer is yes,” he said. “I think of it more as a moral imperative than from an economic perspective.”Jack Begg More

  • 125 Shares199 Views

    in Economy

    Walter E. Williams, 84, Dies; Conservative Economist on Black Issues

    by

    AdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyWalter E. Williams, 84, Dies; Conservative Economist on Black IssuesSkeptical of antipoverty programs, he was a scholar who reached a wide public through a newspaper column and books, and as a fill-in for Rush Limbaugh.Walter E. Williams speaking in 1982 at a conference at the United Nations Plaza Hotel in New York. A scholar and author, he reached a wide audience through lectures, a newspaper column and broadcast appearances.Credit…Craig Terry, via Manhattan InstituteBy More

  • 125 Shares149 Views

    in Economy

    Edward P. Lazear, Economist and Presidential Adviser, Dies at 72

    by

    Edward P. Lazear, a pioneering labor economist at Stanford University who advised President George W. Bush during the financial crisis, died on Monday. He was 72.The cause was pancreatic cancer, the university said. It did not say where he died.Professor Lazear may be best remembered as the founder of a field that has come to be known as personnel economics, which seeks to understand how businesses hire, retain and pay employees. He also founded the Journal of Labor Economics and the Society of Labor Economists.But perhaps his most critical job was as chairman of President Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers when the American financial system buckled after a housing and debt bubble had burst, forcing the federal government to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to bail out financial institutions and rescue a sinking economy.“Eddie Lazear was a rare combination —-an extraordinary academic economist and a dedicated public servant who brought that intellect and skill to the solution of big policy problems,” said Condoleezza Rice, director of Stanford’s Hoover Institution, where Professor Lazear held a senior fellowship.In a statement, Mr. Bush called him “a trusted confidant” and “a beloved colleague.”Edward Paul Lazear was born in New York City on Aug. 17, 1948, and grew up in Los Altos, Calif. He graduated from the University of California, Los Angeles, in 1971 and received his Ph.D. in economics from Harvard University, where he worked with the Nobel Prize winner Gary Becker and adopted his approach of applying economic tools to new domains.Professor Lazear began his professional career in 1974 as an assistant professor of economics at the University of Chicago. He taught there for almost 20 years before joining the Stanford faculty.“He was the most natural economist I ever came into contact with,” said Paul Oyer, an economist at Stanford’s Graduate School of Business. “He was a deep economic natural thinker; he was born to be an economist.”Professor Lazear wrote a seminal paper about the relationship between worker pay and a company’s productivity and profits; it was based on a case study of the Safelight Glass Company. Productivity at the business soared when it shifted from paying workers an hourly wage to paying them according to the number of windshields they repaired. Professor Lazear figured out that this improvement hadn’t come about just because people had worked harder to earn more money. Rather, he found, the shift in wage policy had changed the composition of the installers: Slower workers had left the company and faster workers had taken their jobs.Professor Lazear wrote another famous paper explaining the rationale behind mandatory retirement, which was outlawed by Congress in 1986. He proposed that it is worthwhile for companies to pay workers less than what they are worth to the business when they are young, and then to raise their wages over time, to the point where they are paying them more than they are worth. But that, he found, meant that employees would try to hang on to their job for too long. Mandatory retirement thus helped solve the problem.“He is the father of a field that has had a lot of influence in the way firms design compensation and make hiring and retention policies,” said Erik Hurst, a labor economist at the University of Chicago. “This is of first-order importance for how people live their lives.”Professor Lazear fell squarely on the right of the economic policy spectrum. He was a fierce critic of the Obama administration’s fiscal stimulus policies. He later championed the tax cuts signed by President Trump in 2017. He believed in the efficiency of markets and disliked the minimum wage and other government interventions.But even his ideological opponents acknowledged his integrity and commitment to rigorous thinking.“I admired the purity of his commitment to economics,” said Lawrence H. Summers, the former Harvard president and Treasury secretary. “It is very rare among economists who work on things that have a bearing on politics.”Lawrence Katz, a professor of economics at Harvard, said Professor Lazear’s work had often reached conclusions at odds with conservative views and policies.“He was not ideological on all things,” Professor Katz said, pointing out Professor Lazear’s work with Richard B. Freeman on the value of works councils, which are used in many European countries to give workers voice and power to negotiate with employers.Professor Lazear’s work also served to dispel the notion popular among American conservatives that policies that guaranteed job security condemned Europe to high unemployment and low productivity.During the financial crisis of the late 2000s and its aftermath, Professor Lazear was a critical voice demanding attention to the faltering job market as millions of people lost jobs and many people struggled to find work for months or even years.“You can see in his policy work these concerns for workers and their skills and how hard it is to transition between industries,” said Austan Goolsbee, who chaired the Council of Economic Advisers during the Obama administration.Professor Lazear is survived by his wife, Victoria Lazear, and his daughter, Julie Lazear. More