Skip to content
Browse All Resources
Essays

JAN 29, 2021

Weekend reading: The intersection of climate change and economic inequality edition

Weekend reading: Why stable schedules matter edition

Abstract

This is a post we publish each Friday with links to articles that touch on economic inequality and growth. The first section is a round-up of what Equitable Growth published this week and the second is relevant and interesting articles we’re highlighting from elsewhere. We won’t be the first to share these articles, but we hope by taking a look back at the whole week, we can put them in context.

Equitable Growth round-up

Each month, we highlight a group of scholars doing ground-breaking work in specific areas of the social sciences in a series called Expert Focus as part of our commitment to build a community of scholars working to understand how inequality affects broadly shared economic growth. This month, Christian Edlagan, Michael Garvey, and Maria Monroe look at those scholars working at the intersection of climate change and economic inequality. These experts are attempting to assess the full effects of climate change across communities, income and wealth distributions, firms and workers, and the macroeconomy.

U.S. workers are frequently asked to sign noncompete clause as part of their work contracts, preventing them from taking their knowledge and talent to competing companies. Older theoretical arguments claim that these clauses are actually beneficial for workers and firms, citing the ideas that both parties agree to the noncompetes before signing and that noncompetes facilitate knowledge-sharing between firms and workers as well as firm-sponsored training of workers. David Balan explains in a recent Competitive Edge (opens in a new tab) post that these arguments are weak and stand in tension with recent empirical evidence of the harms of noncompete clauses. Balan summarizes the findings in his accompanying working paper and then critiques each of the pro-noncompete arguments to show how these clauses are detrimental to workers. He demonstrates why they are actually largely a means for companies to extract additional value from their employees or to treat them poorly—and why policy solutions must treat noncompetes as such.

Employer concentration likewise has harmful, wage-suppressing effects on millions of U.S. workers, writes Anna Stansbury, and policymakers must respond accordingly. In a recent working paper by Stansbury and her co-authors, they propose a new method for estimating the causal effect of employer concentration, or monopsony, on wages. They find that monopsony lowers earnings for a significant set of workers, primarily those who have few options to move to other jobs or industries and those in lower-population areas. Their new method of measuring the causal effects of monopsony could have a significant impact on U.S. antitrust laws and labor market policy to combat excessive market power. Stansbury suggests that labor market regulators and antitrust enforcers respond with increased scrutiny on labor markets and use of policies that raise wages for workers directly, such as increasing the minimum wage or empowering unions.

In case you missed it: The deadline for Equitable Growth’s 2021 Request for Proposals is February 7, 2021. Equitable Growth supports research on whether and how inequality affects economic growth, and this year’s RFP has centered research on race and structural racism, as well as climate change.

Head over to Brad DeLong’s latest Worthy Reads (opens in a new tab), where he provides his takes on must-read content from Equitable Growth and around the web.

Related

Your Direct Line to Cutting-Edge Research

Get updates on our latest research, event announcements, and policy insights delivered straight to your inbox. Stay connected with the leading voices on equitable growth.