Professor at UC Berkeley. Labor economics.

Joined May 2021
Include

Only show posts containing:

Exclude

Hide posts containing:

Time range
-
Minimum likes
Replying to @jeffreypclemens
What a great program!
3
195
Surprising that there isn't more discussion of what the billionaire tax will actually fund. It goes to a legislature-controlled fund constrained to certain healthcare uses. Because lost future tax revenue from billionaire departures would have been general funds, there is a certain reduction in revenue to non-health designated programs. These will have to be made up for with higher taxes on non-billionaires or spending cuts. This is one reason most unions other than SEIU oppose it.
2
4
58
4,143
Replying to @danielrock
Aggregate productivity effects of espresso is an understudied topic.
1
1
139
Would this distribution look very different for corporate spending on Nespresso?
Great new paper from @i_am_nickbloom A few thousand firms in the US and UK represent half of all AI spending-- roughly top 2%. Trouble is n=845 & 1273; so one firm here or there could make a huge difference. Bottom 50% of firms are <1% of AI spendin by eyeball. Average US firm spends $2000 per employee (in 2025) -- obviously skewed by high spenders. Marginal productivity benefits. Worth comparing to the BCG survey (n=1273), which has more recent fieldwork and may be more self-selected. xitter.cf/azeem/status/211258097…
2
10
1,349
This is the standard way to score tax policy. You score the law as written (in this case a one-time wealth tax) and the behavioral consequences from that law (people worried it will last moving). There are arguments against that approach. But is not “highly inappropriate” or “dishonest” to do what JCT or any other neutral body would do.
Replying to @gabriel_zucman
Let’s be clear: this is a highly inappropriate way to model the effect of Prop 40 on taxpayer behavior. For one, it’s a basic violation of rational expectations, a cornerstone of modern economics. In Jaros and @joshrauh world, the billionaires act irrationally: they respond to a policy that does not exist and will never exist. Economics students around the world are taught this is not an appropriate way to model behavior — but apparently in this context (fighting Prop 40) it’s OK.
27
92
7
1,128
84,900
2 tweets, one hour apart, presented without comment.
90
90
17
2,707
979,266
Pass or not, the damage is done.
30 percent of California's 200 billionaires left in the three month window they had to escape a wealth tax
1
1
15
784
30 percent of California's 200 billionaires left in the three month window they had to escape a wealth tax
this California wealth tax thing is just incredible. so in October 2025, a California healthcare union proposed a "one time" 5% tax on any billionaire's wealth. the ballot measure will be voted on next month. In early December 2025, California announced that it would be a retroactive tax if passed, applying to anyone with CA residency as of Jan 1, 2026. The objective is to pay for Medi-Cal, California's incredibly dysfunctional healthcare system. (which also functions as a glorified welfare apparatus, but that's a discussion for another time). polls reveal that the CA electorate is split around 50/50 on the tax, but prediction markets only give Prop 40 a ~23% chance of passing (there are competing measures on the ballet that would nullify it). there are 200 billionaires in CA, worth collectively somewhere between $2.3 and $2.6 trillion. 5% of that is around $100b, accounting for a small amount of attrition. proponents of the tax forecasted a significant windfall, assuming only a 10% departure rate. supporters thought they were being clever with the retroactive concept. no billionares would leave CA in the few short months between the tax being proposed and the residency cutoff date, without the tax even having passed yet, right? well as it turns out, they did. a new paper [1] from two academics at Stanford called "The Net Present Value of the California Billionaire Tax Act", argues that not only did more billionaires leave due to the proposed tax than its proponents expected, but that the value of the tax, if it does pass, is actually negative. proponents of the tax only assumed 10% avoidance, that is, only 10% of the taxable base of targeted billionaires would leave CA within the very short Oct-Dec 2025 window. Jaros and Rauh, the Stanford academics, find that a lower bound of 28.6% of the taxable base managed to leave. just based on known departures, those departures total $577b in net worth, or $28.8b in potential tax lost. this of course does not capture everyone (many left without announcing their departure), so the authors normalize to departure rates estimated from other wealth tax events, and apply other discounts for litigation, arriving arrive at a figure of only $28-$36b in forecasted tax revenues. but this isn't all! all of the income taxes paid by the departed billionaires are also forsaken. the authors estimate that CA billionaires pay $3.3- 5.8b in annual income taxes. they assume a midpoint of $2b lost in annual collections from departed billionaires. the net present value of that lost income stream is -$68.9 billion. so when you add it all up you get: + $30b one-time tax windfall (estimated) - $69b in present value of lost future income taxes = - 38.9b overall net present value of the tax of course, this analysis is highly estimate driven. the authors simulate the parameters 100k times and find a negative NPV of the implemented tax 85 percent of the time. and if the tax doesn't pass, which it's not looking like it will, California still ended up losing at least $577b in departed net worth, and they have permanently poisoned the well with entrepreneurs who will now worry about future wealth taxes. [1]: nber.org/system/files/workin…
31
164
11
3,093
80,763
Economics argument that the proposed California billionaire tax would be net negative for revenue. As a political economy complement, note that the CA teachers union has decided to recommend voting "no" on the initiative. nber.org/papers/w35899#fromr…
20
35
5
403
44,991
I’ll be less polite than Scott is in his post: the idea that business schools are the epicenters of bad ethical training on college campuses is comically backwards. Business schools teach students to build, and the world badly needs more builders.
After teaching at @HarvardHBS, @Cornell, and @Cambridge_Uni, Christopher Marquis has concluded that business schools should be abolished. Maybe the problem isn't business education; maybe it's the corner of business education he knows best. Please Don’t Abolish My Business School arenainstitutions.substack.c…
7
5
40
2,061
Replying to @Jon_Hartley_
It looks like someone was trying to justify their exclusion restriction.
142
Alex Mas retweeted
With all eyes on the inflation statistics released this week, little attention was paid to the Treasury statement released on Friday. It showed the nation racked up a nearly $2 trillion budget deficit in just-ended fiscal year 2026. That’s more than 6% of GDP.
28
207
15
468
30,173
Replying to @SueGreenwald
Well, medical trial misconduct is a serious problem, but up to now that is a (unfortunately too common) human problem.
1
53
Replying to @SueGreenwald
No one suggests that AI runs human trials. I take this to be AI therapy design.
2
138
Why Tylenol works is not fully understood.
This is a slide from Terence Tao's 'Math 2.0' public lecture yesterday evening at Caltech. I am highly confident that, if the cure actually worked, almost any Stage 4 cancer patient would tell you that human comprehension of its mechanism is completely irrelevant to them.
3
1
47
2,915
It's an odd fact that the Spanish began exploring the California coast in 1542 and did not find the San Francisco Bay until 1769.
Spanish missionaries in California dedicate a small chapel by a large bay that they call the Mission San Francisco.
1
9
995
Wealth is productive capital. It funds infrastructure, plants, technology, R&D, and employment. In the US the market allocates capital pretty efficiently. The income from this invested capital can be reinvested or (for the very wealthy) spent on expensive things like yachts and art. Taxing income reduces some of that consumption, which is completely defensible. Taxing wealth itself and you are disassembling the machine that makes the economy grow. That’s much harder to defend.
1
1
11
1,311
Billionaire wealth does not sit idle. It is capital that funds innovation. CA wealth tax siphons that capital into a discretionary slush-fund for the state legislature.
1
1
9
1,711
42 Nobel laureates in economics did not sign the letter endorsing the California billionaire tax.
2
18
1,652