Latest news with #AngusDeaton
Days of Palestine
2 days ago
- Politics
- Days of Palestine
Prominent Economists, Including Nobel Winners, Urge Israel to Halt Gaza Starvation Policies
DaysofPal – Twenty-three prominent economics professors from top universities in the United States and Europe, including several Nobel laureates, have urged the Israeli government to immediately stop policies that worsen hunger in the Gaza Strip. The signatories include Nobel laureates Daron Acemoglu, Angus Deaton, Peter Diamond, Esther Duflo, Claudia Goldin, Eric Maskin, Roger Myerson, Edmund Phelps, Christopher Pissarides, and Joseph Stiglitz. In a letter to the Israeli government, the economists expressed 'urgent concern about the widespread hunger in Gaza and the Israeli government's plan to gather civilians in a so-called 'humanitarian city.'' They demanded an immediate halt to any policies that exacerbate hunger and called for the resumption of adequate food and medical aid. The letter also urged Israel to abandon plans to confine civilians to camps, cancel proposals aimed at controlling the population, and issue an official statement affirming its commitment to human rights and international law. The economists emphasized that Israel must work in good faith toward a ceasefire, the release of prisoners, and measures to improve the humanitarian situation. 'Israel's treatment of civilians as a burden to be controlled, rather than as people with a right to live in humane conditions, is unconscionable,' the letter stated. It warned that only by taking these steps could Israel prevent widespread hunger, preserve its democratic character, and secure its long-term economic prospects. The signatories also called on Western leaders to ensure the effective implementation of these measures. The economists cited data from the United Nations World Food Program, noting that nearly a third of Gaza's 2.1 million residents had gone multiple days without food in recent weeks, while the prices of basic commodities had increased tenfold compared to three months ago. They condemned the proposed 'humanitarian city,' saying it would confine hundreds of thousands of Gazans to a limited area, depriving them of freedom of movement and basic dignity. The letter came amid ongoing Israeli genocide in Gaza, which, with American support, has included killings, starvation, destruction, and forced displacement since October 7, 2023. More than 9,000 Palestinians are still missing, 61,776 have been killed, 154,906 have been injured, and hundreds of thousands have been displaced. Famine has also killed many Palestinians, including dozens of children. Shortlink for this post:
Economic Times
30-07-2025
- General
- Economic Times
How much money is truly enough to be happy? Define your relationship with money through self-awareness, not social pressure
iStock You should define your relationship with money on the basis of your ability to be self-aware and Money is not everything in life, my friend exclaimed. We were a close group of friends sitting around, chatting. We enjoy these deep discussions and arguments, and the money question, ironically, arises every now and then. No one can deny the role of money in our lives, or that we need it to survive, but how far does this role extend? How important is money to live a fulfilling life? One of my friends quoted research establishing how life expectancy, malnutrition, infant mortality, and similar conditions, are associated with poverty. If there is not enough money to provide for basic survival, misery ensues, he argued. This fundamental point is well understood. However, the dilemma is, how much is enough? At what point are we able to say that money is not important to us? This question has vexed researchers, who are unable to frame this into a testable hypothesis. Nobel Prize winners Daniel Kahneman and Angus Deaton asked a simpler question in their 2010 research: Does money buy happiness? They found that up to a point—about $75,000 then, perhaps $1,20,000 today—money and happiness seem closely and linearly associated. How much is enough? People care about having enough to cover their basic needs and some flexibility to spend, and are unhappy when money is a constraint in doing so. Beyond this limit that covers a little more than survival, it becomes difficult to establish that more money brings more happiness. Some people with just enough were quite happy; some people with so much more were unhappy. We can confidently say that not having enough makes one unhappy, but the corollary is not much is enough is a tough question to answer even if research might indicate a ballpark figure. Our need and greed for money is not driven by survival, but by social approval and acceptance. Whether we have enough is never an absolute estimate, argued another friend. A glimpse into the life and choices of the better-off other is enough to make one feel lesser. The emotions are varied, but all invariably negative, jealousy being the most common one. We redefine what we must have, or do, or choose based on the social markers around us. We are pulled into keeping up with the Joshis and dealing with the problems of comparative wealth. My argument was that we must define our relationship with money based on our own ability to be self-aware. Social cues may be present, but we may be able to understand whether we feel secure, less anxious, willing to give and share, be kind to ourselves and others, and know in our minds what our relationship with money is, on our own. There is no generalising how much is enough. With our own experiences, we shape our attitude towards money. We may be influenced by the world around us, but how we react to those cues determines how we will view money. Demonising wealth & wealthy Research shows that the poor are more willing to give and share because of their implicit dependence for their well-being and happiness on the community around them. Wealth tends to isolate people and seek space, privacy and exclusivity. The association of virtue with poverty tends to arise from the forced resilience and discipline that not having enough imposes, said one friend. However, this romanticism around behaviours of those with lesser money may also be misplaced, argued another. People may just be is very common to hear people say that money is not important. This statement seldom comes from the rich, noted one friend. This is a position of coping and denial when one does not have enough, he argued. There may be a moralistic undertone to telling people that their suffering somehow makes them heroes, so it becomes bearable. Calling money the demon, ostracising and criticising the rich as exploitative and manipulative might also be part of of the other friends came down very strongly on the rich. A life that is focused on money alone is so miserable. Every act of the rich focuses on money, excluding all else. Moneyed people can be punishingly cruel and stingy, he argued. Those who chase money tend to be mean, oblivious to the joys and beauty of the world, unkind and non-empathetic to fellow human beings, and unwilling to give or spend where it matters to themselves or their near and dear ones. Those who inherit money are worse; they have not worked hard to get what they have received. They are thus entitled and insensitive, he argued.I jumped in to say that how inheritors behave with money is again tough to generalise. Research shows a whole range of behaviours and responses. From extreme kindness and charity to complete suspicion and cunning, research shows that inheritors can treat their wealth in completely different ways. The imposter syndrome is quite well-documented, where some of the wealthy inheritors believe that they don't own or deserve what they have. The human mind is complex. Your money, their advice We always know what the other must do— to earn, to spend, to save, and to give. This observation lightened the evening immediately. The rich believe that the poor did not work hard enough to get out of poverty; the poor believe that the rich hold money that belongs to everyone else. We tell people that they must not borrow, or acquire objects and assets. We ask people to not hoard. We demand that they earn better. We dislike the rich flaunting their wealth and ask them to indulge in charity all of us drove out for coffee, we knew that the luxury of holidaying, renting a large place and a car were all funded by money. The joy of friendly bonding, speaking our minds without the fear of being judged, and being vulnerable is something money can't buy. The author is CHAIRPERSON, CENTRE FOR INVESTMENT EDUCATION AND LEARNING (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this column are that of the writer. The facts and opinions expressed here do not reflect the views of
New Indian Express
03-05-2025
- Business
- New Indian Express
Caste census casts questions on job creation
All economics, it is said, is about politics. And all politics is grounded in economics—effectively about public policies to enable access to opportunities. This week, the Modi government announced the enumeration of caste in the forthcoming census. Typically, public discourse is riveted on the whataboutery of when who was for it and who was against. Beyond the claims and counterclaims, the inclusion of caste in the census underlines the omnipotence of caste in India's political matrix. It also underlines the chasm between the need for sustainable incomes and India's status rising in a decade from the 11th to the fifth largest economy in the world. The measure of aggregate progress in the past decade hides the stratification across India. The political geography of India's economy illustrates this divergence. India's per capita income is Rs 2.15 lakh. Karnataka tops the list with Rs 3.80 lakh and Bihar trails with Rs 66,828; within Bihar, the district of Sheohar has a per capita income of Rs 19,561. As Nobel laureate Angus Deaton observed, 'averages are no consolation for those left behind'. It is not surprising that the move to enumerate caste originated from Bihar, or that the initiative is timed for the forthcoming polls. Bihar is home to around 12 crore of India's 142-crore population, and at Rs 10.97 lakh crore, accounts for barely 3 percent of India's GDP of Rs 331.03 lakh crore. The distance between Karnataka and Bihar, or between Bengaluru and Sheohar, is about empowerment and employment. The political class has presented the caste census as a panacea for an inclusive reservation system. Quota warriors cite the Rohini Commission's findings to point out that '97 percent of the reserved jobs and seats have gone to 25 percent of OBC sub-castes'. Arguably, the formula of reservation must be backed by data. The caste census will at best a template for inclusion, not expansion in job creation. The momentum of public opinion backing the move clearly casts questions on job creation. Take the IT services sector, which is one of the largest white collar employers. The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Education, in its March 2025 report, cited data to note that 'there is an unusual decline in placements in IITs and IIITs between 2021-22 and 2023-24'. A TeamLease peport in October estimated that only 10 percent of engineering graduates would secure jobs this year. Indeed, another survey, published in March 2025, revealed that 83 percent of engineering graduates have no jobs.
Yahoo
23-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Opinion - A college education still easily beats the alternatives
Until recently, most Americans considered college a good investment. But only 22 percent now believe a four-year degree is worth pursuing if it requires taking out loans. Given a choice of five alternatives, ranging from trade school to apprenticeships to military service, large majorities think each is 'about the same as or better than a bachelor's degree in trying to achieve a successful livelihood,' in the words of education reporter Eric Kelderman. Skepticism about the value of a college degree is growing, even though the earnings advantage associated with a college degree remains strong. Calls to offer more young people career and technical education are multiplying, even though such training does not offer many of the benefits of a college education. For decades, increasing college attainment was seen as essential to individual and national prosperity. The 'college for all' movement sought to give every student, not just the most privileged, a shot at college. College graduates on average earn 84 percent more over their lifetimes than those who only complete high school. In 2019, the median income for families with at least one college degree holder was 24 percent higher than it was in 1970, but only 4 percent higher for families without a college degree. By 2021, life expectancy for someone with a bachelor's degree was 83, but only 75 for someone with no degree. As Nobel laureate Angus Deaton put it, 'the bachelor's degree has increasingly become a passport not only to a good job … but also to good health, to longevity, and to a flourishing social life.' But opposition to 'college for all' has intensified in recent years. Despite decades of effort and billions of dollars aimed at improving college readiness, less than 70 percent of high school graduates go to college, as Harvard's Graduate School of Education pointed out in 2011. Only 56 percent who start a four-year program graduate within six years; less than 30 percent who begin community college receive their associate's degree within three years. And only 30 percent of Black students and 20 percent of Latino students earn an associate's degree or higher by their mid-20s. The Harvard report recommended offering K-12 students a range of 'high-quality pathways' in addition to college. Kathleen deLaski, one of the authors of that report, builds on its arguments in her new book, 'Who Needs College Anymore? Imagining a Future Where Degrees Won't Matter.' She contends that the degree's 'status as the scaffold to the American Dream is breaking down,' especially for 'new majority' learners, defined as 'anyone for whom college was not originally designed.' She looks for 'solutions through the eyes of the end user,' especially students who are unable or unwilling to complete college. DeLaski envisions a world in which 'every skill you gain, likely starting in high school — on the soccer field, in the theater, at after-school-jobs — will be digitally documented,' assembled in a 'skills wallet' and used by employers to 'expand the talent pool' beyond the four-year degree and 'open more doors to meaningful careers.' Recognizing that employers still prefer college graduates, deLaski argues that we need better non-degree programs and work experiences that provide the technical skills and credentials required to land good jobs. She offers helpful assessments of those alternatives, including bootcamps, industry certifications and apprenticeships. Her argument reinforces our judgment, however, that none of the alternatives come close to offering the full benefits of a college education. Coding bootcamps were an early attempt to 'unbundle the degree' by providing 'learners a more direct training path to high-paid professional jobs.' But 75 percent of their market turned out to be people 'already in the workforce.' As deLaski acknowledges, bootcamps 'struggled to scale' because students found them too expensive or, in the case of apprenticeships, too difficult to secure. Because many students who enroll in college don't graduate, and many who graduate struggle to find their first job or are underemployed, deLaski (who glosses over hands-on project learning in higher education) thinks colleges should shift from 'lecture-based learning' to an 'experience-first' approach, providing 'skills mastery' and career-related 'validation services.' And even as she profiles competency-based degrees, certificate programs, 'micro-pathways' and co-op placements, she recognizes their limitations, including 'valid concerns that we should not let the pendulum swing too far from preparing scholars to preparing workers.' Nonetheless, deLaski wants the pendulum to swing. When guidance counselors explain that the alternatives to college are 'unclear, underfunded, unproven, and mostly noncredit, meaning financial aid hasn't covered them,' she urges high schools to 'blend' career and technical education with college preparation; offer more hands-on learning, career sampling and industry certifications; and make alternative pathways to professional success more visible. DeLaski acknowledges that 'staying current with different employers' skill needs is not for the faint-hearted,' and that, in a dynamic economy, a college degree 'may be the best antidote to becoming irrelevant.' Her approach, we believe, would also lead to a new form of tracking. As one of deLaski's interviewees put it, 'many times it is white people in power saying, 'Those kids can go to trade or vocational,' when they would never choose that for their own children.' DeLaski lists several categories of students who 'need' college: those who want to move into the middle class or higher (a category at odds with her thesis); those who feel society 'won't take them seriously without a higher degree'; those who seek jobs requiring a degree; and those who want the community that colleges provide. Unfortunately, as she points out, most of these people 'can't afford or access the colleges best set up to help them.' In discussing who needs college, deLaski focuses almost exclusively on career preparation. But education plays a crucial, often transformational role in developing human potential. College cultivates critical thinking, aesthetic appreciation, scientific literacy and intellectual curiosity. It teaches students how to conduct research, evaluate evidence, construct and critique an argument, work with others, appreciate different perspectives, communicate effectively and engage in their communities. College graduates pay more in taxes and make 'better decisions about health, marriage, and parenting.' Ultimately, deLaski admits, 'if a learner is just starting out, and they have the money, of course, they should go to college.' Nonetheless, she believes a 'Great College Reset' has begun and that college should become an 'umbrella for a variety of more specific market signals,' and just one of three paths to employment, along with 'a localized experiential journey' and a 'shorter residential experience.' It is tempting to suggest instead that we double down on college for all — surely much can still be done to improve access and completion rates — but, alas, the past quarter-century shows the limits of that approach. Acknowledging those limits, however, is not the same as suggesting that other pathways are just as good. Perhaps this is so for some students, but college remains — and should remain — the gold standard for most. Glenn C. Altschuler is the Thomas and Dorothy Litwin Emeritus Professor of American Studies at Cornell University. David Wippman is emeritus president of Hamilton College. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
23-03-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
A college education still easily beats the alternatives
Until recently, most Americans considered college a good investment. But only 22 percent now believe a four-year degree is worth pursuing if it requires taking out loans. Given a choice of five alternatives, ranging from trade school to apprenticeships to military service, large majorities think each is 'about the same as or better than a bachelor's degree in trying to achieve a successful livelihood,' in the words of education reporter Eric Kelderman. Skepticism about the value of a college degree is growing, even though the earnings advantage associated with a college degree remains strong. Calls to offer more young people career and technical education are multiplying, even though such training does not offer many of the benefits of a college education. For decades, increasing college attainment was seen as essential to individual and national prosperity. The 'college for all' movement sought to give every student, not just the most privileged, a shot at college. College graduates on average earn 84 percent more over their lifetimes than those who only complete high school. In 2019, the median income for families with at least one college degree holder was 24 percent higher than it was in 1970, but only 4 percent higher for families without a college degree. By 2021, life expectancy for someone with a bachelo r 's degree was 83, but only 75 for someone with no degree. As Nobel laureate Angus Deaton put it, 'the bachelor's degree has increasingly become a passport not only to a good job … but also to good health, to longevity, and to a flourishing social life.' But opposition to 'college for all' has intensified in recent years. Despite decades of effort and billions of dollars aimed at improving college readiness, less than 70 percent of high school graduates go to college, as Harvard's Graduate School of Education pointed out in 2011. Only 56 percent who start a four-year program graduate within six years; less than 30 percent who begin community college receive their associate's degree within three years. And only 30 percent of Black students and 20 percent of Latino students earn an associate's degree or higher by their mid-20s. The Harvard report recommended offering K-12 students a range of 'high-quality pathways' in addition to college. Kathleen deLaski, one of the authors of that report, builds on its arguments in her new book, 'Who Needs College Anymore? Imagining a Future Where Degrees Won't Matter.' She contends that the degree's 'status as the scaffold to the American Dream is breaking down,' especially for 'new majority' learners, defined as 'anyone for whom college was not originally designed.' She looks for 'solutions through the eyes of the end user,' especially students who are unable or unwilling to complete college. DeLaski envisions a world in which 'every skill you gain, likely starting in high school — on the soccer field, in the theater, at after-school-jobs — will be digitally documented,' assembled in a 'skills wallet' and used by employers to 'expand the talent pool' beyond the four-year degree and 'open more doors to meaningful careers.' Recognizing that employers still prefer college graduates, deLaski argues that we need better non-degree programs and work experiences that provide the technical skills and credentials required to land good jobs. She offers helpful assessments of those alternatives, including bootcamps, industry certifications and apprenticeships. Her argument reinforces our judgment, however, that none of the alternatives come close to offering the full benefits of a college education. Coding bootcamps were an early attempt to 'unbundle the degree' by providing 'learners a more direct training path to high-paid professional jobs.' But 75 percent of their market turned out to be people 'already in the workforce.' As deLaski acknowledges, bootcamps 'struggled to scale' because students found them too expensive or, in the case of apprenticeships, too difficult to secure. Because many students who enroll in college don't graduate, and many who graduate struggle to find their first job or are underemployed, deLaski (who glosses over hands-on project learning in higher education) thinks colleges should shift from 'lecture-based learning' to an 'experience-first' approach, providing 'skills mastery' and career-related 'validation services.' And even as she profiles competency-based degrees, certificate programs, 'micro-pathways' and co-op placements, she recognizes their limitations, including 'valid concerns that we should not let the pendulum swing too far from preparing scholars to preparing workers.' Nonetheless, deLaski wants the pendulum to swing. When guidance counselors explain that the alternatives to college are 'unclear, underfunded, unproven, and mostly noncredit, meaning financial aid hasn't covered them,' she urges high schools to 'blend' career and technical education with college preparation; offer more hands-on learning, career sampling and industry certifications; and make alternative pathways to professional success more visible. DeLaski acknowledges that 'staying current with different employers' skill needs is not for the faint-hearted,' and that, in a dynamic economy, a college degree 'may be the best antidote to becoming irrelevant.' Her approach, we believe, would also lead to a new form of tracking. As one of deLaski's interviewees put it, 'many times it is white people in power saying, 'Those kids can go to trade or vocational,' when they would never choose that for their own children.' DeLaski lists several categories of students who 'need' college: those who want to move into the middle class or higher (a category at odds with her thesis); those who feel society 'won't take them seriously without a higher degree'; those who seek jobs requiring a degree; and those who want the community that colleges provide. Unfortunately, as she points out, most of these people 'can't afford or access the colleges best set up to help them.' In discussing who needs college, deLaski focuses almost exclusively on career preparation. But education plays a crucial, often transformational role in developing human potential. College cultivates critical thinking, aesthetic appreciation, scientific literacy and intellectual curiosity. It teaches students how to conduct research, evaluate evidence, construct and critique an argument, work with others, appreciate different perspectives, communicate effectively and engage in their communities. College graduates pay more in taxes and make ' better decisions about health, marriage, and parenting.' Ultimately, deLaski admits, 'if a learner is just starting out, and they have the money, of course, they should go to college.' Nonetheless, she believes a 'Great College Reset' has begun and that college should become an 'umbrella for a variety of more specific market signals,' and just one of three paths to employment, along with 'a localized experiential journey' and a 'shorter residential experience.' It is tempting to suggest instead that we double down on college for all — surely much can still be done to improve access and completion rates — but, alas, the past quarter-century shows the limits of that approach. Acknowledging those limits, however, is not the same as suggesting that other pathways are just as good. Perhaps this is so for some students, but college remains — and should remain — the gold standard for most.
