6 Comments
The Wall Street Journal reports that Columbia’s Economics department, along with Econ departments across the country, is hiring no new economists this year. Last year, Columbia made nine new hires, eight of whom were snagged from other schools.
Economists can generally make more working for the government or the private sector, but, for obvious reasons, jobs in those areas are not quite as plentiful as they used to be.
On the well-employed side of the economist equation, Columbia econ prof Jagdish Bhagwati weighed in on protectionism in the federal bailout package, arguing against a ‘Buy American’ provision in the bill. Sadly, the stimulus has no provision aiding ailing econ PhDs.
Loading …
6 Comments
@non-economist They can make more working for the government? I’m not so sure about that. Government salaries don’t tend to be that high, unless of course you’re treasury secretary or President of the United States, and in those cases, the earnings are by no means commensurate to the time sacrificed. Private industry is in another world entirely of course. Anyway, perhaps they should start hiring some more competent economists as commentators on cable news networks. The ones that they are currently using— Paul Krugman included— are giving the field a possibly well-deserved reputation for chicanery.
@EAL Jagdish Bhagwati is a baller.
@BC 09 Bwog! Hillary Clinton is Barnard’s graduation speaker!
@NO WAY Is that true?!?!
@SEAS Yep, they apparently got an email like half an hour ago.
SEAS and CC better step up! Although I’m not holding my breath for SEAS.
@Mmmhmm I believe the buy American clause was scrapped or rather downgraded to a ‘we suggest it’ clause. Which should prevent the economic backlash from the global market many are expecting.
However, this stimulus bill seems very very haphazard. I’m a Democrat and voted for Obama but this seems just as bad as the earlier bank bailout. I’m going to have to go with Shuler and the blue dog Democrats on this one and suggest we should have held this bill to closer scrutiny.
I do realize, however, that fast action is most likely required for this…*sigh* a lose/lose situation.