The Side Effects of Social Distancing (Ep. 409)

Posted On Mar 19, 2020 By admin With Comments Off

( Photo: Shutterstock)

In only a few weeks, the romance coronavirus has reversed a century’s worth of our economic and social attires. What consequences will this have on our future — and is there a silver lining in this very black pandemic cloud?

Listen and are contributing to our podcast at Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, or elsewhere. Below is a transcript of the episode, revised for readability. For more information on the people and ideas in the bout, discover the links at the bottom of this post.

***

After a relatively slow and scattered response to the global pandemic known as COVID-1 9, the U.S. has in the past week presumed what is essentially a wartime footing. The primary focus is on curtailing the spread of the virus and creating capacity to treat those who contract it. To accomplish this, we’ve been encouraged — all 330 million of us — is to maintain ourselves as far as is possible, a practice known as social distancing. Class and universities have been shut down, along with ethnic and religious universities, eateries, and so much better. The same for boast occasions, theaters, gatherings, and any other large public picks. Many office structures have drained out, with hires ordered to work remotely. Travel, including aircrafts and improves, is being severely decreased.

All this has resulted in the biggest disruption of daily life that many of us have ever known, and it will previous for weeks, perhaps months. Will it successfully contain the spread of COVID-1 9? We’ll find out; hopefully it will at least be decreased. If we listen to the public-health people, the virologists and the epidemiologists — and we should, because they’ve been dreading and studying this kind of pandemic for years — they say the situation will get substantially worse in the U.S. before it gets better.

And what other gists, and aftermaths, will this social distancing produce? There will be many consequences, and certainly some unintended ones. Would anyone be surprised, for instance, to see a baby boom starting around 9 months from now? Entire industries and segments of our society are being upended. The fiscal wallop is likely to be big. Obviously, some people stand to be hurt, gravely. Others are more protected. And some may well benefit, including those who can entertain and deliver and sell to the millions of people who suddenly have few neighbourhoods to go and not much to do. But the overall economic blow will be hugely negative, and will likely require a big dose of government aid — everything from manufacture bailouts to hire and duty succour to emergency aid for laid-off employees. The stock market came 30 percent — with one, terrifying, single-day drop of 10 percent and another of 12 percent.Volatility is more important than it’s taken place since the financial crisis of 2008.

Now, to be fair, before the COVID-1 9 pandemic began — apparently in Wuhan, China — the U.S. sells are available at an all-time high. And one of the purposes of the descent should be attributed to another huge market disruption that sort of slipped in under the radar: an oil-price conflict between Saudi Arabia and Russia. The information is, there are a lot of things flying under the radar right now, a lot of consequences that may come out of the world-wide response to COVID-1 9. So we thought we’d call a few economists whose past investigate expresses they might have some penetrations into the future that’s being crafted right now by the remarkable varies we’re all living through. They are 😛 TAGEND

BLOOM: Nicholas Bloom. I’m a prof of financials at Stanford University.

Bloom studies financial misgiving and the management of houses. Also 😛 TAGEND

Toby MOSKOWITZ: I’m Toby Moskowitz, I’m a professor of finance and financials at Yale University. And I study financial markets and sports.

And, lastly 😛 TAGEND

Marshall BURKE: My name is Marshall Burke. I am an economist at Stanford University. I’m an environmental economist, so I study how changes in the environment shape a range of human outcomes — state upshots, fiscal aftermaths, supports more broadly.

We’ll talk about the abrupt spike in succeeding from dwelling and online see; about the super-volatile stock markets — and, believe it or not, one silver lining in the black pandemic cloud.

***

Let’s start with an overview of the economy itself in the age of COVID-1 9. Here’s Nick Bloom.

BLOOM: So there are two things that I think are happening now. First is, there’s clearly the tremendous negative jolt on both expect and give. Industries are been closed down. Transportation, tourism is falling. So that’s what’s called a first-moment effect. We know for sure that’s bad news. But there’s a second factor thrown on top of that, which is, there’s incredible ambiguity, in particular left-tail risk.

DUBNER: What does left-tail gamble aim, satisfy?

BLOOM: Left-tail risk is very bad outcomes. So gamble can, in theory, be on both the good side and the bad side. So there’s upside danger and downside jeopardy. The COVID-1 9 truly only has, obviously, downside risk. It’s hard to see anything good coming out of this. And this additional uncertainty, historically, has turned out to be really costly for the economy because professions pause hiring or investing. So I’d be somewhat self-confident in saying I believe we’re now already in a recession. How bad it will be is hard to tell.

MOSKOWITZ: Some of the latest work in academia is about network effects.

That’s Toby Moskowitz.

MOSKOWITZ: So, make the N.B.A ., who only deferred the season. The dealers, potential suppliers, all the periphery manufactures, including parties that work at the fields, taxis, hotels, they’re all going to be affected by this. So we’ll see that trickling effect happen as well.

DUBNER: I wonder if you could talk for a minute about the distinctions between being, right now, a salaried, full-time employee versus being an hourly or non-salaried worker. And how it impresses me that that may be a huge split, bifurcation, that one class is going to do much better than the other. Am I wrong on that or right on that?

BLOOM: You’re right. So on the one hand there’s tribes like me and you that are on a salary and can kind of relax in some senses, and we have all kinds of issues with our kids and health risks, but at least we’re not worried about losing our income. And then on the other hand, there are parties that are hourly compensate that I reckon life is substantially harder yet still for, because they’ve also got to go out and make, which places them at higher show gamble. And when the recession happens, they’re the ones that are easiest for the firms to lay off.

DUBNER: Can you think of two examples from biography, either recent or remote, of how — in a case like this, where works, specially the most vulnerable proletarians, have the carpet gathered out from under them, a case where government and/ or private firms reacted well to this problem?

BLOOM: I want, regrettably, when you look at recedings generally, the lower-skilled, lower-paid do much worse. When has there been a good response? You know, I’m scratching my head considered in it. I make, there are things like Ford, on the$ 5 a period, which was famous in the 30′ s, stepped in to guarantee craftsmen an honest living wage. In recent times, I entail the last 20, 30 times, actually, labour market have generally been moving towards being more flexible. And so it’s become easier for firms to lay parties off, peculiarly hourly workers.

MOSKOWITZ: In fact, we’re already starting to see some layoffs from this. They would be — you see it at bakeries, eateries, things of that mood. Those are now going to the first to go. And that’s something where policymakers and economists, I repute, need to think about to sort of smooth out this disruption.

DUBNER: What do you do?

MOSKOWITZ: Well, I speculate one of the answers — and it seems like this is a — I’m sure there’s some debate, but my reading of the word has been that it’s been moderately bipartisan, is longer paid leave from wreak — that, I judge, has to help. But that’s, again, for full-time employees. I don’t know what we do about — I necessitate, some sort of safety net for those people, I suppose, would be important.

DUBNER: When there’s such a high level of financial ambiguity, especially one produced by this big dislocation or offend, what does that do to monetary or monetary program? Does it rob it of some of its conventional strength?

BLOOM: Yeah. So as we speak on March 12 th, the S& P 500 precipitated nearly 10 percentage, which is actually the second biggestdrop since World War II. And more surprising was, halfway through the day, the Fed and the European Central Bank both stepped in to try and provide stimulus to the market. And it’s like blow against the wind. So the market briefly started up and then exactly remained falling down. So, unfortunately, monetary policy, and to a broader extension monetary plan, the government with charge and spending, I conceive has pretty restriction influence on slacken us down.

DUBNER: In such a case, was it truly the uncertainty or was it only the dimensions of the the suspicion right now?

BLOOM: The primary reasons for the Fed’s move wasn’t consequential, is the damaging impact of COVID-1 9 is so large. There’s not much the Fed can do. The other thing that’s worth bearing in mind is, of course, before we went into this two weeks ago, interest rates were already very low. We really campaigned a campaign against the Great Recession in 2008, 2009. We actually hadn’t reloaded our arsenal. And abruptly the biggest meanie in sight appears on the horizon. So economists had worried about this for a while. One of the reasons why people wanted actually the Fed to put up interest rates a bit, over the last two or three years, so that we had some ammunition.

DUBNER: The president, President Trump, has terribly vocally said that he wanted to keep rates as low as is practicable. Jay Powell, the chair of the Fed, supposedly had had inclinings in becoming the opposite direction over the past several years, but instead either preserve them or deterred lowering them. I entail, is this exactly the kind of instance where you wanted to keep that powder cool?

BLOOM: Yeah, with advantage of hindsight, it was a mistake in particular to have massive duty chips over the last two, three years, because we’re actually stretching very fast. What would have been much better is to push down the government debt so that right now when we really need it, we could spend money. Normally, you want to have large-scale blowouts in recedings to support the economy, and earn your savings back in the spurts. And instead, we’re in the hangover from spending in a thunder and suddenly you’re hit with a recession with very little money left in the bank. So the fiscal position, I reflect, is much more worrying because there we should have been generating a surplus, and instead there’s a big deficit.

This past Sunday, after we spoke, the Federal Reserve cut its rates to roughly zero; it also announced it would buy at least $700 billion in government bonds, a move known as “quantitative easing, ” to try to keep marketplaces from locking up. The stock market “re not” allayed: they descended another 12 percent on Monday.

MOSKOWITZ: Let’s face it, if we’re not transacting with each other for some long period of time, that will take a toll. I represent, think about the airlines. If the airlines aren’t making any money for a while and can’t lope their directions, that’s going to affect lots of businesses and all of that’s going to go down for a while. Now, the belief is, of course, that as soon as everything jumpings back up, the airlines can kickstart and start flying again. If that makes some time, it may take a little bit longer to recover. But I’m hopeful that won’t be the case.

DUBNER: The last hour we witnessed a stock-market meltdown like this was after the financial crisis began to really gather steam. And what we accompanied was a lot of investors — institutional, but a lot of individual investors — certainly panicked when the markets ended up descending. And countless parties sold low-toned. And then as the recuperation started, they ceased up buying high. I think we all understand the feelings constituent of that, especially for people who are a little bit older and they just want to preserve the capital. As a busines person who’s seen a few cases of these rises and drops now over the past few decades, do you have any general suggestion for people?

MOSKOWITZ: Yes, I have very specific advice. Don’t touch it.

BLOOM: One of the basic results from economics is, you can’t outthink the market.

MOSKOWITZ: Any age people try to time the market, they end up doing far more damage than they help themselves. It’s very difficult to do. As one example, I had many peers — this organization is famous economists — who said last week, “I’m buying, I’m buying like crazy. This will be a blip.” They’re all sorry they did.

BLOOM: And you’re swimming with the sharks, because the other side of that trade is guys on Wall st. that feed for lunch retail investors like us, that don’t really know what we’re doing.

MOSKOWITZ: So what I’ve always done — and I’m not the only financial economist that would tell you this — many of us would — is, you have a long-term strategy. You stick with it. And you can’t be blindsided or feelings about these short-term blips because you can’t really do much about them. So the best advice is actually not to look.

Investing is, of course, a case-specific pursuit. If you are an older investor or if you’ve been putting money in a 529 plan for your kids’ college tuition, and they’re once deep into high school, then a 30 -percent drop in the market has different suggests than if you’ve got a longer horizon. In both cases, we should probably expect stock-market volatility to continue for the near term, especially because COVID-1 9 has created so much volatility in how the biggest corporations in the world are doing business. Apple has closed most of its retail store around the world. Microsoft, Google, and Amazon have play-act mandatory work-from-home policies for most works. What will the effects of that be? And will COVID-1 9 offer investigates an opportunity to measure all these effects?

BLOOM: Yes. Much as aircraft architects analyse slam sites, economists will investigate what happened after COVID-1 9.

Nick Bloom probably knows more about making from residence than just about anyone you’ll ever fill. Not really because he’s a prof, and not because he’s lazy — but because he’s studied this very question.

BLOOM: Somewhat coincidentally, six years ago, we extended a study out in Shanghai, in China, where a large online travel agent announced CTrip, which is really like China’s version of Expedia. They decided to allow employees to work from dwelling because they found part infinite in Shanghai was expensive. So they requested 1,000 employees who wanted to work from dwelling. And interestingly, simply 500 of them volunteered, despite the fact hires on average were travelling 30 instants each lane. Of those 500 employees, they then randomized them by birth date.

They randomized them so that the venture would be truly an experiment, and not military exercises in self-selection.

BLOOM: And then we tracked them for nine months. And what we noted were three things. Firstly, employees succeeding from residence — so this organization is parties, I “re saying”, were booking phone calls and meeting — processing data related to computers. So these people are various kinds of individual working errands. They were 13 percent more productive. I convey, 13 percent is a huge increase. And the same reasons they told us was, you are aware, A, it’s quieter at home, so they could concentrate more. But B, actually, they just tended to work their full displacement rather than spending as much time at lunch or arriving late or taking long lavatory divulges. Furthermore, their quit frequencies halved. Many of them much favor making from residence and didn’t want to leave their chore. And thirdly, formerly you ensure for concert, since they were performing better, they actually weren’t getting promoted a little faster — so there is some sting in the tail, that being at home seemed to reduce your ability to do promoted.

DUBNER: It sounds like good story that productivity and prosperity and all these things can increase. On the other hand, it sounds like that job that you were looking at gives itself particularly well to working from home, yes?

BLOOM: Yes. As you said, there’s a couple of major caveats. So it’s really not a team racket. So that’s why you can be at home four out of five days a week. The second point was that after the end of the study, they then question employees to re-decide whether they wanted to work from dwelling or come back into the office. And half of the employees said after expend nine months at home, they didn’t like it. They felt isolated and lonely and they volunteered to come back into the office. So for me, the threats from the COVID experiment is A, the type of working from residence we’re talking about now is very extreme. It’s full-time, five days a week. I should note that less than five percentof Americans currently do that. Quantities of beings toil from residence a day a week, but very few people work from dwelling full-time. It’s kind of like comparing going to the gym sporadically with marathon set, so it’s pretty extreme.

And B, as “youre telling”, we tested hires that don’t need to spend time together. And most people do. And C, the COVID threat could well go on for months and months. I certainly is concerned at a big tick up in parties going depressed, mental- health issues, which leads to health matters, more generally, because of the isolation it could lead to. My prediction is, we will find that beings that do routine jobs may play okay at home but for the majority of us, I think it’s going to be moderately unpleasant personally, with all the loneliness. And I suppose is likely to be reasonably injury for productivity, particularly as time goes on. So I think if there’s one or 2 week, it wouldn’t be so bad. But if it extends on to three to six months, I think it’s going to be hugely shattering economically.

MOSKOWITZ: As you meet that data, and I believe a lot of corporations are doing this, you can get a sense of, well, what is the productivity loss, if any, from having people work at home?

Toby Moskowitz again.

MOSKOWITZ: And this might be useful for when you’re hiring hires — some of them want to, let’s say, come to the office three days a week and work at home two days a week. Sometimes there’s pushback on that. But it’s not really backed by data. This will give us an opportunity to do that assessment. And this might be a nice way to action everybody to actually run this experiment and verify what happens.

BLOOM: I think one other thing that’s going to be damaged in the long run, actually, is: if everyone’s working from dwelling, there’s not going to be that kind of workplace discussions, coffee-table discussions, lunchtime talk. And most of that, it is about to change, is important for long-run innovation. So day-to-day, we can get along with, you know, if you’re dealing with the same current clients or same doctrines. But when you examine ventures or scientists or even the style I do my own experiment, a lot of that originality comes from idle time and unwound discussion with collaborators, and that’s all gone. So I also was concerned that five, 10 years out from now, we will see this as another lowering in long-run growth rate because we’ve taken a big hit to innovation.

DUBNER: You know a good deal about management and leadership and firms that are successful and unsuccessful. What do you think might be learned along those lines from the COVID-1 9 situation?

BLOOM: So if you have a great manager that’s very unionized, that can deal with change, that spurs their employees, they can survive this. But I envision a chaotic and disorganized firm could literally come apart. And in fact, already we start to see insolvencies start to head up.

DUBNER: Is there anything you can point to that really good masters do or don’t do in a crisis?

BLOOM: Well, one shrink portion of advice around manipulating from residence would be to try and regularly check in with your employees. So, it’s an unusual thing to do, but we’re in rare periods. You could easily set up every day, beginning of the day, terminate of the working day, 10, 15 minutes, face-to-face, one-on-one Skype call and just chew the fat. It’s going to be really important for employees to feel like somebody is there that cares about them and notices they’re there. It may mean that administrators are going to lose, frankly, three, four hours a day on these one-on-one fulfills. But I feel without that, they could A, lose contact, and B, employees could become quite seriously depressed and lonely.

MOSKOWITZ: Well, it’s the same arguing that parties had with the school closings. So, it’s very costly to close a school. People work — now what do you do with your kids? The kids aren’t learning. I get all that. Those are overheads. I meditate people are attaining the incorrect analogy, though. You can’t compare the cost of doing this versus not doing it. Not doing it’s not an option. The question is, you do it now for a shorter period of time or you make love later for a much longer period of time. All the things you’re mentioning are definite costs. I time don’t think we can avoid them at this point.

DUBNER: Countless parties, including us on this appearance, have kind of complained about or stirred against the standard set-up with gratifies in corporate America. We have a lot of rallies. And countless parties feel that those meetings are beyond not beneficial, but actually onerous and intrusive. Do you have any reviews for purposes of determining whether this might modify convene culture in any way?

MOSKOWITZ: Well , nothing detests fits more than profs, that’s for certain. But everybody feels this way. I’ll give you an example. I had, at the university today, a couple of fulfills scheduled that — if I wasn’t coming in to do this, I would have canceled entirely. Instead, I said, “Well, let’s not all get together in a apartment. That seems stupid at this time. Why don’t we try this on Zoom, which isjust a teleconference? ” It wielded just fine. I make, initially there was a little awkwardness, where people introduced themselves, and a few cases of the, you know, I would call them the old-schoolers, said, “Well, this is why we don’t like these things, see how awkward it is? ” Once we got into it, the assemble was far more efficient, and what was slated for a half-hour meeting took 10 instants, and we resolved it quickly.

DUBNER: Countless parties hate commuting. And most people in the next period of time — weeks, months — are going to be commuting a lot less. Once we return — or if and when we return to normalcy, do you think it’s going to be hard to do parties to get back on that commuting wagon?

MOSKOWITZ: Nobody likescommuting. It’s actually the number one thing on cross-examines that people say they hate the most. And I consider the longer this becomes, you’ll have more requests for, “Hey, gaze, I could do this commute three days a week. But not five.”

BLOOM: As we are all familiar with, for the last 20 times, the prices of property in the center of metropolis have tided. Young parties in particular want to live in downtown fields. If abruptly we switch to working from dwelling, you could easily see that reversing. So I is to be able to find there being kind of satellite towns, but they would all be relatively cheaper, and we could spread out more uniformly. So, yeah, I conclude for the house marketplace, working from dwelling is a big mass rollout. It would chip property rates in the center of metropolitans.

DUBNER: I’m curious, you are aware, once beings are ordered to work from home and then they — all of a sudden they’re not having to commute, they’re not having to shave ortuck in a shirt, et cetera. Maybe they don’t even change their underwear. I don’t know. Do you think getting some of those people back to work, peculiarly back to the commute every day, will be difficult?

BLOOM: I’ve talked to a lot of firms in the U.S. and internationally about making from home. They’re kind of reluctant to do it. They’re excitable that they let the genie out the bottle. And it’s hard to reverse it. I actually think this experience is going to force a lot more serious thinking about cultivating from residence and realize a big spike up, some of which will definitely be beneficial in the long-run.

These are just a few, and perhaps “the worlds largest” predictable, of the countless fiscal and social side effects we’ll be seeing from the COVID-1 9 response. What are you picturing? Let us know at radio @freakonomics. com.

***

“Social distancing” to diminish the spread of COVID-1 9 means that we’re all supposed to limit our their relationships with other parties as much as possible. Some of us, maybe most of us, will find this incredibly hard-bitten. The late economist Gary Becker made a career of studying actions that most economists didn’t recall much about, including craving. And what did Becker argue is the most addictive thing in the world? Other parties. We are, for the most part, social animals. What kind of animals will we be without the socializing? We’re about to find out. One of “the worlds biggest” reforms right now — one of “the worlds biggest” unplanned experiments of the COVID-1 9 age — has to do with remote teaching and learning. Academies and universities across the U.S ., and elsewhere, have been shut down.

BLOOM: Yeah, Stanford closed.

MOSKOWITZ: Yeah. That’s what they’ve done here at Yale, too.

Those, again, are the economists Nicholas Bloom and Toby Moskowitz.

DUBNER: We’re talking about COVID-1 9 as a natural venture that will allow people like you to measure the efficacy of remote teaching. So can you envisage actually doing that study or someone doing that study? What kind of data would be needed, what various kinds of timeframe would be useful, et cetera?

BLOOM: You may compare trends to say the courses taught in person last year. So you may say, search, we’ve got 10 years of basically the same course. Then abruptly this year, we teach it online. What do the scores look like? What do the long- run outcomes look like? In Stanford, for example, Econ 1, which is one of our key routes, was taught in fall, outpouring, and wintertime trends. So you could look at Econ 1 students who made it face-to-face last-place quarter versus the ones next fourth that are going to take it entirely online. And be seen to what extent they do in years two, three, and four.

DUBNER: And what’s your supposed resolution? Do you think that there are some kind of antiquated inefficiencies in the system that could be eliminated? And even though it’d be a shame that it take something like COVID-1 9 to produce this kind of change, that there might be a lot of benefits to some forms of remote hear?

BLOOM: I’m not that confident that remote learning is going to be that successful. The reasonablenes is from personal experience, I feel a lot of my value-added is what I’ll call the personal-trainer effect — you are aware, causing students reason. You’re pull beings to focus for an hour and a half. For instance, probably “the worlds biggest” single an improved my belief was the year that I banned laptops and cell phone from being used in the class. And it was supernatural. Abruptly everyone giving attention. Whereas when it’s offline, it’s so easy to get disconcerted by watching the football or appreciating the story or watching the stock market.

DUBNER: So let me pretend to be cynic for a moment and say, “Well, the kind of person who would measure this result long term — in other words, remote teach actually bringing some additions, and that might eliminate a lot of live professorial act — the kind of people who’d “ve been coming” with that are profs. So is this in the best interest, or in the interest at all, of anyone to actually study and come to that kind of conclusion?

BLOOM: Yes, absolutely. I believe as economists, you always want progress. So imagine professors can unexpectedly school much more efficiently by record a class once and then having it toy on video. Then, of course, we can spend our time more one-on-one with students. My sense, the highest value-added is sitting down with individual students and going through their research papers. And if we could devote our hours every day on that, I think it would be much more valuable for students, actually, than just performing textile they are unable to learn out of a textbook.

DUBNER: So, countless universities have already spent a lot of time and a fair amount of money putting their courses online. And then there are for-profit firms, Coursera and others who have quite robust platforms. And I be understood that the take-up multitudes are not insubstantial. But considering how difficult and expensive and timely it is to attend college, to go to four years’ importance of college, I’ve been shocked at how low the take-up rates are for online see. And I’m curious whether you think that this might adjust that.

MOSKOWITZ: Here’s my view on this. And time from 25 years of schooling, myself. I find if you’re just doctrine knowledge and methods, that can be done almost as well online as it can live. You could even bicker maybe even better online because you can supplement it with video textiles, and you can record it, right, and get it perfect. If you’re trying to teach someone how to think and you’re trying to teach them, let’s say, how to do research or how to ask an interesting question and get a technical rebut, that’s much more hands-on. So, you are aware, if I’m teach basic financings — what’s a stock, what’s a bail — I study I can do that just as well online as I probably can in the classroom.

But if you’re talking about training students how to think, right, and how to really, you are aware, whether it’s writing an English paper or writing a poem or, you are aware, coming up with a computer program that, you are aware, does X or, you know, thinking about how to premium some fog private-equity conglomerate — that, I judge, requires a lot more back and forth, a lot more interaction. And I suspect that the reason that we still have the university model, is that’s what they’re trying to do. What I tell my students is, I’m trying to coach you how to think, because what I coach you today may not be relevant 5, 10, 20 times from now. But if you know how to think about it, you’ll be able to figure it out. When LeBron James — extremely ghastly resemblance. But, you are aware, there’s a reason that basketball players want to play in front of fans.

DUBNER: I have to just say, whenever an economist likens himself to LeBron James, I’m all ears, OK?

MOSKOWITZ: I wasn’t going there, I assert. But I’m making — making a very poor analogy. Well, the analogy is okay, but it’s on a terribly, very different scale. Which is, you know, I feel when you’re teaching, you’re reacting to your students. You realize their faces, you insure their questions, you appreciate distraction. Sometimes you read a light-footed go on. That’s very difficult to do. Even although you learn their faces on the flat screen, it’s not quite the same. And for an athlete, it must be a hundred times like that, right? And I sort of get where that gumption comes from. So now, it’s in my interest to say that that’s the case. If it turns out we could teach just as effectively remotely, well, that’s a whole different paradigm for a guy like me.

BURKE: Yeah, for academics, it’s been in some sense a real opportunity to explore other ways of doing things.

That’s Marshall Burke, the environmental economist at Stanford.

BURKE: So all the conferences I was going to go to this spring have been canceled. I’ve transmit my laboratory group dwelling. So I prop my laboratory meetings online. We’ve had speaker nominees online. And I was skeptical that it would work well, initially, and actually, I think it’s working quite nicely. And I certainly hope that we learn that lesson, and then we do some of these substitutes. There’s no reason I it is necessary fly to the East Coast many times a year to give talks. Why can’t we just do it remotely? I think this will give us the opportunity to explore the benefits of these other methods of fiscal production.

BLOOM: So I think this is going to generate huge amounts of experimentation in teaching. And in the long run, some of it will be good, but it’s very painful right now.

DUBNER: When we think about schooling, particularly in the early ages, socialization seems to be a big benefit, or at least that’s what “theyre saying”. So right now, we’re determine all levels of institutions being closed around the U.S. and in other locates, from pre-K up through graduate school. So I’m curious if you have any meditates about what various kinds of unintended or knock-on effects that may have.

BLOOM: I think socialization is actually really important. It’s also interesting that the American system has been praised heavily for doing not that well in international analogous maths tests and science tests and reading tests, but Americans are very good at socializing, and I don’t think it’s a coincidence. There’s lots of American startups and successful C.E.O.s and inventors. It’s part of this socialization process. From an early age, American kids are taught to argue, to speak up. And I think that will be lost if we move alone to online home-based teaching.

Marshall Burke has already moved his own young children to home-based teaching.

BURKE: We pulled our kids out of school this morning and already two hours into our homestay, they were punching each other in the face. So I am not optimistic about the livelihood progress from these stay-at-home weeks.

DUBNER: We should say they are twins, right?

BURKE: They are twins. So they like punching one another in the face.

DUBNER: Are they both boys, by any chance?

BURKE: Two girlfriends, actually. It trims across all genders, apparently.

Here’s how Burke describes the work he does as an environmental economist.

BURKE: So I study how changes in the environment shape a range of human outcomes — state outcomes, fiscal aftermaths, subsistences more broadly.

DUBNER: Can you talk for a second about your past study on the association between climate change and violence?

BURKE: So one thing we have done is assemble historical data from around the world on murderou aftermaths. And what we find is a very strong linkage between changes in temperature and increases in various types of violence. So temperatures move up, you actually look more murders in the U.S. You attend more civil conflicts in sub-Saharan Africa. So this is not a brand-new receive. It comes through very clearly in many different datasets.

DUBNER: And are you able clarify, really on a kind of behavioral tier, the mechanism by which that happens?

BURKE: So there are multiple mechanisms that are consistent with this effect. I think we’re still trying to understand exactly which one, or which combining of them, is essential. There’s a physiological mechanism. So psychologists have shown for a long time that if you merely placed parties in a office and come on the temperature, you can piss them off even if there’s no one else in the apartment. But motifs of social commitment also change. So a warm evening, many more people are out on wall street and maybe there are enough different social interactions that lead to an increase in crimes. And these bigger scale-changes, slumps in economic productivity or other sequels, is the standard explanation for why you would investigate things like civil combat, intra-state conflicts, increase when temperatures go up.

DUBNER: So given all that, I am bizarre if you have any prophecies about a same association between brutality and COVID-1 9. Because again, you’ve got the regular living decorations of many, numerous, countless parties — it’s going to be billions of people around the world — being interrupted, everything from going to work versus not going to work versus how they munch versus how they interact, et cetera. And I am inquisitive whether that possible establishes you expectant, interested to measure, et cetera, et cetera?

BURKE: Absolutely interesting to measure. I would think most of the measures being put in place to reduce the spread of COVID-1 9 are reducing social interaction. That’s explicitly their destination. My naive prediction would be that that would reduce at least numerous the different types of individual crime. Now, if things got bad enough where reserves were limitations, could things get a lot worse? I think so. Anecdotally, a lot of parties are buying artilleries here in the U.S. So to me, that suggests that some people think that broader-scale violence could break out. I very strongly hope that’s not the case. But that’s clearly a concern of some people.

DUBNER: Okay. So the big-hearted rationalization we wanted to speak with you today was about this recent work you’ve done, precisely related to COVID-1 9, and an unintended outcome of the lockdown in China.

BURKE: Sure. So a few months into the COVID-1 9 epidemic in China, where it started, NASA wrote some really staggering photos of changes in air quality over China. The Chinese had taken extremely vigorous action to limit the dissemination of the virus, and that had economic importances. And you could actually construe these from cavity. So numerous plants have been shuttered. People are not going to work. So what NASA proved was a dramatic reduction in air pollution across a lot of China. And as an environmental economist, we’re very interested in air pollution — why it alters, what effect it has on fiscal things we care about in the world. So I and many other environmental economists immediately belief, you know, this could be in some sense a silver lining in the epidemic. Clearly, the epidemic was justification an immense amount of harm on the dirt, but it was also reducing air pollution. And we have decades of research suggesting that air pollution is really bad for health aftermaths. And so any reductions in air pollution are going to be good, on average, for state outcomes.

At that station, Beijing had some of the dirtiest breeze in the world. And so what the hell is ensure in late 2007 and early in 2008 was one of the most dramatic efforts to rapidly clean up air quality that we’ve probably verified anywhere throughout human history. They grew the price of gasoline to encourage people to not drive. They proscribed sure-fire polluting vehicles from being on the roads at all. They shut down a range of manufacturing plants, plaster producers, concrete manufacturers. They impelled some of the large steel flowers to either put off or to actually relocate. And all of this had a really drastic result on breath excellence. Air quality improved by about a third in the cover of really a couple months.

DUBNER: And this was all temporary suspension then, compensate?

BURKE: This was temporary suspension. Olympics were done and all these constraints were lifted.

DUBNER: And formerly such constraints were elevated, where did the air-pollution quality go back to?

BURKE: So it went back to its previous very high levels. Unfortunately.

DUBNER: And was that relatively short amount of meter with less airborne pollutants enough to substantially improve people’s long-term health outcomes?

BURKE: So it turns out it was. So you can compare how mortality changed in Beijing relative to other municipals that did not see this dramatic change in air pollution. So the researchers acquired very large reductions in child and infant mortality and very great reductions in old-age mortality.

DUBNER: What can you tell us about the in-utero effects of air pollution?

BURKE: This has been studieda lot in the context of the Clean Air Act in the U.S ., which led to fairly substantial improvements in breeze quality across the U.S. And parties, again, find really massive gists. So showing to air pollution in-utero leads to last-minute life upshots, reductions in earnings, poor health overall. So air pollution does not have to kill you to offset you worse off.

So when Marshall Burke met those NASA plans registering a decrease in air pollution across China due to COVID-1 9, he went to the data. And what kind of drop did he find?

BURKE: So the percentage drop was actually fairly close to what we watched in the Beijing Olympics. Maybe somewhat smaller. I said here today a 20 percent an improved aura quality.

DUBNER: And with the Olympics, you mentioned that the lower was very variable, or extremely concentrated on Beijing. If you were to look at all of China, a duo months into COVID-1 9 versus before, do you picture a sag pretty much everywhere? Or is it mostly in the places where COVID-1 9 was particularly centralized?

BURKE: So the data are still rolling in on this, but the reductions do seem to be the largest in places where COVID-1 9 was most serious. The spacecraft data indicate that. So Wuhan insured an immediate and very large decline in financial undertaking and that led to a decline in air pollution. Cities in southern China have looked the largest overall decreases in air pollution. And that’s because in the north — residences like Beijing, actually — home heating is an important source of energy use and likewise information sources of pollution. And that hasn’t changed that much. So actually in Beijing, you’ve seen next-to-no-decrease in air pollution due to COVID-1 9. That’s both because the air pollution and because of — plaster plants actually don’t like to turn off their blast furnaces. It’s really expensive to stop them and then start them again. So they like to just leave them on if they can and sort of try to wait it out. And that’s what they’ve done. And so you’ve seen sort of no decline in air pollution around Beijing, sort of ironically.

DUBNER: OK, so tell us what you believe will be the relationship between this reduction in pollution and fatality in China.

BURKE: So I calculated that this reduction in pollution will likely save 50,000 lives across China. I want to emphasize that this is — it’s a prognosi, in a sense, it’s not a measurement. It’s using these estimates of the relationship between air pollution and mortality than we know from other studies. So what those estimates tell us is that the advantages are concentrated, again, among the very young and among the very old.

DUBNER: So those 50,000, let’s call them ” saved” lives, because it’s somewhat speculative or predictive. That, in your approximate, as we speak — with a moving target, granted — would compare to how many lives lost due to COVID-1 9 instantly?

BURKE: Directly so far, there have been around 3,000 lives lost to COVID-1 9 in China. That number continues to go up, but go up much more gradually. China seems to have really turned the reces on this. So it’s about 20 experiences — 15 to 20 times greater — the deaths saved from airborne pollutants. I want to emphasize that the 3,000 extinctions are just the direct-attributed demises to COVID-1 9. That does not weigh all the immense disruption that’s happened that could have led to additional extinctions. Other people not given the opportunity to get analyse for non-COVID-related infections. Those we have yet to really observe in the mortality statistics. And so a full record will need to take those into account. And we just don’t have the data to do that yet.

DUBNER: If we were to focus for another minute on the silver lining — I’m curious about other behavioral responses to COVID-1 9 in China. Airborne pollutants fell enough to have a big positive effect; transportation is a substantial contributor to air pollution; so did transportation sink enough to, say, lead to a big drop in traffic fatalities as well?

BURKE: I think that’s an interesting question, and again, one that would have to be studied once we have more fatality data supplied by. In fixes in which automobile coincidences are a large share of mortality or for certain demographics, like young, otherwise healthful demographics, for which vehicle accidents are the leading cause of death in many parts of the world, I think you would expect a reduction in traffic fatalities.

DUBNER: I can imagine parties listening to this and say, “This Professor Burke sounds like a nice person and a pithy person and a radiant party, but ugh, he’s such an economist. There is a global pandemic going on and he’s finding this silver lining in this prodigious pitch-black shadow, ” that you’re identifying what might be, let’s say, 45,000 fewer deaths in China because of less air pollution versus the deaths from COVID-1 9. So I’m just curious — does it feel — I’m sorry. I don’t mean to ask you to hoist yourself on your own petard. But does it feel somewhat awkward or do you feel guilty or conflicted in any way in kind of examining the specifics of that silver lining while the world is in such surprise and brawl?

BURKE: It feels seriously awkward, and it was a calculation I could do because I had the data. But I would hesitate to even call it a silver lining. So, to step back. I did this calculation. I tweeted it out. And a lot of the response was like, well, you are aware, this is terrible, like, and you’re not accounting for all the other negative consequences that a large pandemic like this would have on the health system. And I think that’s right. And those have been the storeys coming out of Italy and coming out of China, right? If you have any other state complication unrelated to COVID-1 9, it’s going to be very hard to get treatment. The silver lining is irrelevant right now. Let’s focus on the dark shadow and getting that dark vapour under control.

Epidemics are terrible. They to be translated into an immense amount of human suffering. That is going to continue to happen in our country. And that is where our focus is therefore necessary to. And nothing of my silly estimations should take away from that. To me, what this forecast does highlighting, though, and regrettably what things like COVID-1 9 or other dramatic events bring into focus is , what’s going on when we don’t have pandemics? And if something, the pandemic can help highlight the negative effects of our everyday actions.

DUBNER: So I guess ideally what you’d want to think is, after the improvement from this pandemic, what you’d have is policymakers look at your data and your conclusions and say, “Whoa, let’s not wait for the next pandemic to diminish pollution. Look how many lives it saves.” Right?

BURKE: That’s right. And I ponder the Chinese government, you’ve actually envisioned contamination status come down somewhat dramatically in the last few years. China’s already making progress on this trouble and I think should be commended for that.

Economists really like to think in cost-benefit periods. So let’s weigh the positives and let’s weigh the negatives and let’s compare them. To me, that’s not undoubtedly the right way to go in an epidemic. Let’s just think of this — let’s are concentrated on the negatives. Let’s not do a cost-benefit calculation of scourges. I think that’s just the wrong formulating overall. Despite that being what we always was intended to do. But let’s use the epidemic to learn about things we could do better when we don’t have plagues. I think that’s the way to think.

DUBNER: Let’s pretend for a minute that, you are aware, God willing, the pandemic turns out to be less lethal, less detrimental than it certainly is likely to be. And that in a pair months’ era, things seem to be getting back to what would seem to be pre-COVID-1 9 ordinary. Do you really think that people will, for example, decide not to congregate so much better? Do you think that online learning or remote working or any of these other replacements are really be stuck?

BURKE: That’s a great question. And yeah, honestly, I have no idea.

DUBNER: I entail, I’m old-time enough now to remember when estimating started to become fairly widely available and a lot of smart people said, “Well, that is the end of metropolitans. It’s the end of in-person work, interval. Everybody’s going to live in, you are aware, Fiji or wherever they want.” And it simply didn’t happen. In fact, the opposite happened. This propinquity turned out to be incredibly valuable, and urbanization have increased and risen and risen. So I’m curious about what interests you may have to — what various kinds of previous outcomes you may want to look for as an economist.

BURKE: Yes, so fiscal historians — specific economic historians — point to these critical junctures in history, where it wasn’t sluggish modification, but something specific happens that named entire countries or part economies on a different direction. So apparently it remains to be seen whether this particular epidemic — and hopefully it recedes, and we get it under control — formerly it goes away, what happens? But one feeling is that these sorts of large-scale happenings could be critical junctures that stimulate us to change our behavior in ways that just sort of slow-moving changes in technology or slow-moving changes in preferences never do.

***

Freakonomics Radio is produced by Stitcher and Dubner Production. This episode was produced by Daphne Chen. Our staff also includes Alison Craiglow, Greg Rippin, Harry Huggins, Matt Hickey, Zack Lapinski, and Corinne Wallace; our apprentice is Isabel O’Brien. Our theme song is “Mr. Fortune, ” by the Hitchhikers; all the other music was composed by Luis Guerra. You can subscribe to Freakonomics Radio on Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, or wherever you get your podcasts.

Here’s where you can learn more about the people and ideas in this episode 😛 TAGEND

SOURCE

Nicholas Bloom, prof of economics at Stanford University. Toby Moskowitz, prof of financial resources and economics at Yale University. Marshall Burke, economist at Stanford University.

RESOURCE

” Does Working From Home Work? Evidence From A Chinese Experiment ,” by Nicholas Bloom, James Liang, John Roberts, and Zhichun Jenny Ying( Oxford University Press, 2014 ). “Every Breath You Take- Every Dollar You’ll Make: The Long-Term Consequences of the Clean Air Act of 1970 ,” by Adam Isen, Maya Rossin-Slater, and W. Reed Walker( National Bureau of Economic Research, 2014 ). “Developments in the Measurement of Subjective Well-Being ,” by Daniel Kahneman and Alan B. Krueger( Journal of Economic Perspectives, 2006 ).

The post The Side Effects of Social Distancing( Ep. 409 ) materialized first on Freakonomics.