Explore the current state of financial literacy as we celebrate Financial Literacy Month. We walk through the “Big 3” financial literacy questions and discuss how surprisingly few people answer them correctly. For many people, financial knowledge is learned through experience rather than formal education, but that’s starting to change as more states push for personal finance requirements.

Subscribe now

In this episode, we talk about:

• What Financial Literacy Month highlights and why it matters

• The “Big 3” financial literacy questions and how people perform on them

• Gaps in financial knowledge across education levels

• How personal experiences shape financial understanding

• Simple, practical advice for managing money more effectively

New here? Start here!

If you liked this conversation, you might also enjoy

Listen on your preferred podcast app

This Week’s Drinks 🍻

Jadrian is working through a spring variety pack from Samuel Adams, featuring the Breakaway Blonde. Matt has cracked open an Edelmeister IPA from Poland, even though he’s never been to Poland and isn’t entirely sure where this one came from. It’s the middle of April, which means the end of the academic year is approaching. Things are getting busy, but it’s also a time filled with celebrations, ceremonies, and opportunities to recognize students’ accomplishments.

Name That Stat 📊

April is Financial Literacy Month, which sets the stage for a conversation about how well people actually understand basic financial concepts, and the answer is: not as well as you might expect. Matt shares a statistic on the average retirement balance for people in their early forties, while Jadrian highlights how people perform on the Big 3 financial literacy questions across different education levels.

Show Notes

This week’s conversation focuses on how little formal financial education many people receive growing up, and how most people end up learning about money in practice. Even with advanced degrees in economics, it’s easy to feel unprepared when making real financial decisions for the first time. Much of our own understanding came through trial and error: credit card mistakes, missed payments, and learning how interest works in real life. These experiences can be costly, but they often become important turning points in building financial awareness.

The “Big 3” questions cover topics on compound interest, inflation, and diversification, and can serve as a simple benchmark for financial literacy. Many people struggle with them, even though these concepts appear in economics courses. That raises a bigger question: are we teaching these ideas in a way that connects to people’s everyday financial decisions? There may be room to better bridge the gap between economic theory and personal finance.

Finally, we share some practical advice based on both experience and common guidance. The most consistent recommendations tend to be: (1) build an emergency fund, (2) understand how interest works, especially on debt, (3) avoid carrying credit card balances, and (4) take advantage of employer retirement matches. More than anything, financial success comes down to building consistent habits rather than chasing perfect strategies. Small, steady decisions matter more than people often realize.

Do you think we missed something that should be on that list? Let us know in the comments!

Leave a comment

Pop Culture Corner 🍿

Jadrian went with the song $ave Dat Money by Lil Dicky, which humorously focuses on cutting costs and avoiding unnecessary spending. He’s trying to do something that other rappers just can’t seem to understand. (Warning - NSFW.)

Matt brings up an episode of Cheers where Rebecca, facing financial struggles at the bar, thinks the best plan is to use petty cash to buy lottery tickets. It’s definitely an example of questionable financial decision-making.

Matt also recommends two books for those interested in personal finance: To Die with Zero and The Simple Path to Wealth. Both offer thoughtful perspectives on money, though they approach the topic from very different angles.

Have a question or topic idea? Reply to this email or drop it in the comments!

Leave a comment

Share Economics Happy Hour

How early is too early to get to the airport? This episode looks at that question through an economic lens. We explore the tradeoffs between time, risk, and the cost of missing a flight, using data and real travel experiences. What seems like a simple decision turns out to reflect how we think about uncertainty, incentives, and risk.

Subscribe now

In this episode, we talk about:

• The tradeoff between arriving early and risking missed flights

• How opportunity cost shapes airport arrival decisions

• Real-world data on how early people actually arrive at airports

• Why small airports vs. major hubs change optimal timing

• Risk aversion in travel decisions and flight planning

• Airline incentives, overbooking, and voluntary bumping decisions

New here? Start here!

If you liked this conversation, you might also enjoy

Listen on your preferred podcast app

This Week’s Drinks 🍻

Spring break might be over, but the drinks still feel like spring. Jadrian is trying a Sam Adams Blackberry Wheat Beer from a new variety pack, and Matt is pouring a Kalik from his recent cruise to the Bahamas. It’s a fitting way to celebrate some big news: Susquehanna has been ranked third in the country for undergraduate business experience by Poets & Quants.

Name That Stat 📊

Matt kicked off our new segment with a number that highlights the recent jump in fuel prices from late February to mid-March. Jadrian kept things going with another price increase: how much fresh fruit and vegetables have risen over the past year.

Show Notes

Today’s episode was motivated by an article Matt read about a family who spent $30,000 on a cruise but lost it all at the gate. The issue? They were scheduled to fly into the cruise port the morning of departure, but their flight was delayed just enough that they missed the cruise entirely.

We’re not diving into the economics of delays or cancellations, but the story got us thinking about a different question: how early should you get to the airport? It’s a simple setup that highlights a classic tradeoff. Arrive too early and you’re wasting time at the airport. Arrive too late and you risk missing your flight. The “right” choice depends on how you balance time versus risk.

Survey data suggests many travelers aim to arrive one to two hours early, though actual behavior varies widely depending on experience and preferences. We share some of our own strategies, but it turns out that has been thinking about this too.

Drawing on data from 800 flights, he offers a framework for when travelers should arrive at the airport. His approach considers many of the same factors we talked about, including things like drive time, airport size, and whether you’re flying through a regional airport or a major hub.

Silver Bulletin

I've tracked my last 800 flights. Here's when you really need to get to the airport.

Dec. 24, 2025: Amidst the holiday travel season, we’ve updated this article with some additional charts. But the spreadsheet version at the end still reflects our most comprehensive approach. The text of the article is unchanged from August…

Read more

4 months ago · 394 likes · 98 comments · Nate Silver

George Stigler famously observed, “If you never miss a plane, you’re spending too much time at the airport.” It’s a common experience that is also a useful way to think about everyday decision-making. People differ in their tolerance for risk, how they value time, and how flexible they can be if something goes wrong. Whether it’s arriving early, cutting it close, or accepting compensation to take a later flight, each choice reflects a personal optimization problem shaped by constraints and incentives.

Would you rather arrive early and wait, or risk missing your flight to save time?

Leave a comment

Pop Culture Corner 🍿

In a podcast first (we think), Matt ceded his pop culture segment so Jadrian could share two clips. The first comes from Brooklyn Nine-Nine, where a risk-averse character plans to arrive at the airport five hours early for a domestic flight. His coworkers convince him to go even earlier (seven hours ahead of departure). Despite all that, he still ends up missing the flight, though he had (of course) booked a backup flight just in case.

In Jadrian’s second clip, he turns to the question of whether to accept airline vouchers to take a later flight. In Life in Pieces, one family repeatedly volunteers to get bumped in exchange for vouchers, only to end up stuck overnight when the last flight is canceled. They take it in stride, though, because the airline covers the hotel.

Have a question or topic idea? Reply to this email or drop it in the comments!

Leave a comment

Share Economics Happy Hour

Prediction markets allow people to bet on future events, from elections to economic data releases, with prices reflecting the crowd’s expectations. Economists often view them as powerful forecasting tools because participants have money at stake, which can lead to more accurate predictions than traditional polling. But these markets also raise concerns about manipulation, insider information, and ethical questions about what events should be traded. Together, we explore both the promise and the risks of prediction markets.

Subscribe now

In this episode, we talk about:

• What prediction markets are and how event contracts work

• Why prediction markets often outperform traditional polling

• The role of incentives and “skin in the game” in improving forecasts

• The potential for insider information or manipulation in these markets

• Whether prediction markets should be regulated like gambling or financial markets

New here? Start here!

If you liked this conversation, you might also enjoy

Listen on your preferred podcast app

This Week’s Drinks 🍻

We’re checking in together a little earlier than normal since we each have Spring Break trips coming up soon. Matt brings a Ring the Bell American Lager from Conshohocken Brewing Company. In a rare day when he has an IPA and Matt does not, Jadrian opens Liftoff, a West Coast IPA from Daredevil Brewing Company in Indiana, courtesy of a colleague who brought beers to JETSet.

Name That Stat 📊

Jadrian shared the number of companies that have filed lawsuits against the federal government seeking tariff reimbursements after a recent Supreme Court ruling. Matt followed with a second number that sparked today’s conversation: the amount a tax economist bet on a prediction market that last year’s DOGE push wouldn’t meaningfully reduce federal spending.

Show Notes

Matt’s contribution helped us set up a broader discussion of prediction markets. These platforms allow participants to buy and sell contracts based on the outcomes of future events. Contracts usually trade between zero and one dollar, paying out one dollar if the event occurs and nothing if it doesn’t. In practice, the price reflects the market’s estimate of the probability of an event happening. These markets cover everything from elections and economic indicators to corporate decisions and sports outcomes.

The tax economist in the story reportedly wagered his life savings that federal spending would remain high despite political pressure to reduce it. His reasoning was grounded in a simple economic insight: entitlement programs make up such a large share of federal spending that short-term policy pushes are unlikely to meaningfully reduce overall expenditures. The bet paid off and illustrates how people with specialized knowledge can profit when they believe markets are mispricing an outcome.

We also discuss why economists have long been fascinated by prediction markets. Unlike opinion polls, participants have money on the line, which encourages them to reveal their true beliefs. This “skin in the game” helps prediction markets aggregate information across many individuals and often makes them surprisingly accurate. Some companies have even experimented with internal prediction markets to forecast sales or project outcomes, sometimes outperforming traditional forecasting methods.

Of course, prediction markets also raise difficult questions. If someone has inside knowledge or the ability to influence an outcome, they could potentially manipulate the market. Examples range from bets about public speeches to speculation about political behavior. These situations blur the line between information discovery and market manipulation.

That leads to the broader policy question: how should prediction markets be regulated? They sit somewhere between gambling and financial markets, and it’s not always clear which rules should apply. Some regulation may be necessary to prevent manipulation or insider trading, but too much could eliminate a tool economists believe provides valuable information about future events.

If you could create a prediction market about anything, what event would you want people betting on?

Leave a comment

Pop Culture Corner 🍿

Jadrian contributed a clip from an Anderson Cooper segment highlighting a man who spent hundreds of dollars trying to win an Xbox at carnival games, but eventually drained his life savings in the process. It should be seen as a cautionary tale about gambling and risk-taking.

Matt shares a short clip from a YouTube creator who bets $100 per day on different events in prediction markets. In the clip, the bettor wagers that a State of the Union speech will last longer than 115 minutes and nervously watches the speech unfold as applause and interruptions stretch the clock. The bet ultimately loses when the speech ends just short of the target time.

Have a question or topic idea? Reply to this email or drop it in the comments!

Leave a comment

Share Economics Happy Hour

A recent headline claimed that Canada’s GDP per capita has fallen below Alabama’s. That sparked a broader conversation about what GDP per capita actually measures and why it can change in surprising ways. We explored possible explanations, including immigration patterns, post-pandemic growth differences, and policy environments. Along the way, we asked a bigger question: what really drives long-run economic growth?

Subscribe now

In this episode, we talk about:

• Why GDP per capita in Canada now trails Alabama’s

• The difference between GDP per capita and median income

• How immigration can lower averages even if individuals are better off

• Why U.S. GDP per capita has grown steadily since 2020 while Canada, Germany, and the U.K. have stalled

• Whether pro-growth business climates actually explain the recent divergence

• How stereotypes about “poor” regions can lag behind economic reality

New here? Start here!

If you liked this conversation, you might also enjoy

Listen on your preferred podcast app

Show notes & references

We’re nearing the halfway point of the semester, which is a great time to check in with each other. Matt has been working on international initiatives, and Jadrian has been deep in the redesign of his sports economics course. For drinks this week, Matt just returned from a trip to Cyprus and brought back a Shockwave Pale Ale from a small bottle shop. Unfortunately, the pint glass didn’t survive the trip home. Jadrian opted for a Blackberry Lemon Shandy from Rusty Rail, courtesy of a friend in State College.

Our data point challenge this episode started with how long it’s been since the U.S. men’s hockey team last won gold at the Winter Olympics. Matt followed that up with two numbers that sparked today’s main topic: Canada’s GDP per capita compared to Alabama’s.

From there, we unpacked what GDP per capita actually measures. It’s an average, and averages can move in ways that don’t always reflect individual well-being. We compared this to U.S. median household income data from FRED, which can tell a very different story than GDP per capita. The distinction between median and average matters, especially when population changes are involved.

We also looked at recent trends across other developed economies. While U.S. GDP per capita has steadily increased since the pandemic dip, Germany and Canada both saw initial rebounds followed by declines in the past few years. The United Kingdom experienced a similar bounce but has been largely flat more recently. That raises a broader question: what explains the divergence?

So what can (and can’t) GDP per capita tell us about well-being? There’s a straightforward “math story” here. Even if everyone in a country is better off than they were before, averages can fall if the population grows quickly and new workers enter at lower wages. True statistics can still be interpreted in misleading ways.

We also spent time discussing two popular measures of economic freedom: one from the Heritage Foundation and another from the Fraser Institute. According to the Heritage Foundation’s index, Canada has ranked higher than the U.S. in recent years. That gap may be influenced in part by trade policy uncertainty in the United States, though the full story is more nuanced.

While much of our focus was on what might be happening in Canada, we also asked whether Alabama deserves more credit. Cities like Huntsville have worked hard to attract business investment and lower unemployment. The authors of the original article traveled to Alabama expecting one story and came away with another. Stereotypes about regions can linger long after the underlying data changes.

If you’re in Canada or Alabama (or Germany, or the U.K.), we’d love to hear your perspective. What are we missing?

Leave a comment

Pop Culture Corner 🍿

Matt brought up an example of creative destruction, one of the key forces behind long-run income growth. In a classic Friends episode, Joey flips through the Yellow Pages to find a guitar instructor. At the time, those thick books were a household staple. Today, they’re mostly obsolete, replaced by web searches, Yelp, and online directories.

Jadrian chose a classic South Park episode that a graduate student recently shared with him. In the scene, immigrants from the future arrive in town and begin undercutting local wages. Residents storm a city council meeting to complain that the newcomers are “taking their jobs” and demand action. It’s exaggerated, but it highlights a real economic tension around immigration, wage competition, and public perception.

Have a question or topic idea? Reply to this email or drop it in the comments!

Leave a comment

Share Economics Happy Hour

We’re joined by Doug McKee to talk about how economists can use assessments and experiments to improve teaching and learning. Doug explains how learning assessments can reveal what students actually understand, not just how they feel about a course. We also discuss the Economic Education Network for Experiments (EENE) and why large, multi-institution studies matter for credibility. Our conversation highlights how economics classrooms can double as powerful research labs for understanding learning itself.

Subscribe now

In this episode, we talk about:

• Doug’s path into economics teaching and education research

• Why student learning assessments matter more than course evaluations

• How Cornell built a culture around prerequisite and skills-based assessments

• The origins and goals of the Economic Education Network for Experiments (ENEE)

• Using large, multi-school experiments to test what really works in the classroom

New here? Start here!

If you liked this conversation, you might also enjoy

Listen on your preferred podcast app

Show notes & references

We’re joined this week by Doug McKee, a senior lecturer in economics at Cornell University and one of the leaders behind the Economic Education Network for Experiments. He’s keeping it simple with high-pulp orange juice, while Jadrian braces for another impending snowstorm with a Dark Starr Dry Irish Stout. Matt has logged in with a flight of beers from the back booth at East End Brewing Company in Pittsburgh.

Our data point challenge this episode focused on the age of Trump’s most recent announcement regarding the next potential Chair of the Federal Reserve, the number of undergraduate students enrolled at Cornell University, and the number of people who have been killed by ICE agents in Minneapolis so far this year.

Doug kicked off the show by sharing his fairly unconventional path into economics education research. After becoming frustrated with the traditional publication process, he realized that he couldn’t stop thinking about teaching. That shift eventually led him to Cornell, where institutional support made it possible to treat teaching as a serious research agenda.

A big part of his research agenda involves measuring what students actually learn. Doug has helped Cornell faculty work together to clearly define learning goals and then build assessments around them. Instead of relying only on student evaluations, these tools provide concrete evidence about which skills students gain before and after course redesigns. The assessments started as internal tools and eventually became the foundation for larger studies across institutions.

By pooling data from many courses and universities, researchers can separate what works in one classroom from what works more generally, across different student populations and institutional types. This motivation led to the creation of ENEE, a collaborative network that allows instructors to run coordinated experiments in real classrooms. Doug walks through current projects, including studies on team contracts in group work and earlier work on AI and classroom practices.

If you could run one large-scale classroom experiment across many universities, what question would you want it to answer?

Leave a comment

Pop Culture Corner 🍿

Jadrian shared a clip that was sent his way earlier in the week by Charlie Ben-Nathan, an economics educator in London. The clip comes from Yes, Prime Minister and highlights the economic logic behind cigarette taxes, healthcare costs, and unintended consequences. It’s a great illustration of the tradeoffs policymakers face, especially when dealing with goods that generate externalities.

With award season underway and the Oscars approaching, Matt took the opportunity to revisit La La Land. A decade after its release, the film still holds up for its music and storytelling, and it turns out to be surprisingly useful for economics examples as well, including ideas like search costs.

Doug recommended Ninth House, an adult dark fantasy novel set at Yale and centered on the university’s secret societies. The book blends dark magic, murder, and elite privilege, and it’s written by an author with deep familiarity with Yale’s campus and lore. It makes the setting feel especially vivid for those with New Haven connections.

Have a question or topic idea? Reply to this email or drop it in the comments!

Leave a comment

Share Economics Happy Hour

This episode looks at a JPMorgan survey of billionaires and what it reveals about how the ultra-wealthy think. We talk about their biggest fears, especially the fear of losing wealth, even when they have more money than they could ever spend. The conversation connects those fears to ideas from behavioral economics like loss aversion and risk tolerance. Along the way, we ask whether having more money actually makes people more cautious rather than more daring.

Subscribe now

In this episode, we talk about:

• How many billionaires exist, and what their combined wealth adds up to

• What a JPMorgan focus group reveals about billionaire fears and priorities

• Loss aversion and why losing money feels worse than gaining the same amount

• Whether extreme wealth makes people more risk-averse in investing decisions

• The habits billionaires credit most for their success, and what actually matters

New here? Start here!

If you liked this conversation, you might also enjoy

Listen on your preferred podcast app

Show notes & references

The semester is back underway, so we start with a quick check-in after the first week of classes and all the energy associated with students back on campus. Jadrian is recording from his campus office with a Coke Zero in hand, while Matt is sipping a classic Moscow mule.

This episode’s data point analysis begins with the cost of a 30-second Super Bowl commercial this year: a staggering $8 million. For context, the average ad spot first crossed the $1 million mark back in 1994. We also briefly talk about how Netflix pulled in $1.5 billion in advertising revenue last year before landing on the number that drives the main conversation: there are currently 3,028 billionaires worldwide with a combined net worth of about $16.1 trillion.

Have you ever wondered what billionaires think about the economy, the future, or life more broadly? Wonder no longer. JPMorgan Bank surveyed billionaires on exactly these questions, drawing insights from 111 billionaire principals across 28 countries and more than 15 industries. () helpfully summarized the findings on his Substack. One result stood out in particular: some of these billionaires (especially those who inherited their wealth) say they’re genuinely afraid of losing it all.

That fear opens the door to a broader behavioral economics discussion. How does loss aversion work when “1%” translates into tens of millions of dollars? Is there a meaningful difference between thinking about losses in percentage terms versus absolute dollars? And if someone suddenly became a billionaire, would they take more risks or actually become more cautious? It’s a useful reminder that risk tolerance can change with both income and life experience.

We wrap up the episode by walking through the list of “success habits” identified in the billionaire survey: reading, exercise, consistency, waking up early, prioritizing tasks, goal setting, and deep thinking time. The big takeaway is that consistency may be the hidden engine behind all the rest. None of these habits matters much if they’re tried once and quickly abandoned.

If you had to pick one habit from the list that’s helped you the most, which would it be? We’d love to hear in the comments.

Leave a comment

Pop Culture Corner 🍿

Matt shares a clip from Hard Knocks where NFL player Carl Nassib passionately tries to teach his teammates about the glory of compound interest. Matt also quickly recommended The Simple Path to Wealth as a straightforward, low-stress introduction to personal finance and investing.

Jadrian shares a scene from Brooklyn Nine-Nine in which Gina returns from maternity leave and jokes about juggling work and a newborn. Her punchline: juggling must be easy because if it were hard, there would be rich jugglers.

Have a question or topic idea? Reply to this email or drop it in the comments!

Leave a comment

Share Economics Happy Hour

Ticket prices are in the spotlight as the NCAA football championship and the upcoming World Cup push demand to extremes. We dig into why resale markets exist, why prices can explode, and why face value often has little to do with what fans actually pay. Using real examples from college football, the World Cup, and concerts, we talk through supply, demand, and who really benefits from ticket resale. Along the way, we wrestle with whether there’s a “better” system or if frustration is just part of the market.

Subscribe now

In this episode, we talk about:

• Why national championship tickets can cost $3,000 before teams are even announced

• How World Cup ticketing systems create confusion, scarcity, and frustration

• The role of resale platforms like Ticketmaster and StubHub in shaping prices

• Why events often underprice tickets initially and let secondary markets take over

• Whether there’s a better way to price tickets without banning resale or rewarding bots

New here? Start here!

If you liked this conversation, you might also enjoy

Listen on your preferred podcast app

Show notes & references

Jadrian checked in from Pittsburgh, where a hotel stay unexpectedly came with complimentary nightly drinks. He enjoyed The Oaklander, a hazy IPA brewed by Two Frays Brewery. Matt stuck with a Bud Zero as part of “healthy January,” and shared some updates on cutting snacks, eating better lunches, and trying to keep habits sustainable during the semester.

This week’s data point analysis featured a look at how large language models like ChatGPT have changed the way programmers use Stack Overflow. The number of questions posted on the site has collapsed from hundreds of thousands per month to just a few thousand last month. Matt’s contribution helped form the basis of this week’s post by offering up a headline claiming that the 2026 World Cup would generate $47 billion in economic impact. We’re skeptical.

With several major sporting events approaching, ticket prices have become a natural case study in supply and demand. The upcoming NCAA football championship tickets are pushing past $3,000 on verified resale sites, even though we don’t know which teams will be in the game. Tickets for the semifinal games can still be found for under $200. Same sport, same stakes, wildly different prices.

Even with really high prices, sometimes the sellers require buyers to jump through several hoops to secure tickets. Matt shared a firsthand account of navigating FIFA’s multi-step ticketing process. Buying the “right to buy” tickets, long before matchups are known, highlights how firms profit from scarcity. While the experience may be memorable, the system itself feels opaque and, at times, deliberately confusing.

So, why don’t leagues and artists just charge the market-clearing price up front? Drawing on research by Eric Budish, we explore explanations ranging from public relations concerns to atmosphere effects. Teams may want “true fans” in the seats, not just the highest bidders. There’s also the uncomfortable possibility that venues and platforms benefit from resale fees changing hands multiple times.

The episode wraps with a broader question: is there a fix? Verified fan systems, limits on resale, airline-style non-transferable tickets, and even UK-style resale bans all come with tradeoffs. In the end, the market mostly works, but not without frustration, high fees, and the lingering sense that the wrong people are capturing too much of the value.

What’s the worst ticket-buying experience you’ve had, and why?

Leave a comment

Pop Culture Corner

Jadrian went with a classic episode from The Simpsons centered on ticket scalping. Homer waits in line for several days to buy tickets, but gets shut out by a buyer who grabs all remaining tickets. He’s left to purchase much higher-priced resale tickets later.

Matt highlights a student-led project analyzing game theory in Bridgerton. The video breaks down strategic decision-making in how Daphne and Simon’s relationship can be modeled with multiple possible Nash equilibria.

Have a question or topic idea? Reply to this email or drop it in the comments!

Leave a comment

Share Economics Happy Hour

Economics Happy Hour is a podcast where two economics educators talk through current events, teaching, and research the same way we would at a bar after work. It’s informal, unscripted, and grounded in how economists actually think.

Episodes are about 45 minutes, with roughly 30 minutes focused on a single topic. Some episodes are just the two of us; others include guests. We record ahead of time, but try to release with intention around what’s happening in the world.

Not sure where to start? Try one of these:

• The Economics of Beer (with Trey Malone)
  A look at how beer reflects supply chains, regulation, local identity, and what “buying local” really means.

• Which Economists Should You Follow?
  A discussion of economists doing interesting, accessible work across podcasts, social media, and traditional academic spaces.

• The Economics of Abolishing the Penny
  Weighing the costs and benefits of eliminating the penny, including rounding, consumer behavior, and lessons from other countries.

• Is “Big Econ” Problematic?
  A conversation about concentration and power in elite economics departments, publishing, and prize distribution.

New episodes are (usually) released every other Thursday afternoon. You can listen directly on Substack or in your podcast app of choice.

If you ever have a question, topic idea, or something you think we should talk through, reply to any post or email. We read them.

Share Economics Happy Hour

In this episode, we discuss:

• What prediction markets say about the probability of a recession, and why those forecasts matter.

• How our goals from 2025 held up and what changes are coming in 2026

• What academic publishing really looks like (and why it’s so frustrating)

• Reflections on teaching wins and evolving classroom strategies

• Making professional trade-offs between teaching and research

• And a whole lot more!

Catch up on some old episodes:

You can also subscribe to us on Spotify, TuneIn Radio, Amazon Music, and Apple Podcasts. If one of these is your go-to podcast service, be sure to rate us and subscribe!

Some show notes:

Season 4 kicks off with a reflection on 2025, both personally and professionally. Jadrian is celebrating the New Year with a Shiner Premium lager while Matt is getting an early start on Dry January with a Diet Coke. We’ll revisit our goals from the previous year throughout the episode, but let’s state upfront that we didn’t move the needle much on weight loss. Perhaps we’ll enter 2026 with renewed motivation and a more intentional focus on fitness, finances, and structure.

We kicked off our data point analysis with a look at how prediction markets are showing a 27% chance of a U.S. recession before 2027 and how that number has changed throughout the year. Unlike surveys, prediction markets are different because they impose real costs for being wrong. From there, we turn to New Year’s resolutions. Americans under the age of 45 are twice as likely as older Americans to say they’ll make one, which naturally leads us into a broader reflection on goals, incentives, and realism.

Academically, Jadrian is happy with his newsletter's growth (nearing 10,000 subscribers), media interviews (including Marketplace, NPR, and the New York Times), and record-setting course evaluations. Meanwhile, Matt was on sabbatical last Spring and was able to wrap up several research projects, including a policy-relevant experimental economics study and a Broadway-focused data paper.

We close the episode by looking forward. For Jadrian, that means being open to new opportunities with teaching and writing. For Matt, it means focusing on the things only a dean can do, especially expanding international internship opportunities for students and continuing to think carefully about teaching and learning in an AI-heavy environment.

As with most economic decisions, the theme of the episode is familiar: maximize what matters, subject to limited time, imperfect information, and a lot of uncertainty.

Leave a comment

This week’s pop culture references:

One of the best parts of teaching is when students start spotting economics outside of the classroom. Jadrian often brings pop culture into his classroom, but it had been a few semesters since a student brought something back to him. That changed this past semester when a student told him she was binge-watching Psych and caught a reference to game theory.

Matt taught game theory for the first time in a while and assigned a project where students applied the concepts to something they’re passionate about. With permission, he’s turned a few of those projects into presentations for a broader audience. In this episode, he shared one where a student analyzed the popular game Clash Royale and explained how mixed strategies can help in high-pressure scenarios.

Subscribe now

Share Economics Happy Hour

In this episode, we discuss:

• The surprising stat that 1 in 5 Americans have jobs that didn’t exist in 2000

• What kinds of new jobs have emerged in the past 25 years

• The decline of older job types and industries, like video rental

• How institutions and firms adapt to new tech by creating new roles

• Teaching strategies to help students understand labor market changes

• And a whole lot more!

Catch up on some old episodes:

You can also subscribe to us on Spotify, TuneIn Radio, Amazon Music, and Apple Podcasts. If one of these is your go-to podcast service, be sure to rate us and subscribe!

Some show notes:

We’re sitting down in the middle of December, which means our classes are nearly over. By the time you’re reading this, grades have been posted, and we likely have auto replies on our emails. Jadrian celebrates the end of the term with a Shiner Bock (Texas pride intact), while Matt braved a Mad Elf, with a water on standby.

Our mystery stat game included estimates of holiday spending across the U.S. and Canada, and the motivation for today’s conversation: roughly 20% of Americans now work in jobs that didn’t exist 25 years ago. That stat, based on LinkedIn data cited by The Wall Street Journal, set the stage for our discussion on how the economy has evolved over the past 25 years.

It’s easy to spot the jobs that have emerged in recent years: prompt engineers, social media managers, app developers. Even long-standing institutions like universities now rely on roles in IT, marketing, and cybersecurity that simply didn’t exist 25 years ago. And beyond traditional workplaces, the gig economy has exploded, with Uber drivers, Instacart shoppers, and Grubhub couriers becoming a visible part of daily life.

But there’s a flip side: jobs that fade away. One of the clearest examples is video rental, where employment dropped from over 120,000 in 2000 to fewer than 13,000 by 2017. It’s a reminder that as technology and habits shift, entire industries can disappear.

Students often struggle with this dual reality. New tech can destroy some jobs while creating others we couldn’t have predicted. The fear that automation will leave everyone unemployed reflects a common economic mistake: the lump-of-labor fallacy, or the idea that there’s a fixed number of jobs to go around.

Labor market change can feel uncertain, even threatening. If 20% of today’s jobs didn’t exist a generation ago, what does that mean for the value of a college degree? For us, it reinforces the point: teaching students how to think, adapt, and collaborate may be the most reliable form of job security. Majors and tools will change, but curiosity, communication, and decision-making won’t be outdated anytime soon.

Cheers, and happy holidays!

Leave a comment

This week’s pop culture references:

Jadrian brought a fun throwback clip from a 1994 episode of The Today Show, where the hosts puzzle over what the internet is and how email addresses work. It’s a great reminder of just how recent (and confusing) the digital age once felt.

Matt shared a scene from Sunset Boulevard’s “With One Look,” where a former silent film star (Norma Desmond) reflects on losing her place in Hollywood. It’s a striking example of creative destruction. New technology (talking pictures) can erase entire careers, even for once-iconic stars.

Subscribe now

Share Economics Happy Hour

In this episode, we discuss:

• What paternalism looks like in college classrooms

• Should attendance be required in higher education?

• How paternalistic policies affect learning and engagement

• Trade-offs between student freedom and faculty expectations

• Whether “hand-holding” helps or hinders student success

• And a whole lot more!

Catch up on some old episodes:

You can also subscribe to us on Spotify, TuneIn Radio, Amazon Music, and Apple Podcasts. If one of these is your go-to podcast service, be sure to rate us and subscribe!

Some show notes:

It’s early December, and the semester is just about coming to an end at Virginia Tech and Susquehanna. Jadrian opted for a Prickly Pear Fruit Beer from Shiner, while Matt went with a Voodoo Ranger Juice Force Hazy Imperial IPA in a small 7.5 oz can. Matt’s was high in ABV but “efficient.”

We kicked off this episode with a new game, and it might just become a regular segment. One of us brings a specific number from a recent news story, and the other has to guess what it represents. Jadrian chose a stat from a new survey on whether adults think college is worth the cost, while Matt focused on gains in the S&P 500. Let us know what you thought of the segment in the comments!

Leave a comment

We’ve touched on paternalism before, but this felt like the right moment to give it a full episode. As the semester winds down, we naturally start asking which policies should stay and which should change next term. A lot of those decisions come down to how much we should shape student behavior. Take attendance, for example. Should professors require it, track it, and tie it to grades? Or is it enough to show up, teach well, and let students make their own choices?

From there, we expand into a broader design challenge. Every classroom policy (e.g., attendance, phone or laptop bans, email rules, assignment deadlines) is a lever that nudges behavior. Jadrian shares his use of Friday night deadlines as a way to protect students’ weekends and reduce procrastination. It’s a deliberate nudge that some students dislike at first but often come to value by the end of the course (he thinks!).

Matt frames these choices as a kind of mechanism design problem: how do we build classes that support learning and accountability, without overwhelming students? And how do we balance short-term support with long-term independence? There’s also a practical question of whether being too hands-on now ends up leaving students unprepared for less flexible environments after graduation.

We also zoom out to look at institutional choices, like Susquehanna’s common lunch hour on Tuesdays and Thursdays. That break in the schedule encourages students to eat, meet with faculty, and build community. Even small decisions like that carry a bit of paternalism baked in.

We don’t land on a one-size-fits-all answer. But we agree on this: every classroom rule, even something as simple as a deadline or device policy, is an economic choice. Whether intentional or not, it shapes how students behave and what they learn about navigating structure.

Leave a comment

This week’s pop culture references:

Jadrian passed on his pop culture pick this week to keep the conversation going about Susquehanna’s campus-wide lunch break. But Matt came prepared with a clip from Jadrian’s favorite show (Parks and Recreation) where Leslie Knope argues for a soda tax to reduce overconsumption in Pawnee.

Subscribe now

Share Economics Happy Hour

In this episode, we discuss:

• How Trey’s research career evolved to include beer economics

• The explosion of product variety in grocery stores and how beer exemplifies that

• Why too many choices on a tap list can lower beer sales

• How local identity and terroir shape demand for craft beer, hops, and cider.

• What 110,000 regulatory restrictions reveal about entrepreneurship in the beer industry.

• And a whole lot more!

Catch up on some old episodes:

You can also subscribe to us on Spotify, TuneIn Radio, Amazon Music, and Apple Podcasts. If one of these is your go-to podcast service, be sure to rate us and subscribe!

Some show notes:

After three years hosting a show titled “Economics Happy Hour”, we figured it was finally time to discuss the economics of beer. We thought it best to bring on an expert, Trey Malone, the Boehlje Endowed Chair for Managerial Economics in Agribusiness at Purdue University. Our drink line-up for this episode was eclectic: Jadrian with a Maine Blueberry sour, Matt with a Dogfishhead 90 Minute IPA, and Trey with a nostalgic Stroh’s.

Trey shared some of the background to his journey into economics and eventually research interest in the economics of the beer industry, which grew out of broader questions about food marketing and product diversity. When he was born, grocery stores carried around 8,000 unique products, but that number is around 50,000 today. Beer, in particular, went from being dominated by a small number of similar-tasting brands to a vibrant, diverse craft beer landscape. That shift made it a great case study for exploring consumer preferences and market evolution.

One of his key research findings when studying beer was that more choices aren’t always better for businesses. In a field experiment featuring a partnership with a local brewery, he was able to find that doubling the number of beers on tap actually reduced the likelihood that customers ordered one, a classic case of choice overload. However, adding a small signal on the beer (like highlighting its rating or awards) restored demand by lowering search costs.

Trey also talked about how supply chains and local identity shape consumer preferences. In Michigan, hop growers leaned into the concept of terroir and crafted narratives around their unique Chinook hops to build demand, even in markets outside the state. His research on cider showed that “local” doesn’t always mean geographic proximity. Instead, it’s tied to community identity. For example, many Detroit consumers prefer cider from Michigan’s Upper Peninsula—hundreds of miles away—over cider from Windsor, Ontario, just across the river.

On the production side, Trey’s work also explores regulation in the beer industry. Using machine learning, he and his collaborators identified over 110,000 regulatory restrictions across the beer supply chain. While that sounds like a lot of red tape, the research finds that clear and consistent rules often help entrepreneurs more than vague or inconsistent policies.

It turns out that beer is more than just a beverage. It’s a powerful case study for understanding how incentives, identity, and business decisions intersect across the economy.

Leave a comment

This week’s pop culture references:

Jadrian yielded his time to Trey to hear more about his teaching-related scholarship. Trey shared two recent papers published in Applied Economics Teaching Resources. One explores how podcasts can be used for extension and outreach, especially in agricultural colleges, to build connections beyond the classroom. The other applies the Ignatian Pedagogical Paradigm (IPP) to create a day-long event focused on Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) farm ownership, developed within a college of agriculture at a midsouth university.

Matt shared a quick analysis he did on how much Cheers character Norm Peterson likely spent on beer during his run on the show. It was a fun, light look at fictional bar tabs and a clever nod to this week’s beer theme.

Subscribe now

Share Economics Happy Hour

In this episode, we discuss:

• Why coach buyouts are structured the way they are and what they signal.

• How risk, reputation, and recruiting drive buyout decisions.

• The role of agents in inflating buyouts and securing job security.

• How schools balance donor pressure, fan expectations, and contract costs.

• And a whole lot more!

Catch up on some old episodes:

You can also subscribe to us on Spotify, TuneIn Radio, Amazon Music, and Apple Podcasts. If one of these is your go-to podcast service, be sure to rate us and subscribe!

Some show notes:

Both our universities are in the midst of course registration, which means students are simultaneously stressed about their current classes and determining the classes they’ll take next semester. That stress has spilled over to Jadrian and Matt, which meant it was a good time to sit down, have a drink, and talk about economics. Jadrian was able to enjoy a Shiner Light from the great state of Texas (but purchased in North Carolina), while Matt opted for a non-alcoholic Bud Zero.

This week’s episode looked at the structure and rationale of college football coach buyouts thanks to a recent article published in The Wall Street Journal. For those who haven’t heard, a lot of major college football programs are on the hook for multi-million dollar buyouts of their head football coaches—a payment owed if their employer fires them before their contract ends. Schools like Penn State, Louisiana State, and Florida all owe their most recent coaches more than $100 million combined in buyouts. But why?

These high-profile buyouts aren’t just about poor performance. Sometimes, schools are willing to pay tens of millions to remove a coach simply because they’re not meeting expectations fast enough. Of course, they’re also there to disincentivize coaches from leaving for a better job. Buyouts, then, serve both as a penalty for early termination and a retention incentive.

Schools can’t perfectly predict how a coach will perform, but large contracts and buyouts can signal confidence or act as a commitment device. It’s also worth considering the financial discipline of athletic departments and athletic directors, and whether these clauses represent a principal-agent problem or a winner’s curse.

Leave a comment

This week’s pop culture references:

Neither Matt nor Jadrian had a pop culture tie-in this week, but Matt shared a classroom experiment related to the episode’s theme. In his game theory course, students bid on a jar of pennies worth $6.01. Most bids come in well below that. One student, however, bid just over $8 and won, perfectly illustrating the winner’s curse discussed earlier in the episode.

Share Economics Happy Hour

In this episode, we discuss:

• The 2025 Nobel Prize in Economics and how it was split among three researchers

• Joel Mokyr’s work on the conditions needed for technological progress

• Philippe Aghion and Peter Howitt’s model of creative destruction

• The idea of the “hockey stick of growth” and what triggered the Industrial Revolution

• Why understanding long-run growth matters in today’s economy

• And a whole lot more!

Catch up on some old episodes:

You can also subscribe to us on Spotify, TuneIn Radio, Amazon Music, and Apple Podcasts. If one of these is your go-to podcast service, be sure to rate us and subscribe!

Some show notes:

It’s that time of semester where the the to-do lists seem to grow faster than our patience. But it also means that it’s Nobel Prize Week! To celebrate, Jadrian went with a non-alcoholic cucumber-watermelon refresher since he was in the office. Matt, on the other hand, was able to crack open a New Trail Conifer Cosmos Hazy IPA.

This week’s episode centered on the 2025 Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences, awarded to Joel Mokyr, Philippe Aghion, and Peter Howitt for their research on innovation-driven growth. Mokyr received half the prize for explaining the prerequisites for sustained technological progress, while Aghion and Howitt shared the other half for their work on creative destruction.

Mokyr’s work has been grounded in economic history, and highlights the importance of institutional and social foundations in sustaining technological progress. Aghion and Howitt’s model builds on Schumpeter’s idea of creative destruction, where innovation continuously disrupts old technologies and drives growth forward.

There has been a great metaphor that often gets tossed around to describe modern growth: the “hockey stick” of economic growth. For centuries, global income remained largely flat until the Industrial Revolution, when technological advancement caused a steep rise in prosperity. Mokyr, Aghion, and Howitt’s work focused on the theoretical models that explained the dramatic turning point in history.

It’s hard to overstate how vital these ideas are. Understanding growth may be the single most important question in economics.

Both of us were familiar with the stories surrounding the hockey stick of growth, but neither of us were familiar with the three individuals who were selected. In no way is that a knock on the winners, but rather a highlight of the many subjects that economists study. Because there are so many topics to pick from, many economists tend to specialize in their frield. That makes it challenging to keep up with major work outside your own fields.

Leave a comment

This week’s pop culture references:

Matt pointed out the lack of economic growth in Game of Thrones, noting that overhead shots of King’s Landing look nearly identical to those shown 200 years earlier in House of the Dragon. It’s a fun example of what it looks like when an economy doesn’t experience technological progress or creative destruction. It’s just the same buildings and no evidence of any hockey sticks.

Subscribe now

Jadrian grabbed a funny scene from Talladega Nights where Ricky Bobby claims that with modern medicine, he might live to be 245 years old. It’s a humorous take on how the technological progress studied by this year’s Nobel Laureates shapes expectations about the future.

Share Economics Happy Hour

In this episode, we discuss:

• Why tax incidence is frustrating to teach compared to other topics.

• How elasticity determines the division of tax burdens between buyers and sellers.

• Whether professors should “nudge” better study habits or let students learn through consequences.

• And a whole lot more!

Catch up on some old episodes:

You can also listen to us on Google Podcasts, TuneIn Radio, and Apple Podcasts. If one of these is your go-to podcast service, be sure to rate us and subscribe!

Some show notes:

October marks the midpoint of the semester for each of us, which is a good enough reason to share a drink. Jadrian went with a “topless” Pride Cream Ale, which is really only possible thanks to a nifty gadget that removes the can lid. Matt stuck with a classic Brooklyn Brewery Pale Ale.

Our main topic for this episode focused on challenging topics to teach, and for Jadrian, that would be the elusive concept of tax incidence. It seems like every year, students misinterpret how taxes affect buyers and sellers, even though Jadrian has tried different techniques for teaching that concept. Many assume that a 50-cent tax applied to an item costing $1 results in a new price of $1.50, which means they’re missing the concept of tax burdens affecting both sellers and buyers.

Subscribe now

This is such a great time to be teaching tax incidence because we’re seeing this play out in the news with tariffs on imports. The big question when tariffs were announced focused on who would be paying the tariffs, foreign countries or American consumers. Economists are usually quick to point on tax incidence in that consumers would likely pay a portion of the tariff through higher prices.

This was also a good chance to talk about the limits of what we can do as instructors. If it takes hours of revisions to get the class 1% better on a particular topic, perhaps there are better uses of our time? That led us into a brief conversation on instructional paternalism and how much oversight professors should place on shaping student behavior around deadlines and pacing. That, however, may become a future episode.

Leave a comment

This week’s pop culture references:

Jadrian jumped in quickly to block Matt from reusing one of his favorite clips. Jadrian’s contribution is from J. Cole, in which he sings about the frustration many people feel about paying taxes without having a real say in how they’re spent.

Matt went with two Broadway hits from Lin-Manuel Miranda. In the Heights has a great song where characters recognize that their lottery winnings would be reduced because of taxes. And then in Hamilton, the characters talk about the resistance to British taxation.

Share Economics Happy Hour

In this episode, we discuss:

• What the demographic cliff is and where it came from

• Why the decline in high school graduates is hitting some schools harder than others

• How large research universities are expanding while smaller schools struggle

• The uneven distribution of enrollment pressure across higher education

• Mergers, closures, and financial strategies schools are using to survive

• Long-term risks for access and affordability in college education

• And a whole lot more!

Catch up on some old episodes:

You can also listen to us on Google Podcasts, TuneIn Radio, and Apple Podcasts. If one of these is your go-to podcast service, be sure to rate us and subscribe!

Watch this episode on YouTube:

Some show notes:

It’s still early in the term, but Matt and Jadrian have been hard at work with the latest batch of students. There’s some controversy at Susquehanna, so it’s a perfect time for a drink. Matt went with a One to One Hazy IPA from Hitchhiker Brewing featuring Mosaic and Simcoe hops, while Jadrian opted for a lighter Watermelon Ranch Water hard seltzer from Karbach Brewing in Houston.

Subscribe now

This week’s episode centers on the demographic cliff: an anticipated drop in the number of college-age students due to declining birth rates after the Great Recession. Why does this matter? Although high school graduation rates haven’t dropped, the number of graduates will fall by as much as 12–15% over just a few years. That creates significant pressure on colleges that rely on a steady pipeline of new students for financial sustainability.

While we often talk about the enrollment cliff as affecting higher education as a whole, this shift won’t impact all colleges equally. Large research universities and highly-ranked liberal arts colleges are more insulated, often continuing to grow or maintain enrollment. Smaller private schools, regional public universities, and lesser-known liberal arts colleges are already seeing financial strain, leading to campus closures and mergers. Examples like the creation of PennWest and branch campus closures at Penn State illustrate how some schools are consolidating to survive.

This is more than a numbers game. The drop in prospective students also means fiercer competition, with many institutions increasing aid offers to fill seats. This forces schools to discount tuition more heavily, squeezing budgets even further. And while some schools expand dorms and programs to attract top-tier students, others face hard questions about long-term viability.

We round out our discussion with concerns about what this means for educational access, especially for students in rural areas or from low-income backgrounds. If regional colleges disappear, students may lose the ability to attend college close to home, risking broader educational and social implications.

Leave a comment

This week’s pop culture references:

This isn’t really a pop culture–friendly topic, but we had a few moments worth noting. Matt went with a classic quote from Animal House with Brother Bluto’s deadpan line: “Seven years of college down the drain.” It’s a fitting clip for an episode focused on the future (and fragility) of college as an institution.

This was a reading-heavy segment, fueled by our own curiosity about the future of higher ed. Matt has been diving into Let Colleges Fail, a provocative book that compares the failure rate of colleges to public companies and argues that society might benefit if more struggling schools were allowed to close.

Jadrian recently picked up Hacking College, which focuses on how universities can better prepare students for life after graduation. It looks at structural and practical changes that could make higher ed more relevant and responsive to student needs.

Share Economics Happy Hour

In this episode, we discuss:

• The story of Boris Yeltsin’s 1989 grocery store visit in Houston.

• How the trip challenged his view of command economies.

• How to use this story in an economics class to explain different economic systems.

• The symbolism and impact of everyday abundance in American supermarkets.

• And a whole lot more!

Catch up on some old episodes:

You can also listen to us on Google Podcasts, TuneIn Radio, and Apple Podcasts. If one of these is your go-to podcast service, be sure to rate us and subscribe!

Subscribe now

Watch this episode on YouTube:

Some show notes:

It’s the first week of classes, which means it’s time to introduce foundational economic ideas to a new group of students. Before diving into the main topic, we share some alcohol-free drinks. Jadrian is recording from the office, so he went with a Diet Coke. Matt is gearing up for a trivia night, which means he went with a Bud Zero.

Jadrian’s favorite story to tell in principles of economics is a summary of Boris Yeltsin’s impromptu stop at a Randall’s grocery store during a diplomatic visit to Houston in 1989. What was meant to be a simple public-relations stop became a moment of genuine shock for the Russian leader, who was stunned by the variety and availability of consumer goods, particularly frozen pudding pops.

His visit turned out to be more than just a funny anecdote. It became a moment that highlighted the difference between market-based and command economies. Yeltsin’s visible awe (and later disbelief) showcased how removed the Soviet Union's system was from the consumer abundance present in the U.S. During his visit, he initially believed the store was staged and later insisted on stopping at a second one just to confirm it was real.

Yeltsin shared with his entourage that “there would be a revolution” if Soviet citizens saw the conditions of American supermarkets. While the entire Houston Chronicle story is a great read, the photos of Yeltsin marveling at freezers and checkout scanners are the best part.

Before logging off, we also explored the broader context of American agriculture and global influence, based on a great Freakonomics podcast summarizing how the U.S. government used subsidized food exports to economically undercut the Soviet Union.

Americans have been blessed with a domestic food system with an overwhelming variety, but it’s often something most Americans take for granted. Perhaps when you celebrate Boris Yeltsin Supermarket Day on September 16, you’ll stop to marvel at the variety that is available every day thanks to our market-based system.

Leave a comment

This week’s pop culture references:

Alongside the Yeltsin story in class, Jadrian shares a scene from Moscow on the Hudson, a film starring Robin Williams that explores immigration and cultural adjustment. One memorable scene ties directly to this episode’s theme: Williams’s character visits a grocery store to buy coffee and is overwhelmed by the lack of lines and the sheer variety of choices. It was a moment that mirrors Yeltsin’s own experience in Houston.

Matt’s contribution comes from an early scene in The Hunger Games, where Katniss is given a simple piece of bread. Her reaction of genuine excitement reflects the level of scarcity that exists in their command economy. Even basic goods aren’t always available. It's a quick but powerful illustration of economic systems in action.

Share Economics Happy Hour

In this episode, we discuss:

• How escape rooms can model core economic concepts like opportunity cost and resource allocation.

• The difference between digital and in-person escape room formats in teaching.

• Using escape rooms as a comprehensive review for exams.

• The role of gamification in economics education for both traditional and non-traditional students.

• Benefits of fostering creativity, collaboration, and problem-solving through classroom games.

• And a whole lot more!

Catch up on some old episodes:

You can also listen to us on Google Podcasts, TuneIn Radio, and Apple Podcasts. If one of these is your go-to podcast service, be sure to rate us and subscribe!

Watch this episode on YouTube:

Some show notes:

JET SET 2025 was packed this year, and we were only able to grab one interview while bouncing between sessions. Today’s episode may also be an Economics Happy Hour first: all four guests drank the same beer. We found a spot at Jack Patrick's Bar & Grill and each enjoyed Urban Chestnut’s Zwickle, a kellerbier that was perfect for the hot, humid St. Louis weather.

While there were a lot of great sessions at JET SET 2025, the one that stood out to us most was a session led by two of our friends, Tom Flesher (Suffolk County Community College) and Noah Trudeau (Troy University). The two of them were presenting on using escape rooms to teach economics. While Noah’s work focuses on a digital escape room experience, Tom’s approach uses in-person, hands-on puzzles to create immersive learning environments.

They first break down the basic structure of an escape room: teams race against the clock to solve interconnected puzzles. For educators, this is an easy connection to the core principles that are covered in early classes. Concepts like opportunity cost, trade-offs, and resource optimization are embedded in every decision students make during these activities. The problem-solving element of an escape room also mirrors the analytical and creative thinking economists need in real-world applications.

Noah shared his experience with a digital escape room project that he designed as a final exam review for a statistics course. He modeled his game partly on tabletop role-playing games, but the activity places students in a scenario where they solve problems drawn from the semester’s material. The format of his game encourages students to recall earlier lessons, collaborate, and engage actively to “get out” of the review session. Students found it a more memorable review than a traditional review of topics.

Tom shares his experience with gamification in a community college context, noting that there will always be people who dismiss it as “just playing games,” but he saw that this approach really resonated with diverse learners, including non-traditional students. He shared how game-based activities would spark “lightbulb moments,” where concepts click for students who might have struggled in more conventional lecture settings.

They wouldn’t give away what would happen in their session to protect the integrity of the game, but be on the lookout for a future paper from Tom and Noah about how they’re implementing escape rooms in the classroom. If you’re on the fence about gamifying your classroom (even if it isn’t escape rooms), Noah and Tom also shared some of the benefits they receive as professors who get easily burned out teaching the same topic multiple times each day.

Leave a comment

This week’s pop culture references:

Since there were four voices on the episode, Matt and Jadrian stepped back from pop culture picks this week. Noah shared a favorite scene from Moneyball that he uses in his statistics class. In it, Billy Beane explains the idea of replacing Jason Giambi “in the aggregate.” He and his analytics guru talk about how to use statistics to think about substitutes when a single star player can’t be replaced directly.

Tom brought two examples from The Simpsons. The first was a spoof on a PBS donation campaign where Betty White calls out free riders, those who watch but don’t donate. She considers them “a common thief” who makes her furious.

Tom also shared his favorite clip from The Simpsons that he uses to kick off his macroeconomics course. In it, Homer reminds us (and himself) that money can be exchanged for goods and services.

Share Economics Happy Hour

In this episode, we discuss:

• The scale and context of recent BLS jobs data revisions

• Why revisions are a normal and expected part of labor statistics

• Concerns raised by firing a data-focused civil servant over routine changes

• The institutional risks of undermining trust in economic data

• How policymakers and markets rely on accurate, stable data reporting

• And a whole lot more!

Catch up on some old episodes:

You can also listen to us on Google Podcasts, TuneIn Radio, and Apple Podcasts. If one of these is your go-to podcast service, be sure to rate us and subscribe!

Watch this episode on YouTube:

Some show notes:

Our friend Brian O’Roark made the mistake of texting us about the unexpected firing following the jobs report, which meant he got invited to chat with us. Brian kicked things off with a watermelon vodka cocktail called Brave New Swirl, inspired by the Tequila Mockingbird book. Jadrian opted for a non-alcoholic Electro Lime Circa de Cerveza, and Matt cracked open a Lift Off IPA from Daredevil Brewing Co., a gift from superfan Tim Dye.

If you’ve missed the news over the past week, the BLS released its July jobs report on Friday, which included a downward revision of more than 250,000 jobs for May and June. It was one of the largest revisions outside of COVID since 1979. Hours later, President Trump dismissed the BLS Commissioner.

We took some time to talk about why revisions happen in the first place. The BLS relies on surveys from over 600,000 workplaces, many of which respond late or not at all. As more data comes in, earlier estimates are adjusted, making revisions common and expected. Our surprise wasn’t based on the revision itself, but the political response. Firing someone over a data adjustment has struck many economists as dangerous, as it undermines the statistical integrity of key economic institutions.

There is a lot of institutional expertise at agencies like the BLS. Even though the Commissioner was removed, much of the technical staff remains. This will likely limit the immediate risks to data quality. But the move raises concerns about future interference. Would staff feel pressure to avoid “bad news”? Could upcoming data releases be skewed or politicized?

Of course, there are some historical parallels to be drawn, mainly from Eastern Europe and China, where statisticians faced pressure to produce politically favorable numbers. While the U.S. isn’t there, it’s worth noting that credibility and trust are slow to build and easy to lose.

The firing also reignited longer-standing debates about how we define and report key economic indicators. Measures like unemployment and inflation rely on intentionally rigid definitions so that economists can make comparisons over time. For instance, inflation calculations don’t just track the price of a product; they adjust for changes in size, ingredients, and quality to make fair comparisons across decades.

Even when updates to these definitions are made transparently, they often spark confusion or accusations of manipulation. A recent example came during the pandemic when the Fed revised the definitions of M1 and M2 to reflect modern banking habits. Although nothing new was being “printed,” the change caused spikes in the data that fueled misinterpretation online. Our friend wrote about it for his newsletter when it was happening:

Economics with Dr. A

40% of Money was Printed in the Last 12 Months!

I am breaking away from the normal scheduled Tuesday morning posts to share some information that was helpful for me this past week. I taught money, banks, and the Federal Reserve in my Principles of…

Read more

4 years ago · 1 like · Dr. Abdullah Al Bahrani

All of this also raises big questions about where policy goes from here. The Fed has been under pressure to cut interest rates, and weak labor market data would support that move. But if Trump is dismissing the jobs numbers as wrong while insisting the economy is booming, then the rationale for rate cuts disappears. Brian noted that Trump seems to want both a roaring economy and low interest rates, an inflationary combination if taken too far. And if last week’s events set a precedent, should the BEA Commissioner be worried if GDP slows after recent tariff moves? Let us know if there’s another angle we should have considered. Are we onto something, or way off base?

Leave a comment

This week’s pop culture references:

Brian shared a scene from National Lampoon’s Christmas Vacation where Clark is shocked to learn that Cousin Eddie hasn’t bought any presents. The conversation turns to Eddie’s long-term unemployment. We learn that it isn’t because jobs are unavailable, but because he’s holding out for a management role. Brian likes to use the clip to illustrate frictional unemployment in action.

Jadrian brought up one of his favorite classroom examples: drug-sniffing dogs forced into early retirement after states legalized marijuana. Since their specialized skills are no longer useful, it’s a fun case of structural unemployment.

Matt discussed a scene from Game of Thrones where Tyrion finally gets access to the kingdom’s financial records and is appalled by what he finds. It’s a light way to introduce the concept of public budgeting and the value of transparency.

Share Economics Happy Hour

In this episode, we discuss:

• Why companies offer points, perks, and loyalty rewards, and how they profit from it

• The trade-offs consumers make to stay loyal to specific brands or services

• How status tiers shape travel habits

• The hidden costs of rewards programs and who ends up paying for them

• Whether reward cards truly benefit most people, or just the most organized few

• And a whole lot more!

Catch up on some old episodes:

You can also listen to us on Google Podcasts, TuneIn Radio, and Apple Podcasts. If one of these is your go-to podcast service, be sure to rate us and subscribe!

Watch this episode on YouTube:

Some show notes:

Jadrian is close to cleaning out his beer shelf, but the remnants aren’t lining up with the season. A shelf full of porters is a lot harder to drink in the middle of a hot summer. Jadrian had a Pay It Forward Cocoa Porter from West Sixth Brewing (Lexington, KY), a leftover from a past JET SET. Matt is recovering from a migraine and opted for something close to water: a Bud Zero.

This week’s conversation came courtesy of a Bloomberg story about a CEO who used 1.83 million Amex points to pay off an unexpected $11,000 tariff bill. We aren’t talking about tariffs, but rather a wider conversation about the purpose and strategy behind credit card rewards and loyalty programs.

We each share our own experiences, whether that involves the way we track multiple reward accounts in a spreadsheet or weighing the value of lounge access, upgrades, and travel perks. Both of us are loyal card-carrying members of popular loyalty programs offered by Delta Airlines and Marriott hotels, which means we must have some good reasons for paying the annual fee.

But do the perks (like companion passes, free nights, or waived baggage fees) outweigh the cost? We seem to think so, but then it left us wondering who is really paying for all these benefits we cash in on?

In a classic case of “nothing is free,” it’s important to remember that businesses pass along credit card fees in the form of higher prices for everyone, often including those who pay in cash. That creates a subtle redistribution of resources where people who optimize rewards programs are subsidized by those who don’t. It’s worth noting that companies are also incredibly profitable with their rewards programs. For example, Delta received billions from Amex for its co-branded cards last year.

One big takeaway: airline and hotel rewards cards might make sense for frequent travelers, but that’s a small slice of the population. After a long stretch focusing on airline perks, we stopped to consider how often people even fly. According to Gallup, only about 15–20% of Americans take more than three flights per year. Most Americans don’t ever fly during the year.

We wrap up our conversation discussing how rewards programs have evolved. In recent years, companies like Delta and Carnival Cruises have shifted their loyalty structures to reward spending on co-branded credit cards rather than prioritizing brand loyalty alone. It’s a subtle but important shift, one that favors high-spending customers and raises the bar for earning perks through behavior like repeat flying or cruising.

These programs have become so gamified that they often blur the line between savvy planning and status chasing. For some, that chase is part of the appeal. Take JetBlue’s recent 25th anniversary promotion: fly to 25 different cities before the end of the year, and you’ll earn Mosaic status for the next 25 years. It’s a clever marketing strategy, but also a reminder of how far people are willing to go when there’s a shiny perk on the line.

Leave a comment

This week’s pop culture references:

Matt talked about the 2009 movie Up in the Air, where George Clooney's character obsessively pursues airline miles and elite travel status. In one scene with Anna Kendrick, they discuss the perks of frequent travel and how to maximize them.

Jadrian took a different angle, highlighting a more common loyalty program. In this Seinfeld episode, Elaine is determined to complete her punch card to earn a free sub even though she doesn’t like the subs she’s eating. When she loses the card, she’s crushed. Jerry offers a valuable economics lesson, reminding her about sunk costs. Those bad subs are already gone, so is the “free” one really worth it?

Subscribe now