We break down the 2025 Economics Nobel Prize, which was awarded to Joel Mokyr, Philippe Aghion, and Peter Howitt for their “having explained innovation-driven economic growth.” We discuss why these contributions matter and reflect on the broader importance of understanding long-term economic growth. Along the way, we also share our own reactions and what stood out about this year’s selection.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. 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.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. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit econhappyhour.substack.com
Let’s dive into a surprisingly tricky topic to teach: tax incidence. In this episode, we explore why this seemingly simple concept trips up so many students, how elasticity shapes “who pays,” and what strategies actually help the idea stick. It’s a candid mid-semester check-in that’s full of travel stories, fall-break frustrations, and creative teaching analogies.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.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.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. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit econhappyhour.substack.com
We explore what the looming demographic cliff means for colleges and universities. As the number of high school graduates begins to shrink, institutions are grappling with how to adapt, especially smaller and regional schools. We discuss which types of schools are most vulnerable and why elite and flagship universities may be somewhat insulated from the effects. We also look at the structural and financial implications this demographic shift brings to the future of higher ed.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. 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.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. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit econhappyhour.substack.com
Let’s dive into the unexpected legacy of Boris Yeltsin’s 1989 visit to a Houston grocery store. We explore how that moment shaped the Russian leader’s perspective on economic systems and why it's a favorite teaching example in economics classes. It’s a great introduction to consumer choice, abundance, and market economies, thanks to Yeltsin’s astonishment captured on film.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! 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.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. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit econhappyhour.substack.com
We sit down with Tom Flesher and Noah Trudeau to talk about their JET SET session on using escape rooms to teach economics and statistics. Escape rooms are built around core economics concepts like opportunity cost and trade-offs. But Noah and Tom have taken it a step further and infused class-specific content into the clues that students need to solve to escape. Noah’s experience is based on a digital escape room he has used as a final exam review, while Tom describes how he has incorporated in-person, puzzle-based activities into his day-to-day classes. Together, they highlight how gamification can make economics more interactive and memorable for learners of all ages.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.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. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit econhappyhour.substack.com
We dive into the sudden firing of the Bureau of Labor Statistics Commissioner following large downward revisions to the most recent jobs data. Everything is still pretty new, but we get a chance to talk about the scale of the revisions, the normalcy of such adjustments, and the potential implications of politicizing economic data. It's a first reaction to a surprising move with potentially big economic and institutional stakes.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 Dr. Abdullah Al Bahrani wrote about it for his newsletter when it was happening: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?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. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit econhappyhour.substack.com
This week, we dive into the economics behind rewards programs and credit card perks. We explore how loyalty schemes influence consumer behavior and how companies use them strategically. The episode covers travel points, airline upgrades, hotel loyalty tiers, and their broader economic implications. We also consider who really foots the bill for all those “free” perks.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.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? This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit econhappyhour.substack.com
Dive into the economic concepts that have helped with the recent explosion of sports betting in the United States. Explore how sportsbooks set odds, the role of information in creating an edge, and why betting markets share some similarities with prediction markets. We briefly unpack the effects of the 2018 repeal of PASPA and discuss how technology has transformed gambling behavior. This week’s conversation highlights both the fun and complexity of modern sports betting.In this episode, we discuss:* How sports betting odds are set and why sportsbooks aim to balance bets.* Why some bettors can gain an edge and how information affects outcomes.* The economics behind parlays, money lines, and house margins.* How the 2018 Supreme Court ruling changed the legal landscape.* 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:We recorded this week’s episode right before Game 7 of the NBA Finals and right after recording our episode on Bobby Bonilla Day. We decided to stick with the sports theme, but our drinks have changed. Eric opted for a glass of water to combat the heatwave sweeping across most of the U.S. at the time, while Jadrian went with Best Day Brewing’s Sea Salt and Lime non-alcoholic cerveza. Matt snagged a Gorb Hazy IPA from Oliphant Brewing on his recent trip to Minnesota.Over the past few years, the amount of ad space dedicated to gambling sites has increased dramatically. That’s due in part to the repeal of PASPA in 2018, which made it easier for states to legalize sports gambling. We brought on our friend Eric Dunaway from Wabash College to help provide some insight into how the sports gambling industry ballooned from underground operations and Nevada-only betting to nationwide, app-based access that includes bets as small as a dollar. Sports gambling is different from traditional gambling in a variety of ways, but perhaps the most interesting to economists is that the outcome of the game is not based on probabilities like traditional casino games. Because of how often blackjack hands are played or roulette wheels are spun, it’s a lot easier to estimate the expected win probability for any given bet. That’s not possible with sports games because we only ever see one observation. As a result, sportsbooks are more interested in “setting lines” rather than trying to predict the outcome of a game. Eavesdrop on some sports gamblers, and there’s no doubt you’ll hear them reference a money line: the initial distinction between favorites and underdogs. Even one of the simplest bets is structured in a way that ensures a profit for the casinos by baking in a “vig” regardless of the outcome. While house edges are fixed in games like roulette, sports betting allows for subjective analysis and the potential for informed bettors to gain an edge.The second half of this week’s episode focused on the behavioral economics aspects of sports gambling, including how fans may bet emotionally on their teams and the ways sportsbooks use boosts and promotions to attract money. Sportsbooks rely on more than just math; they also leverage psychology. Many apps use flashy celebration graphics and real-time win tracking to create a sense of excitement, while quietly downplaying losses. These design choices can make betting feel more like a game than a financial risk. Perhaps more concerning, sportsbooks are now partnering with some universities to present gambling as a way to support college athletics. While framed as sponsorship, we’re not entirely sure it’s appropriate to normalize betting among young adults with blurred lines between supporting your school and engaging in risky financial behavior. Perhaps the one plus side of the rapid growth in sports gambling is that we have a lot of young people passionate about statistics. Let’s hope that passion extends to more responsible financial decisions.This week’s pop culture references:In Back to the Future Part II, the antagonist steals the Time Machine and delivers a sports almanac to his younger self in 1955. With decades of future game outcomes in hand, he builds a gambling empire by always betting with perfect information. The scene ties directly into this episode’s theme: if you know more than the market, even slightly, you can win big.In Casino, Robert De Niro plays a handicapper who works for the mob, helping them set accurate betting lines on sports events before eventually taking over a casino. His role shows how valuable expert analysis and insider knowledge can be when money is on the line. Matt highlights Nate Silver’s new book, On the Edge, where Silver reflects on his own attempt to become a professional NBA gambler. Despite his strong background in statistics and data, he admits he struggled to profit consistently. It’s a good reminder that even the smartest bettors often fall short against efficient markets and razor-thin margins.Matt also brings up an episode from Season 4 of The Wire, where a retired police officer becomes a teacher and uses gambling examples to teach math. By tapping into something his students care about, he gets them to engage with probability and numbers. For better or worse, sports betting is making statistics exciting for a new generation. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit econhappyhour.substack.com
In this episode, we explore the economic concepts behind Bobby Bonilla Day, when the former MLB player annually receives a $1.19 million check from the Mets even though he hasn’t been on the roster since 1999. We unpack how deferred compensation works and whether the Mets’ decision makes financial sense. We dive into annuities, interest rates, and the assumptions that shape financial decisions. Using behavioral economics and finance concepts, we ask: Was this a smart move for The Mets and for Bonilla, and what lessons can we take from it?In this episode, we discuss:* Why the Mets agreed to pay Bobby Bonilla for 25 years instead of a lump sum* The role Bernie Madoff’s scheme played in the Mets’ financial decisions* What makes annuities appealing for athletes and retirees* The behavioral economics behind protecting money from ourselves* 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:There’s a heatwave across the United States, so all of today’s beverages were nice and cold. Matt enjoyed a Moscow Mule to beat the heat, and Jadrian cleared out his fridge with an Almost Famous Pickle Beer from East End Brewing. We’re joined this week by Eric Dunaway from Wabash College to talk about today’s topic. He’s opted for a Mountain Dew Summer Freeze Zero Sugar. Long-time listeners may remember Eric from a few years ago when he joined us to talk about the economics of poker.Bobby Bonilla Day is more than a quirky sports headline; it's an ideal chance to talk about annuities and deferred compensation. Let’s lay out the story first. It’s 2000, and the New York Mets owe Bonilla $5.9 million. Instead of paying him outright, they get Bonilla to agree to defer his payment for 10 years and then pay him $1.19 million annually from 2011 to 2035. That arrangement totals nearly $30 million, far more than the original sum. Why would the Mets do this?The logic at the time was based on interest rates and investment expectations. The Mets assumed they could earn 12% on their other investments, which was much more than the 8% implied by Bonilla’s annuity. Unfortunately, their confidence came from Bernie Madoff’s fraudulent returns. When that Ponzi scheme collapsed, so did the rationale behind the deal. The Mets tried to fold Bonilla’s contract into their Madoff litigation, but a judge dismissed the attempt.The deal highlights why annuities are valuable. Bonilla secured a guaranteed stream of income, starting at age 47 and continuing until he’s 72. This protects against the risk of outliving savings or making poor investment choices, especially relevant given how often athletes struggle financially post-retirement. From a personal finance standpoint, Bonilla’s deal has aged well.But for the Mets, who didn’t earn the returns they were expecting, why not just buy out the rest of the annuity and be done with it? One possible explanation is that the yearly payment is small relative to their total payroll, and the team’s current owner is a billionaire. It’s likely just easier for both sides to let the payments continue and reap the benefits of yearly publicity.This week’s pop culture references:We leaned into the baseball theme with a discussion of our favorite baseball movies. Because we’re good economists, we need to mention Moneyball, but that isn’t our favorite baseball movie. Eric and Matt both picked Major League, while Jadrian went with A League of Their Own. The episode also featured some pop culture tie-ins to the financial side of the story. Matt recommended Black Edge, a book about Mets owner Steve Cohen, and The Wizard of Lies, which dives into the life and scandal of Bernie Madoff, both key figures in the backdrop of the Bobby Bonilla contract. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit econhappyhour.substack.com
Matt and Jadrian explore several aspects of studying abroad. These include the economic benefits students gain, how study abroad programs differ from a typical vacation, and why these experiences often have a lasting impact on students. Their conversation includes insights from their own experiences as students and faculty leading trips overseas. They also examine the financial and educational considerations that shape access to these programs.In this episode, we discuss:* Why study abroad isn’t just an extended vacation * How cultural immersion challenges students and promotes maturity * The role of faculty in balancing structure with independence * Study abroad as a tool for career skills and job interviews * 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 back from the CTREE economics teaching conference and already deep into planning sessions for JET SET 2025, which will take place in St. Louis, Missouri. Meanwhile, Matt just wrapped up an experimental auction workshop at Michigan State. It's been a packed week (as usual), making this the perfect time to pause and catch up. With the sun out, Jadrian reached for an Electro Lime Circa de Cerveza from Best Day Brewing—a non-alcoholic Mexican-style lager with sea salt and lime. Matt stuck to his IPA roots with a Founders Mortal Bloom Hazy IPA.With Jadrian heading to England next week, we took the opportunity to talk about the value of studying abroad for both students and the faculty who lead them. We kicked off the episode with some personal reflections on our experience: Jadrian reflecting on his time as a student in Mexico, and Matt sharing his experience running a semester-long program in the UK.Study abroad isn’t like a typical family vacation. It pushes students to adapt quickly, often outside their comfort zones. Navigating cultural differences, language barriers, and unfamiliar logistics can be challenging, but those same stressors create space for meaningful growth. When done well, the experience becomes a powerful learning opportunity.One important decision students face when considering studying abroad is how long they want to be away. Jadrian has led week-long programs that pack in a lot over a short time, but those don’t leave much room for students to explore independently. In contrast, semester-long programs offer more flexibility and unstructured time to experience a place more fully.The tradeoff, of course, is cost. Shorter trips are usually far more affordable than multi-month programs. Still, no matter the length, some of the most valuable moments happen when students are left to navigate on their own, whether it’s figuring out local transit or working through challenges with a travel partner.Those challenges can feel intimidating in the moment, but they often pay off in the years that follow. Both Jadrian and Matt see study abroad as a transformative experience, and one that also helps students stand out professionally. It gives them real, lived examples to draw on during job interviews, especially for questions about conflict resolution or navigating unfamiliar situations. Just as importantly, it signals to employers that the student is willing to take risks and step outside their comfort zone to engage with new cultures.Finally, it's worth recognizing the economic impact on host countries. Study abroad students aren’t just paying tuition, they’re also participating in the local economy in other meaningful ways. They rent apartments, buy train tickets, eat out, and shop like short-term residents. While we’ve questioned the economic impact of quick tourism events, like weekend concerts, these longer study abroad programs bring sustained spending. In many ways, it’s like adding a small group of temporary locals, which can be a real benefit for the communities that host them.This week’s pop culture references:Jadrian stayed on theme this week with a clip from Eurotrip, where a group of American travelers are amazed at how far their money goes abroad. It's a fun example of purchasing power parity—the idea that the same amount of money can buy more (or less) depending on the country you’re in.Matt highlighted the new Paramount+ series Landman, which follows a struggling landman working for M-Tex Oil in the oil boomtowns of West Texas. The show offers a look at the people behind oil exploration and touches on several economic themes. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit econhappyhour.substack.com
In this episode, we look at how economists think about the election of a new Pope. With the recent selection of Pope Leo XIV, Matt and Jadrian break down how the conclave’s voting rules, like the two-thirds supermajority, can shape outcomes. They connect it to economic ideas about group decision-making, from majority rules to the challenges of reaching consensus. It’s a timely example of how even religious elections follow patterns that economists love to analyze.In this episode, we discuss:* How economists analyze voting rules* The concept of majority vs. supermajority decision-making and its economic implications* The potential influence of internal costs and decision-making incentives in a conclave* 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:The semester is winding down, and commencement season has arrived. Jadrian is sipping on a Double Broken Heels Hazy IPA from New Trail Brewing, strong enough to require pacing. Matt opted for a citrus wheat beer from Mill Street Brewery in Canada, a memento from a recent trip north. The drinks don’t exactly match the day’s theme, but as they admit, they're only minimally prepared anyway.Neither host is Catholic, though Matt has some childhood experience with the Church. With that out in the open, they offer a blanket apology for any inaccuracies that might creep into a discussion about papal traditions. Still, they’re intrigued by how the election of a Pope offers an unexpected lens into economics and decision theory.This episode builds on Jadrian’s latest Monday Morning Economist newsletter, inspired by a suggestion from Noah Trudeau. The conversation centers on how the Pope is chosen through a voting process that requires a two-thirds supermajority. That’s a high bar, but it ensures consensus among a very ideologically diverse group of cardinals. The result is a leader who must appeal broadly, not just to a simple majority.They connect this to Buchanan’s Calculus of Consent, which highlights how collective decision-making involves tradeoffs between internal and external costs. When opinions diverge widely, a supermajority rule can help prevent polarizing outcomes, but it also risks gridlock. They explore what might happen under different rules, like plurality voting or elimination-based rounds, and discuss quirks like the Condorcet Paradox, where no option wins because group preferences are circular.In the end, the super majority rule seems well-suited for a lifetime appointment with global implications. Early reports suggest that Pope Leo wasn’t an initial favorite and may have been eliminated under a different system. But the conclave’s insistence on broad agreement allowed a compromise candidate to emerge, one who happened to be the first North American Pope. A unique outcome, shaped not by doctrine, but by the rules of the vote.This week’s pop culture references:Matt picked a track from Hamilton, “The Election of 1800.” It’s a musical retelling of one of the most dramatic elections in U.S. history, where the presidential vote ended in a tie and had to be decided in the House of Representatives. Jefferson ultimately won, but the whole sequence offers a memorable look at how complex and contentious voting outcomes can be.Jadrian brought in a scene from Parks and Recreation, where Ben tries to choose a wedding caterer. He enlists Ron, Tom, and Chris to help, knowing their tastes couldn’t be more different: Ron wants meat, Chris prefers vegetables, and Tom just wants something “Instagrammable”. Unsurprisingly, they can’t agree. Ben breaks the tie in favor of calzones, his favorite, but the scene cleverly illustrates how individual preferences can make group decisions messy when there’s no clear majority. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit econhappyhour.substack.com
Matt and Jadrian explore the economic power of Broadway's biggest awards: the Tonys. We explain how Tony nominations influence ticket sales and why timing matters for a show's success. They also discuss some of the ways that theatre houses price discriminate to fill as many seats as possible each night. It's a behind-the-scenes look at how Broadway's top prizes shape what audiences see—and what producers prioritize.In this episode, we discuss:* Why Tony nominations matter for Broadway shows' financial success* The timing effect: why opening closer to the nomination season helps* Differences in value between “Best Musical” and other Tony categories* The personal impact of nominations on theatergoer decisions * 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:The Spring semester is winding down at Susquehanna and Virginia Tech. It’s a perfect time to have a cold drink and talk about economics. Jadrian opted to revisit the Pickle Beer from East End Brewing Company in Pittsburgh, but was able to enjoy it served cold (not slushy). Matt went with a classic, the Perpetual IPA from Tröegs. Matt and Jadrian dove into Broadway's Tony Awards, exploring its economic implications during what's known in theater circles as “Tony month.” Matt shared his personal experience of attending some nominated shows recently, one a major hit (Dead Outlaw) and one a miss (Buena Vista Social Club). This was the setup for our broader conversation about what it means to be nominated for a Tony, especially for “Best Musical,” and how much influence those honors have on show popularity and profitability.Matt also shared a preview of some of his research, and what he is learning from other research, as he is examining how Tony nominations affect Broadway revenues. There is a 2009 study found nominations boosted weekly earnings by around $16,000—a figure likely higher today. Matt’s work is examining how the timing of a show’s opening can affect its chances of being nominated. Shows that debut closer to the cutoff date in April are more likely to be remembered and nominated, though there's no strong evidence that these are higher-quality productions overall. Matt brought up an example from this season: Once Upon a Mattress closed earlier and received no nominations, despite strong reviews and a big-name lead.They also cover the structure of the Tony voting process—nominating committee vs. final voters—and how shows subtly campaign for attention through visibility, advertising, and events. Matt also shares some insights from his Broadway ticket sales data set, which he’s analyzing during his sabbatical. Finally, they reflect on how the Tonys affect their own decision-making as theatergoers, often nudging them toward nominated shows due to the built-in signal of quality and prestige. One added economic angle came up in the context of actor pay. Data from the New York Fed identified performing arts as one of the lowest-paying career paths. While there are clearly non-monetary rewards tied to pursuing a life on stage, it's a reminder of how much passion and sacrifice that goes into making Broadway happen. This week’s pop culture references:Matt shared that one of his favorite songs from Dead Outlaw, a new musical he loved, touches on themes of economics and entrepreneurship. The song, Something from Nothin, tells the story of how people built a business around showcasing a dead outlaw—morbid, but a clever reflection on entrepreneurial spirit and repugnant markets.Jadrian opted out of weighing in on Broadway picks this week—after all, Matt has literally written the book on it. Instead, his pop culture contribution was a strong endorsement: go buy Matt’s book! This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit econhappyhour.substack.com
What do professors actually do all summer? In this episode, Matt and Jadrian break down the rhythm of the academic calendar and take listeners behind the scenes of a professor’s summer months. They unpack the not-so-hidden workload that fills the break between semesters, from grading finals and writing reports to planning research and finding time to unwind. If you've ever wondered whether summer is really a vacation for academics, this one’s for you.In this episode, we discuss:* How the end-of-semester workload shifts from teaching to administrative tasks* The behind-the-scenes responsibilities professors handle in May and June* The varying pace of summer work for faculty, deans, and teaching-focused roles* Why summer isn't just a break—it's a time for research, report writing, and prep* 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:We’re recording this in April as the semester is slowly coming to an end. We each have just a few weeks left, but for Jadrian, the semester is even shorter. Virginia Tech was able to convince Metallica to come to campus on the last day of classes, most likely as an homage to the Enter Sandman entrance that Virginia Tech is famous for (see below). To help celebrate the end of the semester, Matt and Jadrian hopped on Zoom to talk about their summer plans. Before they get too far into their talk, Jadrian cracked open a cold Strawberry Shortcake Blonde Ale from Alewerks Brewery Company, and Matt had and I'm An Alligator by SingleCut Beersmiths.As the semester winds down, both Matt and Jadrian reflect on how their work shifts during the final weeks. For professors with heavier teaching requirements, the end of the semester quickly shifts from delivering lectures to hurried grading and managing student emails—ranging from thank-yous to concerns about grades and summer classes. For those with more administrative responsibilities, the end of the semester includes a lot of end-of-year events and student support tasks before slowing down again in early summer.May can still feel like a full workload, but with a different structure. June and July bring an entirely different kind of work. While email traffic remains steady, the nature of the tasks shifts to planning, writing reports, and prepping for fall. For professors who chose to teach summer classes, it can be a chance to try new things or just to earn a little bit of extra income. Matt and Jadrian have both taught summer classes in the past, but Jadrian has found that it made it hard to get a real break from the continuous work and has vowed not to do it again if he can help it.Summer months are ideal for working on bigger projects that require quiet, uninterrupted time. A lot of professors are trying to finish up projects to get them sent out for peer review before the Fall semester begins. Some professors may use the summer to prepare for the Fall semester, but Jadrian tries not to touch his courses until August. Perhaps the most common theme, whether it’s administrators or teachers, is figuring out how to carve out time to relax. Some take mid-May vacations, others find short breaks in July more realistic. Regardless of when you do it, it’s important to take time to recharge, whether by fully logging off for a few days or slowly easing into lighter summer routines.This week’s pop culture references:Jadrian shares a clip submitted by Brian Lynch to the Economics Media Library, highlighting a Saturday Night Live sketch that flips the script on traditional business news. The parody, “Check to Check Business News” (CTCBN), imagines what financial reporting would look like if it focused on everyday Americans living paycheck to paycheck. Matt highlights the economic themes found in The Last of Us, pointing to several clips available on Critical Commons that can be used as teaching tools. He and EconChrisClarke have recorded videos exploring how the show illustrates core economic concepts, from scarcity to incentives, within a post-apocalyptic world. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit econhappyhour.substack.com
This week, we explore how the children's show Bluey delivers surprisingly rich lessons in economics. We're joined by Lauren Shifflett and Stephen Day, who explain how the show introduces concepts like scarcity, decision-making, and even the circular flow of money. Why Bluey? Lauren and Stephen recently co-authored Bluey-conomics: It's Not All About the Money, a new article showing teachers how to bring these episodes into the classroom. Whether you're a parent, educator, or econ nerd, you'll see Bluey in a whole new way.In this episode, we discuss:* Why Bluey resonates with both kids and adults—and what makes it a useful teaching tool* How teachers can use Bluey to introduce foundational economic concepts in a relatable way* Insights from Lauren and Stephen’s new article* 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:This week’s episode features two friends of the show—Lauren Shifflett, Associate Director at the JMU Center for Economic Education, and Stephen Day, Director of the VCU Center for Economic Education—who recently co-authored a paper we knew listeners would want to hear about. Between the four of us, we had a full lineup: coffee, water, diet soda, and a couple of beers. This episode was also a bit special, thanks to Lauren’s connection to Feel the Rain Brothers Brew Co. in Harrisonburg, Virginia. She went with Duke’s Lager, while Jadrian enjoyed a Loner mild ale from the same brewery. Lauren Shifflett and Stephen Day joined us this week to talk about their newly published article, Bluey-conomics: It’s Not All About the Money. The piece, co-authored with Alexa Quinn, appears in Social Studies and the Young Learner, a journal aimed at elementary educators. The article focuses on how the children's show Bluey can be used to teach economic concepts in the classroom, especially to younger students. One of Stephen’s favorite episodes is called “Markets,” where the main character gets five dollars from the tooth fairy and heads to a local market with her friend. Along the way, she and her friend navigate trade-offs, limited resources, and the consequences of spending decisions. Stephen walks us through how the episode illustrates everything from scarcity to the circular flow of money—making it a surprisingly clear entry point for introducing these abstract concepts.Beyond “Markets,” we also talked about other episodes like “Monkey Jocks,” “Hammerbarn,” “Ice Cream,” and “Granny Mobile.” These storylines touch on unintended consequences, negotiation, decision-making, and even game theory. The show uses humor and relatable family moments to bring these ideas to life in ways that are meaningful for kids and instantly recognizable for adults.Lauren and Stephen explain how episodes like these offer accessible, age-appropriate ways to start conversations about economic thinking. The goal of their article isn’t just to celebrate a beloved show—it’s to prepare teachers with practical tools for integrating economics into everyday classroom experiences. And for parents watching alongside their kids, Bluey might just be an unexpected crash course in the basics of economics.This week’s pop culture references:Lauren shared her work on lesson plans centered around the “economics of poop”—a creative approach to help young learners think about the many resources involved in both the production and cleanup of waste. It’s a memorable, relatable way to spark economic thinking in elementary classrooms.Stephen spotlighted the Bluey episode “Hammerbarn,” where the Heeler family goes shopping for a new pizza oven. The episode is full of teachable moments about budgeting, prioritization, and opportunity cost. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit econhappyhour.substack.com
What could a research arc look like? Matt shares the story of his career pivot from a pure experimental economist to one that includes researching on teaching economics with pop culture. Matt’s early research on cigarette packaging and sin taxes measured how graphic warning labels influenced consumer behavior. His most recent work? A paper on the game show Cutthroat Kitchen that explores how people value the prestige of winning over the money they win. Throughout the episode, Matt reflects on what drives his research choices and how his interests have evolved.In this episode, we discuss:* How Matt’s research evolved from public health and pop culture* Why experimental auctions have always been a central method in his work* How teaching-focused research and pedagogical experiments caught his attention* Reflections on following curiosity over specialization* 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:Matt and Jadrian are wrapping up spring break and Jadrian is easing back into the semester. (Matt is still on sabbatical.) Jadrian brought back a four-pack of Almost Famous Pickle Beer from East End Brewing Company when he took a recent trip to Pittsburgh — a cucumber gose created in partnership with Primanti Bros. After an overlong stay in the freezer, it ended up more slushie than beer, but still drinkable. Matt wasn’t convinced the pickle beer was for him, so he went a different route with a glass of Catalonian wine.A few episodes ago, Matt asked Jadrian about his research. Today Matt takes the spotlight this week as Jadrian turns the questions toward his co-host’s research journey. The conversation starts with Matt’s early work in experimental economics, where he studied how consumers respond to changes in food labeling and cigarette packaging. One of his most-cited streams of research involves using graphic health warnings on cigarette packs in experimental auctions to test how demand changed — work that eventually informed policy discussions.From there, they explore Matt’s broader use of auctions in behavioral research, especially in public health. His projects have included examining preferences for e-cigarettes, smokeless tobacco, and vaccines. These studies often relied on grant funding and collaborative teams, allowing Matt to explore how people respond to information and make decisions in controlled but realistic environments.A turning point in Matt’s career came with a pivot toward using pop culture as a lens for economics research. Matt currently has an NBER working paper with several other authors that looks at how Cutthroat Kitchen contestants’ bidding behavior reveals the value of prestige in addition to prize money. The show’s auction-style format turned out to be an ideal setting to observe economic decision-making in a high-stakes, real-world context.Matt reflects on the flexibility of working at a teaching-focused institution, where he’s been able to follow ideas across disciplines and collaborate widely. While he began as a specialist in experiments, he now sees himself as a generalist economist, pursuing topics that are both interesting and accessible — whether that’s public health, pedagogy, or reality TV.This week’s pop culture references:Jadrian was reminded of a paper that focused on Cash Cab, a game show he once hoped to study during grad school. He started collecting data to analyze risk aversion in contestant choices, only to find that someone else had just published a similar paper in JEBO, focused on how group dynamics influence risk-taking in the game. If you don’t remember the show, here’s a snippet of one episode: Matt discussed a clip in Cutthroat Kitchen that explores how contestants decide who to sabotage. The clip highlights moments where sabotage decisions seem driven by spite or bias rather than strategy — like a contestant declaring she wanted to “wipe the smile off little blondie’s face.” These choices raise questions about fairness, discrimination, and revenge. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit econhappyhour.substack.com
Are pets a financial luxury or a household necessity? Matt and Jadrian break down the economics of pet ownership—from the true cost of bringing a furry friend home to the surprising ways people go into debt for their pets. They dig into the "adopt don't shop" debate, the business of pet breeding, and why vet bills can feel a lot like human healthcare costs. Whether you're a pet owner or just curious about the billion-dollar pet industry, this episode sheds light on the financial decisions behind our four-legged companions.In this episode, we discuss:* The cost of pet ownership, from adoption fees to ongoing expenses* Why vet bills can be unexpectedly high—and how some owners take on debt to cover them* The economics behind the “adopt don’t shop” movement and its impact on pet markets* How people make financial trade-offs when it comes to caring for their pets* The labor market for veterinarians compared to other professions* 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:By the time this episode airs, we’ll be in the middle of Spring Break, catching up on projects and hopefully enjoying a little downtime. But before the break officially begins, we decided to squeeze in one last conversation—drinks in hand, of course. Jadrian was still at the office, so he grabbed a Coke Zero from the department fridge. Matt was planning to work out after we chatted, so he mixed it up with a non-alcoholic Moscow Mule.James Pomykalski submitted today’s topic—the economics of pets—which immediately caught Matt and Jadrian’s interest as dog lovers. While they both prefer dogs, they recognize that many of the same economic ideas apply to all pets. Matt’s first thought was the economics behind the “adopt, don’t shop” movement—an effort to encourage pet adoption over purchasing from breeders or pet stores. While adoption is often seen as the more ethical choice, does it actually reduce demand for bred animals, or does it simply shift where people get their pets Regardless of how someone brings a pet home, the financial commitment doesn’t stop there—adoption fees, vet bills, food, and other costs can quickly add up.One of the biggest ongoing expenses is veterinary care. Routine check-ups, vaccinations, and emergency treatments can quickly add up, and many pet owners find themselves facing difficult financial decisions when unexpected medical issues arise. Jadrian recently listened to a fascinating podcast about the rising trend of pet owners going into debt to cover vet bills, highlighting how some are using credit cards or personal loans to pay for costly procedures. Whether you have pet insurance or not, it’s an interesting look at the financial realities of pet care.Pet ownership doesn’t just affect the owner—it also creates externalities, or spillover effects, for the people around them. Both Matt and Jadrian enjoy the direct benefits of having dogs, but their neighbors and friends also experience positive externalities, like getting to pet or play with a friendly dog during a walk. On the flip side, not all pet-related externalities are positive. Incessant barking, off-leash dogs, and owners who don’t clean up after their pets can create real nuisances for others. Lastly, we explored the veterinary profession and how it compares to other medical careers. While veterinarians earn good salaries, their pay is significantly lower than that of medical doctors or dentists, despite requiring years of advanced training and often carrying similar levels of student debt. This wage gap could stem from a demand-side issue—pet owners may not be willing (or able) to pay as much for veterinary services as they would for their healthcare. Another possibility is a compensating differential, where lower pay is offset by benefits like a more predictable 9-to-5 schedule and fewer high-stakes emergencies compared to human medicine. This episode covered a lot of economic concepts related to pet ownership, but there’s always more to explore. If there’s a pet-related economic question or idea we didn’t discuss, let us know in the comments—we’d love to hear your thoughts!This week’s pop culture references:Jadrian shared an ad from Thinkbox about a shelter dog struggling to get adopted. To stand out, the dog finds a creative way to differentiate himself and grab attention—just like a firm in a monopolistically competitive market. Matt’s pop culture pick was 1923, which is currently in its second season and offers interesting lessons on inflation and economic growth. In the episode he highlighted, a character reacts to a neighbor having a home phone—something revolutionary at the time. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit econhappyhour.substack.com
Spring break isn't just a vacation—it’s an economic event. This week, we consider the potential impacts of spring break on destination economies, from the businesses that rely on tourism to the unintended costs cities face when hosting thousands of partygoers. We discuss how destinations like Miami Beach have pushed back against the influx of spring breakers, while other locations actively court the seasonal business. Plus, we break down common misconceptions about the true economic benefits of spring break spending.In this episode, we discuss:* The economic impact of spring break on popular destinations and whether the boost in spending is as big as it seems.* How some cities have actively discouraged spring break crowds* The role of externalities—both positive and negative—including noise, litter, and public safety concerns.* Why businesses like airlines, hotels, and alcohol distributors benefit the most from spring break spending.* The game theory decision-making of students and professors around the Friday before spring break—will there be class, or will everyone quietly agree to skip?* 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:Before students head out for Spring Break, we took some time to catch up. Jadrian reached for a back-of-the-fridge pick, cracking open a Volcano Sauce sour from Aslin Beer Company, while Matt opted for his go-to non-alcoholic choice, a Free Wave hazy IPA from Athletic Brewing Company. Before diving into the episode, Jadrian also gave a shoutout to Barry from Sandwiches of History, a content creator who recreates unique sandwiches from the past.Since Spring Break is on the horizon for many schools, we also thought we should chat about the economics of Spring Break. Our conversation starts with the concept of externalities—both good and bad. On one hand, spring break brings in revenue for local businesses, from airlines and hotels to bars and restaurants. On the other hand, it creates costs for cities dealing with noise, congestion, and public safety concerns. Some cities, like Miami Beach, have responded by implementing high parking fees and curfews to discourage large crowds, while places like Cancun and smaller beach towns in Florida rely on spring break tourism as a key part of their economy.We also consider the potential economic impact of spring break tourism. Miami Beach may be trying to limit crowds, but other cities (and some businesses) embrace the seasonal surge. Miami Beach likely doesn’t need the additional visitors, but smaller cities or international destinations may think the benefits outweigh the costs. On the grand scheme of the whole U.S. economy, the result is probably negative since some money flows out of the country with tourists going to Mexico.Another fun discussion revolves around the game theory of the Friday before spring break, or really any other holiday break on campus. Do students attend class, knowing that many professors might cancel? Do professors hold class, knowing many students will be absent? The strategic decision-making on both sides creates a classic coordination problem.This week’s pop culture references:Jadrian’s pop culture pick tied into the theme of skipping class rather than Spring Break in particular. The opening monologue from Ferris Bueller’s Day Off does a great job of explaining the cost-benefit analysis of skipping class. Ferris fakes an illness to get out of school, but he’s starting to realize that the costs of getting caught are rising. He needs to make the most of his day off. Matt also didn’t have a memorable spring break clip to share, but he was proud of a great economics find from his daughter. She’s taking her first college-level econ class and pointed him to a classic scene from The Devil Wears Prada. In the clip, Miranda explains how the fashion industry influences trends down to everyday consumer choices. This scene can be used to discuss demand, complements, and cross-price elasticity, particularly concerning the price of accessories like belts compared to high-end fashion items. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit econhappyhour.substack.com
Should the U.S. eliminate the penny? In this episode, we dive into the economics of keeping or removing the one-cent coin, weighing its production costs, impact on consumers, and whether rounding transactions would make a real difference. We explore arguments for and against, from inefficiencies at the cash register to the role of small change in charitable giving. We also discuss how other countries have handled similar transitions and whether the U.S. is ready to follow suit.In this episode, we discuss:* The cost of producing a penny and whether it outweighs its usefulness.* How eliminating the penny could save time at the checkout counter.* Arguments for keeping the penny, including its role in charitable donations and impact on cash transactions.* How other countries, like Canada, have phased out low-denomination coins and what the U.S. could learn from them.* Whether removing the penny pushes the economy further toward a cashless society and how that affects unbanked individuals.* 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:Aside from their presidential debate episodes, this might be the fastest turnaround Matt and Jadrian have had for recording. They’re just a few days out from the episode’s release. Jadrian is about a month into the Spring semester, and Virginia Tech called a snow day, giving him time to enjoy a brew from Hardywood Brewery in Richmond: Christmas Pancakes. Meanwhile, Matt is still in the office, so he opted for a classic caffeine-free diet cola to wrap up the workday.Today’s topic comes in response to a recent announcement by President Trump to pause the production of the penny. The debate over whether to eliminate the U.S. penny has been around for years, but this marks the first official step toward ending its production. One of the most common concerns is cost—each penny costs about 3.7 cents to produce, making it a financial loss for the U.S. Mint. While some argue that the penny’s longevity offsets its cost, we explore whether its declining use and low purchasing power make it more of a burden than a benefit.Jadrian came into the discussion in favor of keeping the penny, but Matt’s strongest argument centers on opportunity cost. Cash transactions that involve pennies take extra time, whether it’s customers counting out exact change or cashiers handling small coins. Over millions of transactions, those extra seconds add up, creating unnecessary delays. But how would eliminating the penny work in practice? We look at Canada’s approach, where cash transactions are rounded to the nearest five cents while electronic payments remain unchanged. Sometimes people lose a couple of cents, but other times they gain a few when prices round in their favor—ultimately balancing out over time, with neither businesses nor consumers consistently losing money.Supporters of keeping the penny argue that small change still plays a role in charitable giving, with organizations like the Salvation Army and Ronald McDonald House benefiting from coin donations. There’s also concern about how eliminating the penny might impact unbanked individuals who rely more on cash transactions. Would removing it create an extra burden for these groups, or would the shift be minor, given the overall decline in physical currency use? Beyond cash transactions, we also consider the broader implications of eliminating the penny—especially whether it pushes the U.S. further toward a cashless economy. While digital payments continue to grow, many people still rely on cash for everyday purchases. Would this be a small step toward phasing out more coins or just a long-overdue efficiency move? We leave the question open for debate.This week’s pop culture references:Matt connected this week’s discussion to the musical Half a Sixpence, which includes a lyric about half a sixpence being better than half a penny. While that line fits thematically, the song with the strongest economic lesson (according to Matt) is Money to Burn:Matt also pointed out another Broadway connection—Hello, Dolly! features Penny in My Pocket, a song performed by David Hyde Pierce in the show's revival.Jadrian was stumped at first but eventually brought up a scene from The Terminal with Tom Hanks. While Hanks’ character isn’t collecting pennies, he finds a way to make extra money by returning abandoned luggage carts to reclaim the deposit. It’s a clever reminder that coins still have monetary value, but the opportunity cost of retrieving a quarter—or a penny—might not always be worth the effort. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit econhappyhour.substack.com
Ever wonder what a professor's schedule really looks like? In this episode, Matt and Jadrian lift the hood on the academic calendar, from the chaotic first weeks of the semester to the ebb and flow of research, teaching, and service. Matt also shares his early experiences on sabbatical—how it compares to summer break, whether he misses teaching, and how he's spending his time. Plus, we dream up the ultimate sponsored professor title (Jersey Mike’s, call us!).In this episode, we discuss:* Why the first two weeks are the busiest for professors.* How teaching, research, and service are balanced throughout the academic year.* The difference between a faculty schedule and an administrator's schedule* What a sabbatical really looks like—is it just a long vacation? (Spoiler: No.)* 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:This episode didn’t start smoothly, as Jadrian spilled his beer right in the middle of Matt’s introduction. Perhaps that’s a metaphor for the start of the semester? We’re in the first few weeks of a new semester, so things are a little chaotic. Jadrian was drinking (and spilling) a Busted Knuckle Porter from Quaff On! Brewing Company, which was probably a gift from our friend, Tim. Matt is still in the middle of Damp January, so he went with a Run Wild IPA from Athletic Brewing. He does have a back-up beer from his most recent trip to Morgantown, WV.So, what does a professor’s work schedule really look like? Contrary to popular belief, it’s not just teaching a few classes and taking summers off. In this episode, we break down the ebb and flow of an academic year, highlighting the busiest times, the quieter stretches, and the unique balance of teaching, research, and service. From prepping for new courses to dealing with an avalanche of student emails, the first few weeks of the semester can feel overwhelming. Professors don’t just show up and lecture—there’s a significant amount of behind-the-scenes work that keeps everything running smoothly.For many faculty members, the job isn’t a steady 9-to-5. Workloads spike at the start of the semester when students are adding and dropping courses, figuring out their schedules, and (sometimes) realizing they need to buy the textbook. The middle of the semester might offer some breathing room, but then come grading-heavy periods and the rush to finish research projects before conference deadlines. Administrators like department chairs and deans experience different cycles, often seeing a surge in work before classes start and during registration periods, while faculty members feel the most pressure during midterms and finals.Sabbaticals offer a rare opportunity to step back from teaching and focus entirely on research and writing. But do professors actually miss the classroom when they’re away from it? Matt shares his early thoughts on his sabbatical experience—how it compares to a typical semester, whether he finds himself missing student interactions, and how he’s using the time to explore new projects. The flexibility to dive deep into research without constant administrative tasks or emails is refreshing, but will that feeling last for the whole semester?Before we wrapped up the episode, we wanted to make sure to talk about one of the biggest unseen parts of a professor’s job—emails. The sheer volume of messages from students, colleagues, and administrators can be overwhelming. The expectation of quick responses, even for questions that could be answered with a quick look at the syllabus (or Canvas), eats into valuable time that could be spent on teaching or research. This week’s pop culture references:Jadrian has launched a new project with John Kruggel, surveying students on their familiarity with different TV shows. The goal? To highlight that even the most popular shows still have plenty of people who have never seen them. Take The Office, for example. While it’s widely loved, the survey results show that 14% of students don’t really know much about it.This is an important lesson for instructors looking to use pop culture references in class—rather than relying on a show’s overall popularity, it's better to focus on whether a specific clip effectively illustrates an economic concept on its own.Matt is teaming up with Mike Enz to launch a YouTube series exploring economic concepts in The White Lotus. With the new season dropping right after the Super Bowl, they’ll be breaking down key scenes from past episodes to highlight economic ideas at play—specifically by economist Steven Levitt on flipping a coin to make big decisions.Thanks for reading and please subscribe for regular updates from us! This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit econhappyhour.substack.com
Regular listeners will know we love teaching economics, but Matt and Jadrian are also researchers! In this episode of Economics Happy Hour, Matt asks Jadrian about some of his research on sports economics. The two discuss the impact of geographic location on sports team attendance, drawing insights from research on Major League Soccer, and explore the relationship between college sports and binge drinking, analyzing how March Madness affects student alcohol consumption. The results are fascinating as is the field of sports economics in general.In this episode, we discuss:* How proximity between sports teams affects attendance in Major League Soccer.* The connection between college sports participation and student binge drinking.* Applying behavioral economics (loss aversion) to improve student performance.* Reflections on career paths in economics research and teaching.* 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:We recorded this episode in the middle of December so that we could take some time off for winter break, but you’re hearing this (assuming you’re listening when it comes out) in the middle of January. We recorded this just a few minutes after we wrapped up our last episode on goals for 2025, which means the drink options are a little different than normal. When we record back-to-back, we try to have a non-alcoholic drink for the second recording. Jadrian went with an Electro-Lime Cerca de Cerveza from Best Day Brewing and Matt went with Run Wild IPA by Athletic Brewing Company.This episode week, Matt and Jadrian decided to spend some time talking about some of Jadrian’s past research projects. Even though he is a teaching faculty member, he is still actively involved in research in both the economics of sports and teaching economics. The conversation kicked off with a discussion on the location of new teams in a league, using the expansion of Major League Soccer from 1996 to 2010. Jadrian shares insights from his research on how placing teams closer together can actually boost attendance, countering a common assumption that neighboring sports franchises selling a similar product are substitutes for each other. Why is this? The thought is that multiple teams in an area creates rivalries which boosts excitement by more than the supply capacity, resulting in higher overall. Further, it’s easy to travel to a road game when the opposing team is close to you!The next paper was a mix of public health and sports economics. Jadrian joined Dusty White and Ben Cowan to examine how the post-season college basketball tournament impacts binge drinking on college campuses. Perhaps not surprisingly, alcohol consumption increases significantly when among students whose school’s basketball team advances in the tournament. Our goal wasn’t to prove that college students drink while watching sports, but rather to explore the broader public health implications of sports on college campuses. Lastly, we chatted about how behavioral economics concepts could be used in an education setting, specifically how loss aversion—framing grades as something students can lose rather than gain—affects academic performance. Most of the co-authors on this paper were graduate students at Washington State, where the idea was first hatched. The actual results, however, came from classes taught at the University of Nebraska Omaha. Using loss aversion as the grading policy may have resulted in final scores in the experiment, but it also resulted in lower faculty evaluations. The authors used it as a reminder that there are challenges to balancing learning outcomes with student satisfaction.As the conversation wrapped up, Jadrian also reflected on the evolution of his research agenda. While he still enjoys using pop culture to make economics engaging, he’s shifting his attention toward work that has a broader impact on the profession. Rather than simply providing another example of how current events can be incorporated into a lesson, he wants to encourage more faculty to critically examine their teaching approaches. This week’s pop culture references:Matt shared an interview he recently did with Dan Kuester about The Economics of The Office, focusing on the infamous "Schrute Bucks." In the episode, Dwight introduces his own currency system as an incentive program for employees, but not everyone buys into it. Their conversation dives into why some people accept the new currency while others reject it, providing a fun and relatable way to discuss the fundamental principles of money, trust, and incentives in economics.Jadrian shared his work on using sports to teach economics, highlighting a recent contribution to a handbook on teaching sports economics edited by Victor Matheson and Aju Fenn. One of his chapters, co-authored with Dusty again, focuses on teaching economics through Moneyball. The film offers a wealth of clips that illustrate key economic concepts, making it a valuable resource for principles courses. From opportunity cost to data-driven decision-making, Moneyball provides engaging examples that help bring economic theories to life in the classroom. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit econhappyhour.substack.com