I (narrowly) declined starting an econ PhD in 2018... I would have been roughly in the middle of this mess. #1010983
Very grateful I went with my rebellious non-establishment spirit and went elsewhere
This is pretty damning, too (but there were plenty of decent economists speaking up at the time):
first the confident insistence that government spending wouldn’t fuel inflation, then the soothing claim that inflation was merely “transitory,” and finally the outright gaslighting that prices weren’t rising at all. Each step was wrong, and each was delivered with smug certainty. Ordinary people—who watched their rent, groceries, and gas bills skyrocket—saw a profession more invested in protecting Democratic policy narratives than in telling the truth. The result is a self-inflicted torching of trust.
Clearly, you made the right call for yourself, especially given that you seem to have entered a masters program.
Most of the US PhD programs are masters inclusive and pay a stipend, which a masters only student wouldn't generally receive. You can leave those programs after receiving a masters degree, so the difference is whether or not you paid or got paid.
It also doesn't have to take six or more years. I finished in less than that without giving it maximum effort the entire time. People take that long because it's a fairly pleasant lifestyle and there are always improvements to make on one's work.
To the last point, as with much of society, the crime is silence. Most economists aren't regime apologists (they aren't opponents either), but they give cover to those who are by not publicly refuting their claims.
Often times what stops a PhD from graduating in 5 years instead of 6+ is their own neuroticism. If they insisted to their advisor that they want to finish up, and plan to go into industry, I doubt many advisors would stop them.
Most economists aren't regime apologists
Most PhD economists are wonks who don't think much about politics or policy at all, except when they're asked by seminar participants about their "policy implications", where they then make up something half baked.1 I think many would just be content to dick around with mathematical models and cute little data tricks all day.
Despite the job market challenges, I still think that the economist's training is pretty well equipped for the age of AI, since it integrates knowledge across a lot of domains and has broad applicability.
Footnotes
My favorite was when someone's research showed that exposure to immigrants improves feelings towards immigrants. When asked about policy implications, he said that the authorities should allocate migrants to neighborhoods based on pre-existing migrant shares... ↩
I still think that the economist's training is pretty well equipped for the age of AI
I think so too. Literally, no one else spends as much time thinking about how to remove bias as econometricians and I don't think there's anyway to avoid massive bias problems in AI models.
I think right now whichever professions are disproportionately employed by the feds are having the worst job markets.
There are certainly a lot of economists who work for the feds and I imagine a bunch of them took the various buyouts or were terminated.
Normally there's something like a thousand economists on the job market, right? So, if there are even a hundred former feds on the market, it's a lot to absorb.
Footnotes