Lightnews — Scholar-powered news

Reposted by Liz Ananat

Tatyana Deryugina @tderyugina.bsky.social · Aug 29

Update: we are at 379 signatures in support of Lisa Cook and Fed independence!

The letter be open for signatures through Sun. (Link to sign at the top).

If you are on X or listservs, please spread the word there!

docs.google.com/document/d/1...

Open letter

Click here to add your signature. An Open Letter from Economists in Support of Governor Lisa Cook and Federal Reserve Independence To the President, Members of Congress, and the American public: We wr...

docs.google.com

1 24 45

Reposted by Liz Ananat

Prof Dynarski @dynarski.bsky.social · Aug 31

I signed an open letter from economists supporting Fed independence & Governor Lisa Cook

Letter: docs.google.com/document/d/1...

Add your name by Monday: docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1F...

Open letter

Click here to add your signature. An Open Letter from Economists in Support of Governor Lisa Cook and Federal Reserve Independence To the President, Members of Congress, and the American public: We wr...

docs.google.com

4 150 570

Reposted by Liz Ananat

Trevon Logan @trevondlogan.bsky.social · Aug 31

I signed an open letter from economists supporting Fed independence & Gov. Lisa Cook. Add your name by Monday: docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1F... |

Letter: docs.google.com/document/d/1...

Signature page for Open Letter of Support of Governor Lisa Cook and Federal Reserve Independence

By filling out the form below, you are asking your signature to be added to this open letter.

docs.google.com

21 63

Reposted by Liz Ananat

Lauren Bauer @laurenhlb.bsky.social · Jun 10

@tmmcmillan.bsky.social has a new must-read piece on SNAP and work requirements. While her characterization of the evidence is both accurate and awesome, her story and the stories of other participants matter more. Let's all act in good faith.

Gift article:

www.nytimes.com/2025/06/10/o...

7 11

Reposted by Liz Ananat

Justin Wolfers @justinwolfers.bsky.social · Jun 5

Watch me scramble in real time as I try to find the economic angle on the Musk-Trump tiff.

(I think I found one, and the issues it highlights are terrifyingly important.)

28 230 880

Reposted by Liz Ananat

Jay Shambaugh @jaycshambaugh.bsky.social · Jun 3

Seems like if we want to increase a culture of work etc etc, this might be more promising than taking food benefits away from 60 year olds or parents of 9 year olds. Of course funding things like this wouldn’t open up budgetary space for tax cuts for rich people.

Jacob Bastian @jacobbastian.bsky.social · Jun 3

New research w/ @kirabojackson.bsky.social & @julia-turner.bsky.social on NBER homepage

“Universal Pre-K across 9 states & cities increased LFP by 0.8 pp, employment by 0.9 pp, & weekly hours worked by 0.42, with strongest effects for moms. Each $1 spent on UPK generated >$3 in additional earnings”

1 13 48

Reposted by Liz Ananat

Jacob Wallace @jacobwswallace.bsky.social · Jun 2

Ok folks, we know work requirements reduce benefits without increasing work (cc: @chloeneast.bsky.social)

But who loses benefits and what happens if work requirements are reversed?

New evidence from linked SNAP-Medicaid data and a natural experiment in CT tell a concerning story...

Thread below 👇

SNAP work requirements have biggest effect on those least able to work

Most people pushed out of SNAP in Connecticut didn’t find their way back in, even when work requirements were later reversed.

tobin.yale.edu

4 110 170

Reposted by Liz Ananat

Don Moynihan @donmoyn.bsky.social · May 30

New from @chloeneast.bsky.social at Can We Still Govern:
AEI cited her work to make the case for SNAP work requirements. Chloe explains that her and other research show that work requirements reduce SNAP access while doing nothing for employment outcomes.
donmoynihan.substack.com/p/what-aei-g...

What AEI Gets Wrong about SNAP Work Requirements

They cited my research, so let me respond!

donmoynihan.substack.com

11 130 360

Reposted by Liz Ananat

Don Moynihan @donmoyn.bsky.social · May 30

The recurring theme of work requirements is that they hurt people who are working or looking for work.
Worse, the requirements make it impossible for some workers, such as those in the service sector with irregular hours. From @lizananat.bsky.social www.hamiltonproject.org/publication/...

chart showing that service workers have more irregular hours inconsistent with work reporting requirements

1 15 51

Reposted by Liz Ananat

Chloe N East (she/her) @chloeneast.bsky.social · May 30

I respond to AEI’s mischaracterization of three of my papers

AND

discuss the clear evidence that work requirements don’t increase work, but do reduce food assistance for households that need it.

Don Moynihan @donmoyn.bsky.social · May 30

New from @chloeneast.bsky.social at Can We Still Govern:
AEI cited her work to make the case for SNAP work requirements. Chloe explains that her and other research show that work requirements reduce SNAP access while doing nothing for employment outcomes.
donmoynihan.substack.com/p/what-aei-g...

What AEI Gets Wrong about SNAP Work Requirements

They cited my research, so let me respond!

donmoynihan.substack.com

5 56 150

Reposted by Liz Ananat

The Hamilton Project @hamiltonproject.org · May 28

Who do work requirements penalize? @lizananat.bsky.social‬, ‪@agpines.bsky.social‬, and Olivia Howard offer findings on low-income service sector workers whose unpredictable work hours are largely driven by their employers and not by choice. www.brookings.edu/articles/wor...

5 7

Reposted by Liz Ananat

Trevon Logan @trevondlogan.bsky.social · May 27

As @lizananat.bsky.social shows here, work requirements are unrelated to the jobs poor families depend on to survive. The result: one third of eligible service workers would get kicked off of programs with work requirements because of high volatility in the number of hours worked in service jobs.

Liz Ananat @lizananat.bsky.social · May 27

Combined, these sources of volatility mean that nearly 1 in 3 service workers in households with children *who meet or exceed 80 work hours/month* over the course of the year would fall short of the work requirement in at least one month–and get kicked off basic needs programs: 8/8

4 9

Reposted by Liz Ananat

Pam Herd @pamherd.bsky.social · May 27

Critical point: The legislation is designed to kick people off Medicaid because it ignores the reality that low-wage jobs have highly variable hours--and they can't control that.

Liz Ananat @lizananat.bsky.social · May 27

Each year, the bill would kick off 1 in 3 parents who work 80+ hours per month in the most common low-wage jobs *even if they manage to fill out the paperwork*, our new research with w/Olivia Howard @hamiltonproject.org finds: www.brookings.edu/articles/wor...
2/n

Work requirements penalize workers in volatile occupations

Elizabeth Ananat, Anna Gassman-Pines, and Olivia Howard warn that work requirements, such as those Congress is currently considering adding or expanding in means-tested programs, penalize low-income w...

www.brookings.edu

6 82 180

Liz Ananat @lizananat.bsky.social · May 27

Inspired by your great work on hours volatility!

www.brookings.edu/articles/low...

Low-income workers experience—by far—the most earnings and work hours instability

Instability is a defining characteristic of low-income workers’ earnings and work hours.

www.brookings.edu

3 9

Reposted by Liz Ananat

Don Moynihan @donmoyn.bsky.social · May 27

Work requirements will trip some people up because they struggle with paperwork, but will by design hurt other people who work a lot but have unstable hours (thread)

Liz Ananat @lizananat.bsky.social · May 27

Each year, the bill would kick off 1 in 3 parents who work 80+ hours per month in the most common low-wage jobs *even if they manage to fill out the paperwork*, our new research with w/Olivia Howard @hamiltonproject.org finds: www.brookings.edu/articles/wor...
2/n

Work requirements penalize workers in volatile occupations

Elizabeth Ananat, Anna Gassman-Pines, and Olivia Howard warn that work requirements, such as those Congress is currently considering adding or expanding in means-tested programs, penalize low-income w...

www.brookings.edu

7 74 210

Liz Ananat @lizananat.bsky.social · May 27

Combined, these sources of volatility mean that nearly 1 in 3 service workers in households with children *who meet or exceed 80 work hours/month* over the course of the year would fall short of the work requirement in at least one month–and get kicked off basic needs programs: 8/8

4 18 49

Liz Ananat @lizananat.bsky.social · May 27

Turnover is also high in the service sector–and the bill does not allow work search by those between jobs to count as work effort: 7/n

1 7 47

Liz Ananat @lizananat.bsky.social · May 27

This volatility means that even someone who works on average throughout the year at well above the 80 hours/month required by the law is highly likely to have a “short” month and get kicked off basic needs programs: 6/n

2 13 52

Liz Ananat @lizananat.bsky.social · May 27

That’s despite how hard it is to raise a family on this type of work. Hours fluctuate enormously in these jobs–driven overwhelmingly by employers’ focus on meeting fluctuating customer demand with the lowest possible labor costs, not by workers’ preferences: 5/n

1 9 38

Liz Ananat @lizananat.bsky.social · May 27

And those aren’t just casual jobs held by young men who spend the rest of their time “playing video games”--in fact, service work has become more common for low-income families with school-age children than for any other group. 4/n

1 9 49

Liz Ananat @lizananat.bsky.social · May 27

That’s bc Congress fails to understand low-wage work today: The bill is designed as if low-wage workers are still pulling fixed shifts at a factory &should just sign up for more shifts–but in reality, low-wage workers are increasingly in jobs in the service sector (retail, food service, health) 3/n

1 8 49

Liz Ananat @lizananat.bsky.social · May 27

Each year, the bill would kick off 1 in 3 parents who work 80+ hours per month in the most common low-wage jobs *even if they manage to fill out the paperwork*, our new research with w/Olivia Howard @hamiltonproject.org finds: www.brookings.edu/articles/wor...
2/n

Work requirements penalize workers in volatile occupations

Elizabeth Ananat, Anna Gassman-Pines, and Olivia Howard warn that work requirements, such as those Congress is currently considering adding or expanding in means-tested programs, penalize low-income w...

www.brookings.edu

1 35 66

Liz Ananat @lizananat.bsky.social · May 27

New research from [email protected]

Congress is pushing work requirements for Medicaid&SNAP. You’ve heard these kick eligible folks off (@pamherd.bsky.social @donmoyn.bsky.social), don't increase work&cause hunger (@laurenhlb.bsky.social @chloeneast.bsky.social). But wait there's more! 1/n

5 31 66

Reposted by Liz Ananat

Aaron Sojourner @aaronsojourner.org · May 23

#priorities
It really is just that simple.

Binyamin Appelbaum @bcappelbaum.bsky.social · May 23

Republicans are seeking to take away health insurance from millions of Americans, and they are doing it to give billions of dollars in tax cuts to the wealthy.

www.nytimes.com/2025/05/23/o...

Opinion | Trump Promised Not to Cut Medicaid. Republicans Are Trying Anyway.

www.nytimes.com

1 9 46

Reposted by Liz Ananat

Stone Center for Inequality Dynamics @umichstonecid.bsky.social · Apr 9

ICYMI: Check out @lizananat.bsky.social Elizabeth Ananat’s, Mallya Professor of Women and Economics, Barnard College, presentation, “Schedule Volatility in Hourly Service Work: Evidence and Implications for Federal Income-Support Policies.” #academicsky
www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqwG...

Elizabeth Ananat: Schedule Volatility in Hourly Service Work

YouTube video by Stone Center for Inequality Dynamics

www.youtube.com

4 3