Remember those warnings of an economic apocalypse in Seattle as the minimum wage was raised up to $15-16 per hour? Mark J. Perry was at the forefront of this (faulty) thesis. Having to teach Contemporary Public Affairs this semester, I was moved to return to this debate.

Here’re two figures to refresh memories about what happened.

Figure 1: Minimum wage per hour in Seattle for Schedule 1 (dark blue) and for Schedule 2 (tan), and Federal (green). NBER defined peak-to-trough recession dates shaded gray. Source: BLS, and City of Seattle, NBER, and author’s calculations..

Figure 2: Minimum wage in 2020$ per hour in Seattle for Schedule 1 (dark blue) and for Schedule 2 (tan), and Federal (green). NBER defined peak-to-trough recession dates shaded gray. Source: BLS, BLS, City of Seattle, NBER and author’s calculations.

From Jardim et al., “Minimum-Wage Increases and Low-Wage Employment: Evidence from Seattle,” American Economic Journal: Economic Policy 14(2) (May 2022):

Seattle raised its minimum wage to as much as $11 in 2015 and as much as $13 in 2016. We use Washington State administrative data to conduct two complementary analyses of its impact. Relative to outlying regions of the state identified by the synthetic control method, aggregate employment at wages less than twice the original minimum—measured by total hours worked—declined. A portion of this reduction reflects jobs transitioning to wages above the threshold; the aggregate analysis likely overstates employment effects. Longitudinal analysis of individual Seattle workers matched to counterparts in outlying regions reveals no change in the probability of continued employment but significant reductions in hours, particularly for less experienced workers. Job turnover declined, as did hiring of new workers into low-wage jobs. Analyses suggest aggregate employment elasticities in the range of −0.2 to −2.0, concentrated on the intensive margin in the short run and largest among inexperienced workers.

Previous post on this subject, here.

Read More

I’ve been primarily an experimental chemist – the kind of person who goes into the laboratory and mixes and stirs chemicals – since the beginning of my career in 1965. Today, and for the past 15 years, I’m a full-time historian of chemistry.

Every October, when the announcements are made of that year’s Nobel laureates, I examine the results as a chemist. And all too often, I share the same response as many of my fellow chemists: “Who are they? And what did they do?”

One reason for that bewilderment – and disappointment – is that in many recent years, none of my “favorites” or those of my fellow chemists will travel to Stockholm. I am not suggesting that these Nobel laureates are undeserving – quite the opposite. Rather, I am questioning whether some of these awards belong within the discipline of chemistry.

Consider some recent Nobel Prizes. In 2020, Emmanuelle Charpentier and Jennifer A. Doudna received the Nobel Prize “for the development of a method for genome editing.” In 2018, Frances H. Arnold received the Nobel Prize “for the directed evolution of enzymes,” which she shared with George P. Smith and Sir Gregory P. Winter “for the phage display of peptides and antibodies.” In 2015, Tomas Lindahl, Paul Modrich and Aziz Sancar received the Nobel Prize “for mechanistic studies of DNA repair.”

All of them received Nobel Prizes in chemistry – not the Nobel Prize in physiology or medicine, even though these achievements seem very clearly situated within the disciplines of medicine and the life sciences. There are many other similar examples.

These recent mismatches are even clearer when you look further back in time. Consider the 1962 Nobel Prize awarded to Francis Crick, James Watson and Maurice Wilkins “for their discoveries concerning the molecular structure of nucleic acids and its significance for information transfer in living material.” DNA, of course, is the most famous nucleic acid, and these three scientists were honored for deciphering how its atoms are bonded together and arranged in their three-dimensional double-helix shape.

While the “structure of DNA” most certainly is an achievement in chemistry, the Nobel Assembly at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm awarded the Nobel Prize in physiology or medicine to Watson, Crick and Wilkins. Clearly, their Nobel achievements have had great consequences in the life sciences, genetics and medicine. Thus awarding them the Nobel Prize for physiology or medicine is quite appropriate.

But note the disconnect. The Nobel Prizes in chemistry in 2020, 2018 and 2015 are more life-science- and medicine-oriented than Watson, Crick and Wilkins’ for the structure of DNA. Yet the former were awarded in chemistry, while the latter was in physiology and medicine.

What is going on? What does this trend reveal about the Nobel Foundation and its award strategies in response to the growth of science?

A gradual evolution in the Nobel Prizes

Several years ago, chemist-historian-applied mathematician Guillermo Restrepo and I collaborated to study the relationship of scientific discipline to the Nobel Prize.

Each year, the Nobel Committee for chemistry studies the nominations and proposes the recipients of the Nobel Prize in chemistry to its parent organization, the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, which ultimately selects the Nobel laureates in chemistry (and physics).

We found a strong correlation between the disciplines of the members of the committee and the disciplines of the awardees themselves. Over the lifetime of the Nobel Prizes, there has been a continuous increase – from about 10% in the 1910s to 50% into the 2000s – in the percentage of committee members whose research is best identified within the life sciences.

Restrepo and I concluded: As go the expertise, interests and the disciplines of the committee members, so go the disciplines honored by the Nobel Prizes in chemistry. We also concluded that the academy has intentionally included more and more life scientists on their selection committee for chemistry.

Now some perceptive readers might ask, “Is not the discipline of biochemistry just a subdiscipline of chemistry?” The underlying question is, “How does one define the disciplines in science?”

Restrepo and I reasoned that what we term “intellectual territory” defines the boundaries of a discipline. Intellectual territory can be assessed by bibliographic analysis of the scientific literature. We examined the references, often called citations, that are found in scientific publications. These references are where authors of journal articles cite the related research that’s previously been published – often the research they have relied and built on. We chose to study two journals: a chemistry journal named Angewandte Chemie and a life science journal named, rather aptly, Biochemistry.

We found that the articles in Angewandte Chemie mostly cite articles published in other chemistry journals, and the articles in Biochemistry mostly cite articles in biochemistry and life sciences journals. We also found that the reverse is true: Scientific publications that cite Angewandte Chemie articles are mostly in chemistry journals, and publications that cite Biochemistry articles are mostly in biochemistry and life science journals. In other words, chemistry and the life sciences/biochemistry reside in vastly different intellectual territories that don’t tend to overlap much.

Not letting labels be limiting

But now, perhaps a shocker. Many scientists don’t really care how they are classified by others. Scientists care about science.

As I’ve heard Dudley Herschbach, recipient of the 1986 Nobel Prize in chemistry, respond to the oft-asked question of whether he’s an experimental chemist or a theoretical chemist: “The molecules don’t know, nor do they care, do they?”

But scientists, like all human beings, do care about recognition and awards. And so, chemists do mind that the Nobel Prize in chemistry has morphed into the Nobel Prize in chemistry and the life sciences.

Since the Nobel Prizes were first awarded in 1901, the community of scientists and the number of scientific disciplines have grown tremendously. Even today, new disciplines are being created. New journals are appearing. Science is becoming more multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary. Even chemistry as a discipline has grown dramatically, pushing outward its own scholarly boundaries, and chemistry’s achievements continue to be astounding.

The Nobel Prize hasn’t evolved sufficiently with the times. And there just are not enough Nobel Prizes to go around to all the deserving.

I can imagine an additional Nobel Prize for the life sciences. The number of awardees could expand from the current three-per-prize maximum to whatever fits the accomplishment. Nobel Prizes could be awarded posthumously to make up for past serious omissions, an option that was used by the Nobel Foundation for several years and then discontinued.

In truth, the Nobel Foundation has evolved the prizes, but very deliberately and without the major transformations that I think will certainly be required in the future. It will, I believe, eventually break free, figuratively and literally, from the mire of Alfred Nobel’s will and more than a century of distinguished tradition.

When Nobel designed the prizes named after him in the late 1800s and early 1900s, he couldn’t have known that his gift would become a perpetual endowment and have such lasting – indeed, even increasing – significance. Nobel also could not have anticipated the growth of science, nor the fact that over time, some disciplines would fade in importance and new disciplines would evolve.

So far, the extremely competent and highly dedicated scholars at the Nobel Foundation and their partner organizations – and I acknowledge with real appreciation their selfless devotion to the cause – haven’t responded adequately to the growth of the sciences or to the inequities and even incompleteness of past award years. But I have confidence: In time, they will do so.

Jeffrey I. Seeman does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Read More

Often roasted for his metaverse tech demos, Zuckerberg appears to have blown away internet users with his latest avatar tech.

While critics have been busy writing eulogies for Meta’s metaverse dream over the last few years, Mark Zuckerberg’s latest demonstration of its photorealistic avatars shows it could be pretty far from dead after all.

Appearing on a Sept. 28 episode of the Lex Fridman podcast, Zuckerberg and the popular computer scientist engaged in a one-hour face-to-face conversation. Only, it wasn’t actually in person at all.

Instead, the entirety of Fridman and Zuckerberg’s conversation used photorealistic realistic avatars in the metaverse, facilitated through Meta’s Quest 3 headsets and noise-canceling headphones.

Here's my conversation with Mark Zuckerberg, his 3rd time on the podcast, but this time we talked in the Metaverse as photorealistic avatars. This was one of the most incredible experiences of my life. It really felt like we were talking in-person, but we were miles apart It's… pic.twitter.com/Nu8a3iYWm0

— Lex Fridman (@lexfridman) September 28, 2023

Observers often have fun ridiculing Meta for dumping billions of dollars into metaverse research only to seemingly produce cartoonish avatars and wonky-looking legs.

However, in this case, users on social media, including those from Crypto Twitter, seemed to be genuinely impressed by the sophistication of the technology.

The Metaverse has upgraded pic.twitter.com/QT1LAkjQGB

— Dexerto (@Dexerto) September 28, 2023

“Ok the metaverse is officially real,” wrote pseudonymous account Gaut, a rare moment of seemingly genuine praise from a user typically known for his satirical and sarcastic takes on current events.

“9 minutes into Lex / Mark metaverse podcast I forgot I was watching avatars,” wrote coder Jelle Prins.

Fridman alsoshared his impressions of the experience in real-time, noting how “close” Zuckerberg felt to him during the interview. Moments later, he explained how difficult it was to recognize that Zuckerberg’s avatar wasn’t his physical body.

“I’m already forgetting that you’re not real.”

The technology on display is the newest version of Codec Avatars. First revealed in 2019, Codec Avatars is one of Meta’s longest-running research projects which aims to create fully photorealistic real-time avatars that work by way of headsets with face tracking sensors.

Related: Meta refutes claims of copyright infringement in AI training

However, users may need to wait a few years before donning their own realistic avatars, said Zuckerberg, explaining that the tech used requires expensive machine learning software and full head scans by specialized equipment featuring more than 100 different cameras.

This would be, at the very least, three years away from being available to everyday consumers, he said.

Still, Zuckerberg noted that the company wants to reduce the barriers as much as possible, explaining that in the future, these scans may be achievable with a regular smartphone.

The most-recent demonstration comes just one day after Meta unveiled its answer to ChatGPT, revealing its newest AI assistant Meta AI, which is integrated across a range of unique chatbots, apps and even smart glasses.

AI Eye: Real uses for AI in crypto, Google’s GPT-4 rival, AI edge for bad employees

Read More