RT @MarkMuro1: If #AI matters hugely for productivity and ec gains, it matters who is "ready" to adopt it. That's the point of our new @Br….

Why focus on state fiscal benefits? In ideal world, key issue is how total economic/social benefits compare with costs. But in current situation, with states facing significant budget pressures, we need more analyses that focus on budget effects.

Bottom line: moving to universal pre-K would cost Michigan over $500 million/year. But fiscal benefits over $350 million/year. Not free, but net budget costs far less than sticker price.

some women making different career decisions anticipating later availability of universal pre-K.

Why such high fiscal benefits? Jackson/Turner/Bastian find that universal pre-K has labor force participation rate effects over 3 times direct effect on women with young kids. They attribute this to univ pre-K relieving sme women of informal care, & . .

Using my regional econometric model, this paper uses results in great recent paper on universal pre-K by @KiraboJackson , @jaturner73 , & @JacobBastian25 :

I have new short paper estimating fiscal benefits of Michigan moving to universal pre-K. Key finding: fiscal benefits cover 2/3rds of gross budget costs.

RT @equitablegrowth: As part of our #EGEssaySeries, @TimBartik explores how best to target distressed places with effective job creation pr….

RT @civicanalytics: More good work here from @TimBartik @UpjohnInstitute.

Cost/ job can be kept low by emphasizing business customized services over business tax incentives. Housing supply elasticities key to benefit-cost ratio of ANY local economic development program. & skill spillovers can make grow your own or skill attraction programs work well.

Presentation can be found here:

More broadly, I do think that 3 key reasons for TR working are generalizable: (1) Keep costs per job low; (2) accommodate pop growth with housing supply; (3) exploit skill spillovers. I went into this in presentation I made in Tulsa on this study earlier this month.

TR also benefitted from start in 2018, just before pandemic increased remote work. In addition, for Tulsa, remote worker attraction made a lot of sense given that community does not have major research university, so growing high-tech skills on own is more challenging.

Should everyone do remote worker attraction? Tulsa Remote benefitted from generous private financing of not just $10K moving subsidy, but support services to encourage community integration & entrepreneurship. Hhave funded over 3,000 moves. This generous model is key.

Fiscal benefits mean that in LR, Tulsa Remote pays for itself. In short-run (5 years), Tulsa Remote covers 2/3rds of costs.

The resulting benefits for Tulsa Remote are about half fiscal benefits, and half labor market benefits. Fiscal benefits are increased tax base minus needed spending to keep public service quality constant. Labor market benefits are higher employment rates and real wages.

Skill spillovers conserervatively yield one-sixth of program benefits, & maybe as much as one-third.

(3) 3rd reason program works: Tulsa Remote has multiplier effects both through ordinary demand effects (Remoters buying stuff locally) & via skill spillovers: Remoters helping other workers be more productive, attracting job growth, & starting up businesses.

W/ estimated Tulsa housing supply elasticities, benefit-cost ratio of program is 4.3 to 1. If we instead assumed San Francisco restrictions on housing supply, benefit-cost ratio turns negative. If Tulsa housing supply was perfectly elastic, benefit cost ratio almost doubles.

(2) 2nd reason program works: Tulsa has relatively elastic housing supply. As a results, the job and pop growth effects of Tulsa Remote do not result in huge increases in local housing prices and other local costs, which would squeeze out other jobs.