Individual Responses

June 2023 Survey:

Question A: A tax credit for low-income housing developers will significantly lower housing prices for low-income renters.

Economist Institution Opinion Confidence Comment
Jonathan Andreas Bluffton University Agree 5 Housing costs (particularly for starter homes) are higher now than they have been historically because of a supply problem. America just isn't making housing as fast as in the past, and this is especially true for affordable housing. I doubt this is the most cost-effective way to increase the supply of housing, but the best way is often politically infeasible and this should increase the supply of housing.
Bizuayehu Bedane Marietta College Agree 7
David Brasington University of Cincinnati Agree 7
Kenneth Fah Ohio Dominican University Uncertain 9
Nancy Haskell University of Dayton Agree 9
Faria Huq Lake Erie College Uncertain 5
Michael Jones University of Cincinnati Agree 5
Charles Kroncke Mount Saint Joseph University Strongly Disagree 9 Only if government mandates specific rental prices. Even then, I would expect developers to have a preference for market priced developments.
Trevon Logan Ohio State University Disagree 7
Diane Monaco Economics Professor Strongly Disagree 8 In the 2024-2025 Budget Proposal, the Ohio Republican supermajority autocrats slashed food and housing expenditures for the poor and children but have generous income and tax cuts for commercial developers. The May 2023 U.S. Census had estimated that 727,000 Ohioans before these diminished budget expenditures for the poor and children already didn't have enough to eat. This budget is a disgrace!
Michael Myler University of Mount Union Agree 8
Joe Nowakowski Muskingum University Agree 6
Curtis Reynolds Kent State University Uncertain 5 An increased supply of affordable housing would lower rents, but how much of a tax credit would be required and whether that is the best use of resources is less clear
Lewis Sage Baldwin Wallace University Disagree 8
Dean Snyder Antioch College Agree 5
Kay Strong Independent Strongly Disagree 10
Ejindu Ume Miami University Agree 8
Kathryn Wilson Kent State University Agree 6 I believe it will lower housing prices, although I don't know that the reduction will be "significantly lower"
Rachel Wilson Wittenberg University Agree 8 If we increase the supply it should lower prices.

Question B: A tax credit for low-income housing developers will grow the economy.

Economist Institution Opinion Confidence Comment
Jonathan Andreas Bluffton University Disagree 7 I would strongly agree if we were in a recession, but unemployment is currently very low, so it is unlikely to have much effect on GDP. However, the meaning of life is not to grow the economy but to increase wellbeing (however you want to define that) and even though better housing (clothing, entertainment, relationships, ethics, freedom, etc.) may not grow the economy, they are still worth seeking for their own sake.
Bizuayehu Bedane Marietta College Uncertain 8
David Brasington University of Cincinnati Uncertain 10
Kenneth Fah Ohio Dominican University Uncertain 9
Nancy Haskell University of Dayton Uncertain 6
Faria Huq Lake Erie College Uncertain 5
Michael Jones University of Cincinnati Disagree 5
Charles Kroncke Mount Saint Joseph University Strongly Disagree 10 It is just moving money from tax payers to developers.
Trevon Logan Ohio State University Uncertain 8
Diane Monaco Economics Professor Strongly Disagree 8 In the 2024-2025 Budget Proposal, the Ohio Republican supermajority autocrats slashed food and housing expenditures for the poor and children but have generous income and tax cuts for commercial developers. The May 2023 U.S. Census had estimated that 727,000 Ohioans before these diminished budget expenditures for the poor and children already didn't have enough to eat. This budget is a disgrace!
Michael Myler University of Mount Union Agree 8
Joe Nowakowski Muskingum University Agree 6
Curtis Reynolds Kent State University Disagree 3
Lewis Sage Baldwin Wallace University Uncertain 4
Dean Snyder Antioch College Agree 7
Kay Strong Independent Strongly Disagree 10
Ejindu Ume Miami University Agree 6
Kathryn Wilson Kent State University Agree 7
Rachel Wilson Wittenberg University Agree 8 Housing equity is one of the first steps to building wealth. The wealth effect can stimulate spending.

Question C: A tax credit for low-income housing developers will reduce inequality.

Economist Institution Opinion Confidence Comment
Jonathan Andreas Bluffton University Agree 7 How much effect it will have on inequality will be determined by how effective it is at increasing the supply of affordable housing. I'd love to see it phased in as a RCT so we could try to estimate how effective it is as a model for the rest of the nation.
Bizuayehu Bedane Marietta College Agree 8
David Brasington University of Cincinnati Uncertain 10
Kenneth Fah Ohio Dominican University Uncertain 9
Nancy Haskell University of Dayton Agree 9
Faria Huq Lake Erie College Uncertain 5
Michael Jones University of Cincinnati Uncertain 5
Charles Kroncke Mount Saint Joseph University Disagree 8 A reduction in inequality can only be achieved by reducing government corruption that favors wealthy developers.
Trevon Logan Ohio State University Uncertain 8
Diane Monaco Economics Professor Strongly Disagree 8 In the 2024-2025 Budget Proposal, the Ohio Republican supermajority autocrats slashed food and housing expenditures for the poor and children but have generous income and tax cuts for commercial developers. The May 2023 U.S. Census had estimated that 727,000 Ohioans before these diminished budget expenditures for the poor and children already didn't have enough to eat. This budget is a disgrace!
Michael Myler University of Mount Union No Opinion 5 This depends on how you define inequality. If more low-income households own a house rather than renting an apartment, is that a reduction in inequality?
Joe Nowakowski Muskingum University Uncertain 6
Curtis Reynolds Kent State University Agree 5
Lewis Sage Baldwin Wallace University Uncertain 4
Dean Snyder Antioch College Agree 4
Kay Strong Independent Strongly Disagree 10
Ejindu Ume Miami University Agree 7
Kathryn Wilson Kent State University Strongly Agree 8
Rachel Wilson Wittenberg University Agree 6 The country needs more housing fast. Communities that proactively respond and embrace these changes will reap benefit in the years to come. City governments and planners must consider how to partner with builders and incentivize them to build. In addition, communities need to be flexible and approve multifamily units and consider housing co-ops to achieve economies of scale.

May 2023 Survey:

Question A: Merit based scholarships for Ohio high school students who attend college in Ohio will increase retention of human capital for Ohio's workforce.

Economist Institution Opinion Confidence Comment
Jonathan Andreas Bluffton University Agree 5 Research shows that getting students to attend college in a region leads to positive spillovers that stay in the region, but I don't know if the payoff would be worth the cost. It would probably be more effective to spend the money on loan forgiveness for students to remain as Ohio residents after graduation, but that would be best announced in advance so it doesn't just pay students who had already decided to stay in state without any additional incentive. Ideally, the loans should be sold to incoming students as grants that are only converted to loans if students leave the state to work within a set period of time.
Bizuayehu Bedane Marietta College Strongly Agree 9
David Brasington University of Cincinnati Strongly Agree 10 Studies show increased probability for university graduates to get jobs near where they graduate from
Kenneth Fah Ohio Dominican University Uncertain 10
Paul Holmes Ashland University Agree 5 I expect the merit-based scholarships to effect a very small increase in human capital retention for Ohio's workforce. A student planning to attend college out-of-state is unlikely to be swayed by this, but some would be. This debate should be informed by data: how many of the proposed recipients typically head out-of-state for college? It seems like this would be a blunt tool to effect a quite small difference.
Michael Jones University of Cincinnati Uncertain 8 This proposal will likely keep more students in Ohio, but perhaps at lower levels of human capital. Ohio high school students may be able to achieve higher levels of human capital by graduating from top universities located in other parts of the world.
Charles Kroncke Mount Saint Joseph University Uncertain 5
Diane Monaco Heidelberg University Strongly Agree 10 Ohio Republican Gov DeWine’s and the supermajority Autocratic Republication House’s proposed overall budget includes $2.8 billion for 2024 and $2.9 billion for 2025. But, but, but for the Ohio Dept of Education, that serves 635,000 students in Ohio, the overall budget ELIMINATES grant programs that help students with the greatest level of financial need beginning in 2024 onward through 2025! This is an atrocity for Ohio and Ohio’s public school system for no other reason than to further enact and solidify current Ohio Autocratic trend values and goals of “dumbing down” the superb public school educational system and the wonderful students it serves! Merit Based scholarships for Ohio high school students who attend college in Ohio would continue to increase retention in human capital for Ohio's workforce, would continue to have economic benefits greater than the costs, and would continue to decrease inequality in Ohio!
Joe Nowakowski Muskingum University Agree 8
Curtis Reynolds Kent State University Uncertain 8 I am not sure how much this would actually keep high-performing students in state for college. Out-of-state tuition is much higher so some will stay in state anyways, but these are all high-performing students who may get scholarships anyway. Furthermore, it is not clear that they would stay AFTER college.
Kay Strong Independent Agree 9
Albert Sumell Youngstown State University Agree 8 I think it could have a marginal impact. If more top students stay in Ohio for college, it makes sense that some of these top students will also stay in Ohio post-graduation.
Ejindu Ume Miami University Agree 7
Kathryn Wilson Kent State University Strongly Agree 9 Keeping high-achievement students in Ohio for college is a good way to increase the likelihood that they ultimately become workers in the Ohio workforce.
Rachel Wilson Wittenberg University Agree 9

Question B: Merit based scholarships for Ohio high school students who attend college in Ohio will have economic benefits that outweigh costs.

Economist Institution Opinion Confidence Comment
Jonathan Andreas Bluffton University Uncertain 2 I tend to agree that it is a fine use of money, but whether it is the most cost effective depends upon what opportunity cost one is comparing it to and need-based aid is probably more cost effective because high-ability students who do not meet need-based requirements typically have low-elasticity demand whereas there are a lot of good, low-income students in the 50-90%ile who are not getting an education due to costs and wouldn't be eligible for this program.
Bizuayehu Bedane Marietta College Agree 9
David Brasington University of Cincinnati Agree 6 For STEM majors, sure; for folklore majors, less clear
Kenneth Fah Ohio Dominican University Uncertain 10
Paul Holmes Ashland University Uncertain 7 This is tricky to answer, because the scholarships aren't free: they need to be paid for either by increased (or not-decreased) taxes etc., or through decreased funding for other government-funded activities. Are merit-based scholarships a more effective tool (than alternatives) for the government to achieve economic improvement for the state as a whole? I personally doubt it, but I could be swayed by evidence.
Michael Jones University of Cincinnati Uncertain 5 It's unclear if Ohio's top universities will commit to expanding capacity to accommodate more students.
Charles Kroncke Mount Saint Joseph University Uncertain 5
Diane Monaco Heidelberg University Strongly Agree 10 Ohio Republican Gov DeWine’s and the supermajority Autocratic Republication House’s proposed overall budget includes $2.8 billion for 2024 and $2.9 billion for 2025. But, but, but for the Ohio Dept of Education, that serves 635,000 students in Ohio, the overall budget ELIMINATES grant programs that help students with the greatest level of financial need beginning in 2024 onward through 2025! This is an atrocity for Ohio and Ohio’s public school system for no other reason than to further enact and solidify current Ohio Autocratic trend values and goals of “dumbing down” the superb public school educational system and the wonderful students it serves! Merit Based scholarships for Ohio high school students who attend college in Ohio would continue to increase retention in human capital for Ohio's workforce, would continue to have economic benefits greater than the costs, and would continue to decrease inequality in Ohio!
Joe Nowakowski Muskingum University Agree 8
Curtis Reynolds Kent State University Agree 7 I think it is worthwhile to reduce the cost of college for students in a clear way. The current system is quite confusing because scholarships are given as part of admission, so students do not really know what types of schools they can afford to go to. This simple solution would make sense. Alternatively, the money could be spent in other ways to keep college costs down up front.
Kay Strong Independent Agree 9
Albert Sumell Youngstown State University Strongly Agree 9 Many studies have shown that investments that incentivize students to attend college are worthwhile.
Ejindu Ume Miami University Agree 8
Kathryn Wilson Kent State University Strongly Agree 9 Keeping these high-achieving students in the state will help the Ohio economy grow, benefiting not only Ohio businesses and residents, but ultimately increasing Ohio tax revenues as well.
Rachel Wilson Wittenberg University Agree 9

Question C: Merit based scholarships for Ohio high school students who attend college in Ohio will increase inequality in Ohio.

Economist Institution Opinion Confidence Comment
Jonathan Andreas Bluffton University Agree 8 Again, the answer depends upon the opportunity cost and my answer is in comparison to using the money for a need-based scholarship program for well-qualified prospective students. Purely merit-based aid increases inequality relative to need-based aid and is less efficient at the stated goals of increasing college attainment and keeping human capital in Ohio.
Bizuayehu Bedane Marietta College Disagree 9
David Brasington University of Cincinnati Agree 7 College graduates earn more than non-graduates, thus increasing inequality
Kenneth Fah Ohio Dominican University Uncertain 10
Paul Holmes Ashland University Agree 8 These benefits go to people who are likely to be high earners anyway.
Michael Jones University of Cincinnati Uncertain 5 What kind of inequality? Education levels? Wealth?
Charles Kroncke Mount Saint Joseph University Uncertain 6 A better option would be to lower tuition at State Universities.
Diane Monaco Heidelberg University Strongly Disagree 10 Ohio Republican Gov DeWine’s and the supermajority Autocratic Republication House’s proposed overall budget includes $2.8 billion for 2024 and $2.9 billion for 2025. But, but, but for the Ohio Dept of Education, that serves 635,000 students in Ohio, the overall budget ELIMINATES grant programs that help students with the greatest level of financial need beginning in 2024 onward through 2025! This is an atrocity for Ohio and Ohio’s public school system for no other reason than to further enact and solidify current Ohio Autocratic trend values and goals of “dumbing down” the superb public school educational system and the wonderful students it serves! Merit Based scholarships for Ohio high school students who attend college in Ohio would continue to increase retention in human capital for Ohio's workforce, would continue to have economic benefits greater than the costs, and would continue to decrease inequality in Ohio!
Joe Nowakowski Muskingum University Disagree 7
Curtis Reynolds Kent State University Agree 7 It depends on how they are designed. What was removed from the budget would be scholarships for the top 5% of students in each high school. That would reduce some of the inequalities that are inherent in our unconstitutional K-12 funding system (DeRolph v State of Ohio). But other versions could increase inequality if they just reinforce those underlying disparities.
Kay Strong Independent Uncertain 8
Albert Sumell Youngstown State University Uncertain 5 I doubt it would have an impact on inequality but I would need to research the empirical evidence on this in order to comment
Ejindu Ume Miami University Disagree 7
Kathryn Wilson Kent State University Uncertain 5 The award will go to those who graduate in the top 5% of their class, which includes the top 5% of students in lower-income school districts. While within any given school it is likely that the top 5% come from families with higher socioeconomic status, giving the scholarship across all the schools may not increase inequality as much as expected.
Rachel Wilson Wittenberg University Uncertain 6

April 2023 Survey:

Question A: The proposed income tax change will grow Ohio's economy.

Economist Institution Opinion Confidence Comment
Jonathan Andreas Bluffton University Strongly Disagree 9 This is merely shifting WHO pays taxes. It is NOT a reduction in the size of government. As Milton Friedman said, "To spend is to tax." This bill does not address spending at all so it does not change the mathematical requirement to tax.
Bizuayehu Bedane Marietta College Uncertain 9
David Brasington University of Cincinnati Agree 8 it will make local public services rely more on local taxation, and attract people and new businesses to the best-run municipalities
Kevin Egan University of Toledo Strongly Disagree 10 Ohio's state income tax rates right now vary from about 2.8% to 3.99%. Changing that to a flat 2.75% is a small change that will have no measurable impact on the growth of the economy. Moreover, people choose where to live based on a package of quality-of-life attributes, so a more important question is effectively using the tax dollars collected to enhance desirability of a location.
Kenneth Fah Ohio Dominican University Uncertain 9
Bob Gitter Ohio Wesleyan University Strongly Disagree 9 The reduced income tax will go mostly to high income individuals who spend a smaller share of their income than others while government expenditures will decrease. This will not help growth.
Nancy Haskell University of Dayton Uncertain 5
Paul Holmes Ashland University Disagree 8 Taxes for the wealthy are already historically low. Any 'job creation' they would do with this tax decrease, they're already doing. Instead, this will decrease funding for public services (education, emergency services etc.), which (if allowed to happen) would decrease Ohio GDP. Instead, what's likely is that taxes will increase on the poor and middle-class to make up these funding shortfalls. Make no mistake, this is a redistribution scheme, not a tax decrease.
Faria Huq Lake Erie College Uncertain 5
Michael Jones University of Cincinnati Strongly Agree 5
charles kroncke Mount Saint Joseph University Uncertain 5
Trevon Logan Ohio State University Uncertain 10
Diane Monaco Heidelberg University Strongly Disagree 10 Statehouses, Authoritarian methods and the Policies they push (Flat taxes) Flat taxes are REGRESSIVE which means a larger amount of income will be taken from those with lower incomes. Ohio currently has a PROGRESSIVE income tax with four brackets [3.99% the highest and 2.765% the lowest tax brackets]. With this proposed and pushed Republican Ohio House 1 Bill, the top highest income group will get 89% of the tax dollars – this is a regressive tax!!! It will NOT empower families and small businesses “to restart Ohio as the economic engine of the Midwest as it is being touted.” In fact, services such as police and fire protection will need to be CUT!! Local government and school districts are estimated to lose 1.2 billion dollars annually to pay for this regressive 2.75% flat tax with an accompanying property tax DECREASE within Ohio HB 1 where property taxes are also REGRESSIVE. Many statehouses are pushing for this flat tax (with other tax changes) as we speak!
Michael Myler University of Mount Union Strongly Disagree 9 If you want to increase state GDP, you should give money to the poor and lower middle classes who spend 99% of their income, not to the wealthy who are already buying everything they could possible want.
Joe Nowakowski Muskingum University Disagree 8
Curtis Reynolds Kent State University Disagree 8 Cuts to state income taxes do not increase state economic activity as much as commonly claimed. It would be more likely to do so if taxes were very high, but income taxes have been cut repeatedly in Ohio for years already.
Kay Strong Independent Strongly Disagree 10 A study published by the San Francisco Federal Reserve (2021) concluded that ensuring equitable opportunities---including schooling for all Americans to participate in the economy would lead to equity gains of nearly $23 trillion over a 30-year period." Decimating a progressive income tax system in favor of the privileged is tantamount to flushing $23 trillion of output down the stool.
Ejindu Ume Miami University Uncertain 7
Kathryn Wilson Kent State University Strongly Disagree 8 In choosing which state to live in, families consider not only the taxes paid but also the amenities provided, including the quality of schools, safety, and quality of life such as parks. The cuts that would need to be made to makeup the revenue shortfall would significantly affect the ability to provide these amenities. Ohio currently ranks higher nationally on the amount of tax burden (less state/local tax burden than the average state) than it ranks on measures like K-12 education. In the long run, I think this plan would have a negative effect on Ohio's economy.
Rachel Wilson Wittenberg University Strongly Disagree 10 Public services and goods are an important part of the necessary infrastructure to grow an economy. Cutting state income taxes will reduce the public infrastructure. Our current tax rate is very competitive with other states and doesn't need to be reduced.

Question B: The proposed income tax change will increase inequality.

Economist Institution Opinion Confidence Comment
Jonathan Andreas Bluffton University Strongly Agree 7 The bill does not specify what other parts of Ohio government must increase taxes and fees, so this bill causes a lot of uncertainty, but the one thing that IS certain is that it eliminates the progressivity of the main progressive tax in Ohio, so it is a safe bet that the other taxes that must increase to balance the budget will be more regressive.
Bizuayehu Bedane Marietta College Uncertain 9
David Brasington University of Cincinnati Uncertain 8 it depends on local government response, how they change income and property taxes in response
Kevin Egan University of Toledo Strongly Agree 10 Yes, this policy change is directly reducing taxes primarily on higher income households.
Kenneth Fah Ohio Dominican University Agree 9
Bob Gitter Ohio Wesleyan University Agree 9 The benefits will flow to higher income individuals but the spending cuts will hurt lower income individuals.
Nancy Haskell University of Dayton Agree 9
Paul Holmes Ashland University Strongly Agree 10 This will so obviously increase inequality that it's not even worth debating.
Faria Huq Lake Erie College Strongly Agree 9
Michael Jones University of Cincinnati Strongly Disagree 5
charles kroncke Mount Saint Joseph University Uncertain 5
Trevon Logan Ohio State University Agree 6
Diane Monaco Heidelberg University Strongly Agree 10 Statehouses, Authoritarian methods and the Policies they push (Flat taxes) Flat taxes are REGRESSIVE which means a larger amount of income will be taken from those with lower incomes. Ohio currently has a PROGRESSIVE income tax with four brackets [3.99% the highest and 2.765% the lowest tax brackets]. With this proposed and pushed Republican Ohio House 1 Bill, the top highest income group will get 89% of the tax dollars – this is a regressive tax!!! It will NOT empower families and small businesses “to restart Ohio as the economic engine of the Midwest as it is being touted.” In fact, services such as police and fire protection will need to be CUT!! Local government and school districts are estimated to lose 1.2 billion dollars annually to pay for this regressive 2.75% flat tax with an accompanying property tax DECREASE within Ohio HB 1 where property taxes are also REGRESSIVE. Many statehouses are pushing for this flat tax (with other tax changes) as we speak!
Michael Myler University of Mount Union Strongly Agree 9 Giving $11,000 to high-income earners and $3 to low-income earners is an efficient way to increase inequality.
Joe Nowakowski Muskingum University Agree 8
Curtis Reynolds Kent State University Agree 7 Cutting taxes will certainly not improve inequality, since much of the benefits will be felt by higher income individuals. On top of that, required cuts to services to balance the budget may disproportionately hurt lower income households.
Kay Strong Independent Strongly Agree 10 A flat tax is a regressive tax in which low-income taxpayers carry a disproportionate share of the tax burden. Further squeezing those least able to cover daily living expenses qualifies as truly draconian.
Ejindu Ume Miami University Strongly Agree 9
Kathryn Wilson Kent State University Agree 6 The benefits of the tax cuts will largely go to higher-income individuals with a very small effect for the vast majority of Ohioans. However, the harms that accrue from the cuts in goods and services like education will negatively impact all Ohioans.
Rachel Wilson Wittenberg University Strongly Agree 10 Wealthy cities will be able to handle the blow to their budgets while smaller cities and rural areas will suffer. This proposal shifts the burden to the local government by cutting the local government fund and so will create a winner takes all situation amongst Ohio cities and regions. It makes the overall state tax system regressive not flat.

Question C: The proposed income tax change will increase labor force participation.

Economist Institution Opinion Confidence Comment
Jonathan Andreas Bluffton University Strongly Disagree 9 This is mostly a tax cut for Ohioans who have higher than average income. They already have less need to work compared with the lower and middle working class who will likely see taxes rise. There is no reason to think that shifting the tax burden more onto the working class will cause people to work more.
Bizuayehu Bedane Marietta College Disagree 8
David Brasington University of Cincinnati Agree 4
Kevin Egan University of Toledo Strongly Disagree 10 This small tax change will have no measurable impact on labor force participation. Anyone arguing for such a tax change should simply state they think a flat tax is fairer. There is no measurable efficiency reason.
Kenneth Fah Ohio Dominican University Uncertain 9
Bob Gitter Ohio Wesleyan University Disagree 8 I can't see much change in the labor force participation of the tax cut. This will not drive the work decisions of the higher income individuals.
Nancy Haskell University of Dayton Uncertain 6
Paul Holmes Ashland University Disagree 8 Tax rate changes have almost no effect on primary-earner labor-force participation, and this will be no exception. Any other effects would be tiny and not worth considering.
Faria Huq Lake Erie College Uncertain 5
Michael Jones University of Cincinnati Agree 5
charles kroncke Mount Saint Joseph University Disagree 5
Trevon Logan Ohio State University Disagree 8
Diane Monaco Heidelberg University Disagree 7 Statehouses, Authoritarian methods and the Policies they push (Flat taxes) Flat taxes are REGRESSIVE which means a larger amount of income will be taken from those with lower incomes. Ohio currently has a PROGRESSIVE income tax with four brackets [3.99% the highest and 2.765% the lowest tax brackets]. With this proposed and pushed Republican Ohio House 1 Bill, the top highest income group will get 89% of the tax dollars – this is a regressive tax!!! It will NOT empower families and small businesses “to restart Ohio as the economic engine of the Midwest as it is being touted.” In fact, services such as police and fire protection will need to be CUT!! Local government and school districts are estimated to lose 1.2 billion dollars annually to pay for this regressive 2.75% flat tax with an accompanying property tax DECREASE within Ohio HB 1 where property taxes are also REGRESSIVE. Many statehouses are pushing for this flat tax (with other tax changes) as we speak!
Michael Myler University of Mount Union Strongly Disagree 5 The difference in take-home pay appears to be insignificant--hard to imagine any noticeable effect on the number of hours a person is willing to work.
Joe Nowakowski Muskingum University Agree 6
Curtis Reynolds Kent State University Disagree 8 Labor force participation is not likely to respond to the income tax cuts proposed. Taxes (particularly as low as they are in Ohio) are not a primary or even secondary cause of labor force participation. Labor force participation is driven more by the ability to find jobs that match the worker's skills, the preference of the individual to work relative to other activities (household production) which is also related to other costs (such as child care expenses).
Kay Strong Independent Strongly Disagree 10 In real life, men and women make the decision to enter(not) the labor force based on far more immediate considerations than a nebulous tax rate.
Ejindu Ume Miami University Agree 6
Kathryn Wilson Kent State University Uncertain 6 Given the inelasticity of supply of labor, I do not expect this will have much if any effect on labor force participation in the short run. In the long run, if it results in lower educational opportunities for Ohio students, it may reduce labor force participation. On the whole, I put uncertain but if increasing labor force participation is the goal, there are much more direct and effective ways that could be accomplished such as improving child care access and paid leave.
Rachel Wilson Wittenberg University Disagree 10 Our taxes are not so high that they are discouraging labor.

March 2023 Survey:

Question A: Extending the hours 14 - 15 year olds can work during the school year will increase human capital development.

Economist Institution Opinion Confidence Comment
Jonathan Andreas Bluffton University Disagree 6 The average kind of work that 14-year-olds do for pay is generally very low-skilled work and most students learn very little compared to what they learn in school or in after-school enrichment activities. The young kids who excel the most in school do not work much during the school year and the kids who work the most for pay during school tend to not excel at school. This is why most parents of college-bound students discourage excessive work during the school year, and particularly for 14-year-olds. However, it could be beneficial for a few kids too, so I doubt there will be a big effect on the overall average.
Bizuayehu Bedane Marietta College Uncertain 8
David Brasington University of Cincinnati Disagree 8 current law allows experience without detracting from schoolwork
Glenn Dutcher Ohio University Strongly Disagree 9
Kevin Egan University of Toledo Disagree 5 The overall limit for hours worked for this group is the same it just allows later hours to 9 pm. I expect very small to no impact on learning and human capital development, as the only change is allowing the hours of work to be a little later.
Robert Gitter Ohio Wesleyan University Uncertain 6 Although they may be eligible for more jobs the evidence is not clear if working in the evening will result in less time studying, fewer hours of sleep, or just reduced screen time. The first one reduces human capital and the last would have no impact.
Paul Holmes Ashland University Disagree 7 Tough to imagine very many 14-15 year old children need the extra 2 hours of work in the evening to 'develop human capital'. This looks to be a business-friendly idea, not one aimed at training youths.
Michael Jones University of Cincinnati Agree 5
Charles Kroncke Mount Saint Joseph University Strongly Disagree 9 This will decrease human capital because the kids will do worse in school.
Trevon Logan Ohio State University Strongly Disagree 8
Diane Monaco Heidelberg University Strongly Disagree 10 A Child Labor Amendment was proposed in Congress to “limit, regulate, and prohibit the labor of persons under eighteen years of age.” In 1924, it passed Congress but failed in the state level ratification and was abolished under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. Child labor laws vary significantly between states to this day. Currently, “authoritarian” leaning state legislatures are attempting to relax child labor standards for more control and move down a more Dickensian road, proposing the relaxation of child labor standards. This is especially true within some Jim Crow south states with billionaire Koch Brothers’ “Americans for Prosperity” funding from this right-wing dark money group to weaken labor unions and child labor standards. For the sake of the well-being of the children of Ohio, the state should not embark on this path of the degradation of child labor standards!
Joe Nowakowski Muskingum University Uncertain 6
Dean Snyder Antioch College Strongly Disagree 7
Kay Strong Independent Disagree 9 "Human capital" development for 14 and 15 year olds ---or 9th and 10th graders is immersion in high school course work including completion of school work, exam preparation, and sufficient rest for growing bodies. Allowing the "service" industry to balance profits on the backs of these youths is unconscionable. Shortages of any kind including labor are corrected by raising the "price" offered in the market. It's basic supply and demand.
Ejindu Ume Miami University Disagree 6 I'm not convinced that human capital will increase, but allowing for more hours worked by 14 and 15 year olds living in poverty can certainly reduce the financial strains they face.
Kathryn Wilson Kent State University Disagree 6 I do not see how there were be additional human capital development from working 7-9 that would not happen in earlier hours. If the later work hours means that students do not do as well at school, which may be a result of lack of sleep, this would potentially end up a net harm on their human capital.

Question B: Extending the hours 14 - 15 year olds can work during the school year will increase labor supply.

Economist Institution Opinion Confidence Comment
Jonathan Andreas Bluffton University Agree 7 Technically, it would have zero effect upon the labor force because the labor force is defined as "people age 16 and older", but even if we expand our definition of the labor force, it is unlikely to have a significant effect on the overall numbers because minors below age 16 produce a trivial percent of the total hours worked and this change is unlikely to boost the total by much. But it could have a big effect for some individual kids.
Bizuayehu Bedane Marietta College Agree 8
David Brasington University of Cincinnati Agree 8
Glenn Dutcher Ohio University Agree 3
Kevin Egan University of Toledo Agree 5 I expect the impact on labor supply to be small as again the total hours allowed is the same.
Robert Gitter Ohio Wesleyan University Agree 5 Probably only a bit as they can now work more shifts. They might be able to get jobs at a restaurant, or in retail that they could not before but the total number of hours allowed does not change.
Paul Holmes Ashland University Agree 8 It's a relatively minor increase in labor supply, but an increase nonetheless. It's such a small effect that I doubt it'll have much impact on wages.
Michael Jones University of Cincinnati Agree 9
Charles Kroncke Mount Saint Joseph University Strongly Disagree 10
Trevon Logan Ohio State University Uncertain 8
Diane Monaco Heidelberg University Strongly Disagree 10 A Child Labor Amendment was proposed in Congress to “limit, regulate, and prohibit the labor of persons under eighteen years of age.” In 1924, it passed Congress but failed in the state level ratification and was abolished under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. Child labor laws vary significantly between states to this day. Currently, “authoritarian” leaning state legislatures are attempting to relax child labor standards for more control and move down a more Dickensian road, proposing the relaxation of child labor standards. This is especially true within some Jim Crow south states with billionaire Koch Brothers’ “Americans for Prosperity” funding from this right-wing dark money group to weaken labor unions and child labor standards. For the sake of the well-being of the children of Ohio, the state should not embark on this path of the degradation of child labor standards!
Joe Nowakowski Muskingum University Agree 8
Dean Snyder Antioch College Uncertain 5 The labor supply increases will likely be marginal.
Kay Strong Independent Strongly Disagree 1 Raise labor supply by raising the wage paid workers whie collaboratively addressing workplace concerns.
Ejindu Ume Miami University Agree 8
Kathryn Wilson Kent State University Agree 6 While extending the hours 14-15 year olds can work may increase the labor supply, it seems the correct question is whether this is the best way to increase the labor supply. Higher wages will also increase the labor supply, and do so in a manner that I think would be better for the economy and for children.

Question C: Extending the hours 14 - 15 year olds can work during the school year will decrease safety for young workers.

Economist Institution Opinion Confidence Comment
Jonathan Andreas Bluffton University Agree 6 Again, not a big change, but it would increase the number of days that kids are commuting home after dark and the number of hours working after dark and more accidents happen after dark. I doubt it will be a significant change.
Bizuayehu Bedane Marietta College Agree 8
David Brasington University of Cincinnati Disagree 10 14 and 15 year olds are probably safer with employer than other ways they would spend their time
Glenn Dutcher Ohio University Uncertain 2
Kevin Egan University of Toledo Disagree 5 This is a small change allowing work until 9 pm instead of 7 pm; hours 14 to 15 year olds are generally awake anyway so I see little impact.
Robert Gitter Ohio Wesleyan University Agree 6 Perhaps a little as out later but I don't see much of an effect.
Paul Holmes Ashland University Agree 5 Probably not due to children working tired (these are prime 'awake' times for teenagers) but perhaps due to travel later at night.
Michael Jones University of Cincinnati Disagree 5 If a 15 year old is permitted to work at 6 pm, then why not allow him to work at 8 pm? Parents are in the best position, with the most information, to make good decisions for their own children.
Charles Kroncke Mount Saint Joseph University Strongly Agree 10
Trevon Logan Ohio State University Strongly Agree 8
Diane Monaco Heidelberg University Strongly Agree 10 A Child Labor Amendment was proposed in Congress to “limit, regulate, and prohibit the labor of persons under eighteen years of age.” In 1924, it passed Congress but failed in the state level ratification and was abolished under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. Child labor laws vary significantly between states to this day. Currently, “authoritarian” leaning state legislatures are attempting to relax child labor standards for more control and move down a more Dickensian road, proposing the relaxation of child labor standards. This is especially true within some Jim Crow south states with billionaire Koch Brothers’ “Americans for Prosperity” funding from this right-wing dark money group to weaken labor unions and child labor standards. For the sake of the well-being of the children of Ohio, the state should not embark on this path of the degradation of child labor standards!
Joe Nowakowski Muskingum University Agree 8
Dean Snyder Antioch College Agree 7
Kay Strong Independent Agree 8
Ejindu Ume Miami University Disagree 8
Kathryn Wilson Kent State University Agree 7 The average start time for Ohio is 7:50 a.m. Taking into consideration the time it takes to get ready in the morning and commuting time to schools, this means students must wake up very early. I am concerned that students working until 9:00 on school nights will not have the necessary time to unwind from work and get a good night's sleep.

February 2023 Survey:

Question A: Expanding the state school voucher program will increase Ohio students' standardized test scores.

Economist Institution Opinion Confidence Comment
Jonathan Andreas Bluffton University Disagree 5 I used to love vouchers because in theory they seem great, but the research on vouchers is pretty mixed and in practice they do not seem to have much effect. They help private schools and families that prioritize private schools, and they can be helpful for struggling students at failing schools, but expanding them to most of Ohioans is unlikely to help statewide accomplishment because private schools can't scale up that much and... (continued below).
Bizuayehu Bedane Marietta College Agree 8
David Brasington University of Cincinnati Strongly Agree 8
Kenneth Fah Ohio Dominican University Agree 8
Nancy Haskell University of Dayton Agree 8
Paul Holmes Ashland University Strongly Disagree 8 Private school vouchers seem to be primarily used for low-quality programming; it's hard to imagine an expansion of the program would not follow this pattern.
Faria Huq Lake Erie College Disagree 7
Michael Jones University of Cincinnati Strongly Agree 10
Charles Kroncke Mount Saint Joseph University Disagree 9
Trevon Logan Ohio State University Disagree 7
Diane Monaco Heidelberg University Strongly Disagree 10 Ohio’s Autocratic Gov Mike DeWine is rapidly pushing for a Betsy DeVos style ‘Jim Crow’ Voucher Based ‘Segregated’ Public Education System in Ohio using our tax funds! The Ohio Public School Educational System is 20th in the nation according to the US News & World Report and the Autocratic Extremist Ohio Republicans want to further “dumb down” our students so they can continue to rip off Ohioans even more than they have already. Ohio under recent Autocratic Extremist Republican leadership since Obama’s last term, has taken Ohio down well into the thirties percentage points (bottom half of the country) in most economic variables except for Public School Education! Using tax dollars to subsidize religious schools violates the separation of church and state in this country. In addition, a 2016 study found “strong and consistent evidence” that school voucher students were “no better academically than public school students and performed significantly worse in math.” The wealthy families in Ohio have always and will continue to send their children to private schools with their own funds (not our tax funds).
Michael Myler University of Mount Union Disagree 7 If we are not happy with public schools, we should fix them, not give up on them. Perhaps it is time for the state to assume 100% responsibility for funding public schools: state-wide taxing, equal funding per student state-wide. Permit private schools to exist, but the public school (not the private school) still gets the state funding for each student in the district.
Joe Nowakowski Muskingum University Uncertain 9
Curtis Reynolds Kent State University Strongly Disagree 7 There are a lot of complex dynamics (some students may see higher scores but others may see lower scores) but almost certainly there will not be a significant effect on the average test scores in the state.
Lewis Sage Baldwin Wallace University Disagree 8
Dean Snyder Antioch College Uncertain 5
Kay Strong Independent Strongly Disagree 9
Melissa Thomasson Miami University Disagree 8
Ejindu Ume Miami University Uncertain 7
Kathryn Wilson Kent State University Uncertain 3 It may increase the test scores of some students but depending on if additional resources are provided or resources are diverted to the voucher program, it may decrease the test scores of other students.
Rachel Wilson Wittenberg University Disagree 8 Vouchers are not a guarantee of better test scores. There is a large literature on what makes them effective and what doesn't.

Question B: Expanding the school voucher program will decrease poverty in Ohio.

Economist Institution Opinion Confidence Comment
Jonathan Andreas Bluffton University Strongly Disagree 5 ...(continued from above) part of the reason why private schools appear to get better outcomes is due to cream skimming of more motivated students with better family support. When private schools get a more representative cross section of students, they struggle more too. It is hard to design a voucher system that incentivizes private schools to prioritize the students who are the hardest (and most expensive) to teach. This proposal only expands voucher help to non-poor families, so it will definitely NOT reduce poverty.
Bizuayehu Bedane Marietta College Uncertain 8
David Brasington University of Cincinnati Strongly Agree 8
Kenneth Fah Ohio Dominican University Agree 8
Nancy Haskell University of Dayton Uncertain 6 depends on the time period... likely in the long-run
Paul Holmes Ashland University Strongly Disagree 9 I can't see this having any noticeable affect on poverty. The people in the target range are not poor (over 250% of federal poverty levels) so I don't understand how this would decrease poverty.
Faria Huq Lake Erie College Uncertain 5
Michael Jones University of Cincinnati Uncertain 5
Charles Kroncke Mount Saint Joseph University Disagree 9
Trevon Logan Ohio State University Strongly Disagree 8
Diane Monaco Heidelberg University Strongly Disagree 10 Ohio’s Autocratic Gov Mike DeWine is rapidly pushing for a Betsy DeVos style ‘Jim Crow’ Voucher Based ‘Segregated’ Public Education System in Ohio using our tax funds! The Ohio Public School Educational System is 20th in the nation according to the US News & World Report and the Autocratic Extremist Ohio Republicans want to further “dumb down” our students so they can continue to rip off Ohioans even more than they have already. Ohio under recent Autocratic Extremist Republican leadership since Obama’s last term, has taken Ohio down well into the thirties percentage points (bottom half of the country) in most economic variables except for Public School Education! Using tax dollars to subsidize religious schools violates the separation of church and state in this country. In addition, a 2016 study found “strong and consistent evidence” that school voucher students were “no better academically than public school students and performed significantly worse in math.” The wealthy families in Ohio have always and will continue to send their children to private schools with their own funds (not our tax funds).
Michael Myler University of Mount Union Strongly Disagree 8
Joe Nowakowski Muskingum University Uncertain 9
Curtis Reynolds Kent State University Disagree 7 There is almost no chance that poverty will decrease from this (and certainly any effect would be years down the road and therefore hard to measure). While education is correlated with poverty, there are too many intermediary factors (access and affordability of college, low demand for high school educated labor, migration of educated individuals from the state, etc.) that means Ohio poverty will not be helped.
Lewis Sage Baldwin Wallace University Agree 8
Dean Snyder Antioch College Uncertain 5
Kay Strong Independent Strongly Disagree 9
Melissa Thomasson Miami University Disagree 8
Ejindu Ume Miami University Uncertain 7
Kathryn Wilson Kent State University Disagree 7
Rachel Wilson Wittenberg University Disagree 8

Question C: Expanding the school voucher program will lower the quality of Ohio's public schools.

Economist Institution Opinion Confidence Comment
Jonathan Andreas Bluffton University Agree 5 See cream-skimming comment above. Although it will likely leave public schools with more expensive, challenging students, it probably won't hurt overall statewide educational outcomes much. Most voucher programs just don't seem to have much effect -- some show modest gains and others show modest declines and I cannot predict if this particular program is likely to be more successful than most of the past ones. The one very clear benefit is for people at private schools who simply get more money.
Bizuayehu Bedane Marietta College Uncertain 8
David Brasington University of Cincinnati Disagree 7
Kenneth Fah Ohio Dominican University Uncertain 8
Nancy Haskell University of Dayton Disagree 8
Paul Holmes Ashland University Uncertain 7 It depends how much uptake this gets; I suspect "not much" in which case there would be little impact on schools.
Faria Huq Lake Erie College Strongly Agree 8
Michael Jones University of Cincinnati Disagree 8
Charles Kroncke Mount Saint Joseph University Disagree 9
Trevon Logan Ohio State University Agree 7
Diane Monaco Heidelberg University Strongly Agree 10 Ohio’s Autocratic Gov Mike DeWine is rapidly pushing for a Betsy DeVos style ‘Jim Crow’ Voucher Based ‘Segregated’ Public Education System in Ohio using our tax funds! The Ohio Public School Educational System is 20th in the nation according to the US News & World Report and the Autocratic Extremist Ohio Republicans want to further “dumb down” our students so they can continue to rip off Ohioans even more than they have already. Ohio under recent Autocratic Extremist Republican leadership since Obama’s last term, has taken Ohio down well into the thirties percentage points (bottom half of the country) in most economic variables except for Public School Education! Using tax dollars to subsidize religious schools violates the separation of church and state in this country. In addition, a 2016 study found “strong and consistent evidence” that school voucher students were “no better academically than public school students and performed significantly worse in math.” The wealthy families in Ohio have always and will continue to send their children to private schools with their own funds (not our tax funds).
Michael Myler University of Mount Union Strongly Agree 9 It will reduce the quality of public schools that have the misfortune of being in poor districts.
Joe Nowakowski Muskingum University Agree 8
Curtis Reynolds Kent State University Agree 7 To the extent that vouchers are utilized only by some families (even when available) and those often would have been successful in school anyway, the vouchers tend to pull higher performing students out of schools. That can lower the "ratings" of the schools (to the extent we should even believe them) which can cause further erosion in quality (less resources, for example). However, the main issue is that resources being put into vouchers are not going into the schools anymore, and the state is discussing further cuts to school funding.
Lewis Sage Baldwin Wallace University Uncertain 1
Dean Snyder Antioch College Uncertain 5
Kay Strong Independent Strongly Agree 9 The proposed upper threshold of $111,000 earning for a family of four assuming two are children will exacerbate the privilege of high income families at the cost of lower quality education from reduced public spending on traditional public school.
Melissa Thomasson Miami University Agree 8 The solution to poorly performing schools is to fix the problem of school funding in Ohio, not add more vouchers.
Ejindu Ume Miami University Uncertain 5
Kathryn Wilson Kent State University Agree 7
Rachel Wilson Wittenberg University Agree 8

January 2023 Survey:

Question A: A "right-to-work" law would grow the Ohio economy.

Economist Institution Opinion Confidence Comment
Jonathan Andreas Bluffton University Uncertain 5 I have not seen a lot of empirical work on this question and what little I have seen does not look very definitive. For example, there is an Austin & Lilley paper that claims RTW laws have implausibly large positive effects upon everything and don't even reduce "the legal power of unions when bargaining with firms"! But it hasn't been peer reviewed and many other papers provide contradictory evidence, so I'm not confident enough to make a judgement. I'd guess that there is little effect given the contradictory work out there.
Greg Arburn University of Findlay Strongly Agree 10
Bizuayehu Bedane Marietta College Uncertain 8
David Brasington University of Cincinnati Strongly Agree 10
Kevin Egan University of Toledo Disagree 8 It may grow slightly the manufacturing part of the economy but if workers end up paid less then they have less to spend locally so other parts of the economy may offset any manufacturing increases.
Kenneth Fah Ohio Dominican University Uncertain 9
Bob Gitter Ohio Wesleyan University Uncertain 6 There are reasons to oppose such a law but frankly, the overall impact on the growth of the Ohio economy will be minimal.
Paul Holmes Ashland University Disagree 5
Michael Jones University of Cincinnati Strongly Agree 10
Charles Kroncke Mount Saint Joseph University Agree 8
Trevon Logan Ohio State University Disagree 9
Diane Monaco Heidelberg University Agree 3 Right to Work and Unions Unions have been weak for a very long time now. The problem is that the younger workers have spent their entire lives with no real evidence and knowledge of unions, the workings of unions, worker’s rights and from where their strength comes. The right to work (RTW) laws that give workers the choice of whether to join a union do currently weaken union strength and benefits firms. Labor Union Laws as they have developed: 1935: the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) (the Wagner Act), was signed into law by President Franklin D Roosevelt. The Act protected the rights of workers to create an organization and mandate that employers engage in collective bargaining and workers are also required to pay the union to represent them and protect their interests. 1947: the Taft-Hartley Act created the current Right to Work Laws, which prohibit compulsory union membership. February 2021: Congress re-introduced the National Right to Work Act giving employees a choice to not join or not pay dues to unions, but the legislation was stalled. March 2021: the House of Representatives passed the Protecting the Right to Organize Act (PRO Act) where pro-union legislation would override the Right to Work Laws and make it easier to form unions. The PRO Act still faces pushback in the Senate, as most Republicans oppose it.
Michael Myler University of Mount Union Disagree 8 A RtW law would create "free riders"; the market system does not function efficiently in the presence of free riders.
Joe Nowakowski Muskingum University Uncertain 5
Lewis Sage Baldwin Wallace University Uncertain 5
Kay Strong Independent Disagree 9
Albert Sumell Youngstown State University Strongly Disagree 9 Other states that have implemented right to work laws have not experienced economic growth above the national average.
Melissa Thomasson Miami University Agree 7 Holding everything else constant, most likely
Ejindu Ume Miami University Disagree 9
Andy Welki John Carroll University Agree 8
Kathryn Wilson Kent State University Strongly Disagree 8
Rachel Wilson Wittenberg University Uncertain 7

Question B: A "right-to-work" law in Ohio would increase state employment.

Economist Institution Opinion Confidence Comment
Jonathan Andreas Bluffton University Uncertain 5
Greg Arburn University of Findlay Strongly Agree 10
Bizuayehu Bedane Marietta College Uncertain 8
David Brasington University of Cincinnati Strongly Agree 10
Kevin Egan University of Toledo Uncertain 8 There may be a small increase in manufacturing employment, but also the long run effect is likely to be lower wages for manufacturing workers who then have less to spend locally so the effect on employment is uncertain. If workers are paid less then those dollars likely go to shareholders of the firms who are mostly likely mostly out of state.
Kenneth Fah Ohio Dominican University Uncertain 9
Bob Gitter Ohio Wesleyan University Disagree 7 Ohio seems to be attracting a lot of jobs now even without such a law,
Paul Holmes Ashland University Disagree 6
Michael Jones University of Cincinnati Agree 5
Charles Kroncke Mount Saint Joseph University Agree 5
Trevon Logan Ohio State University Disagree 9
Diane Monaco Heidelberg University Agree 3 Right to Work and Unions Unions have been weak for a very long time now. The problem is that the younger workers have spent their entire lives with no real evidence and knowledge of unions, the workings of unions, worker’s rights and from where their strength comes. The right to work (RTW) laws that give workers the choice of whether to join a union do currently weaken union strength and benefits firms. Labor Union Laws as they have developed: 1935: the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) (the Wagner Act), was signed into law by President Franklin D Roosevelt. The Act protected the rights of workers to create an organization and mandate that employers engage in collective bargaining and workers are also required to pay the union to represent them and protect their interests. 1947: the Taft-Hartley Act created the current Right to Work Laws, which prohibit compulsory union membership. February 2021: Congress re-introduced the National Right to Work Act giving employees a choice to not join or not pay dues to unions, but the legislation was stalled. March 2021: the House of Representatives passed the Protecting the Right to Organize Act (PRO Act) where pro-union legislation would override the Right to Work Laws and make it easier to form unions. The PRO Act still faces pushback in the Senate, as most Republicans oppose it.
Michael Myler University of Mount Union Disagree 8
Joe Nowakowski Muskingum University Agree 8
Lewis Sage Baldwin Wallace University Uncertain 5 only a temporary effect until other states follow the plunge to lower wages
Kay Strong Independent Disagree 9 Per BLS union membership accounts for only 12% of Ohio's labor force and is highest in education, training and library services. Right to work laws will have little or no effect on Ohio employment rates."Right to Living Wage" legislation should be the focus of attention in Ohio.
Albert Sumell Youngstown State University Disagree 8 It may increase the number of lower wage jobs, but that should not be viewed as a positive. These jobs would be in place of higher quality livable wage jobs.
Melissa Thomasson Miami University Agree 7
Ejindu Ume Miami University Disagree 8
Andy Welki John Carroll University Agree 8
Kathryn Wilson Kent State University Strongly Disagree 8
Rachel Wilson Wittenberg University Uncertain 7

Question C: A "right-to-work" law in Ohio would exacerbate inequality in the state.

Economist Institution Opinion Confidence Comment
Jonathan Andreas Bluffton University Uncertain 5
Greg Arburn University of Findlay Strongly Disagree 10
Bizuayehu Bedane Marietta College Disagree 7
David Brasington University of Cincinnati Uncertain 8
Kevin Egan University of Toledo Strongly Agree 10 Yes. The "right to work" law is mostly about fairness and bargaining power of workers vs. corporations, and with that frame workers overall loose bargaining power. Workers have the choice to work at a firm that has union labor or not, but once they make that choice it is efficient to require all workers to be in the union and pay dues to eliminate the free-rider problem where workers enjoy benefits of union but don't pay dues. Overall, the likely impact is less unions, lower wages for workers, and a higher profit margin for the firm who pays it out to wealthy shareholders, hence income inequality is increased.
Kenneth Fah Ohio Dominican University Agree 9
Bob Gitter Ohio Wesleyan University Agree 8 Unions tend to lead to more income equality, especially during harder economic times.
Paul Holmes Ashland University Agree 7
Michael Jones University of Cincinnati Disagree 5
Charles Kroncke Mount Saint Joseph University Disagree 7
Trevon Logan Ohio State University Agree 8
Diane Monaco Heidelberg University Agree 3 (See my responses above)
Michael Myler University of Mount Union Uncertain 6 That could be the result if the union could get management to agree to pay the non-union workers significantly less.
Joe Nowakowski Muskingum University Agree 9
Lewis Sage Baldwin Wallace University Agree 9 at the margin, probably a small effect as labor market monopsony has already created a large capital v. labor gap
Kay Strong Independent Agree 8
Albert Sumell Youngstown State University Strongly Agree 10 Right to work destroys Unions and further diminishes workers ability to negotiate higher wages. This reduces workers' income and increases owner's income, which increases inequality.
Melissa Thomasson Miami University Agree 7 Wages typically go down in these states, but that is not the only factor influencing inequality
Ejindu Ume Miami University Agree 5
Andy Welki John Carroll University Strongly Disagree 8
Kathryn Wilson Kent State University Agree 5
Rachel Wilson Wittenberg University Uncertain 7

December 2022 Survey:

Question A: Increasing state spending on mental health services, research, and job development will provide net social benefits greater than net social costs.

Economist Institution Opinion Confidence Comment
Jonathan Andreas Bluffton University Uncertain 5 This question is too complicated to be able to answer with any certainty. These are three different programs and each one would require a separate cost-benefit analysis to answer the question, each of which would be quite complex in itself. It is hard to know, ex ante, if a program will work. For example, the DARE program was popular and seemed like a good idea, but research shows that it was a complete failure for decades. On the other hand, many early childhood education programs are extremely cost effective, but lack funding because policy makers don't perceive them to have value.
Bizuayehu Bedane Marietta College Agree 8
David Brasington University of Cincinnati Agree 8
Kevin Egan University of Toledo Strongly Agree 10 One of the most efficient uses of tax dollars; investing in people and helping to create equal opportunity.
Hasan Faruq Xavier University Strongly Agree 10
Bob Gitter Ohio Wesleyan University Strongly Agree 10 We really do underfund mental health services. Almost everyone knows someone who would benefit from increased availability of services in the community.
Paul Holmes Ashland University Agree 8 The devil is in the details, but generally mental health care seems to be underfunded in the US.
Faria Huq Lake Erie College Strongly Agree 9
Michael Jones University of Cincinnati Uncertain 5
Fadhel Kaboub Denison University Strongly Agree 10
Charles Kroncke Mount Saint Joseph University Uncertain 8
Trevon Logan Ohio State University Strongly Agree 9
Diane Monaco Heidelberg University Strongly Agree 10 The US House just passed the “Mental Health Matters Act” in Sept 2022 addressing the mental health concerns of the students, families, and educators in the US including in the Ohio gerrymandered supermajority Republican legislature. ALL Congressional House Republican Reps voted AGAINST the Act (except for Congressional Rep Brian Fitzpatrick (PA)) including all those in Ohio! Now Governor Mike DeWine will be submitting his new and upcoming two-year budget proposal with many good intentioned mental health priorities in it in 2023. If passed by the OH gerrymandered Republican supermajority legislature and signed into law, DeWine’s “New Mental Health Priorities Proposal” would provide grants to establish a pipeline for school-based mental health service professionals. Additionally, it would grow the number of mental health experts at elementary and secondary schools that are based in high-need locations which is something our students, families, educators care deeply about!! Do we think it will happen based on our CONTINUED current legislative environment and our current Governor’s inability to work within this environment? I think within this Ohio legislative environment with no change, new mental health priorities are not likely to happen.
Joe Nowakowski Muskingum University Agree 8
Curtis Reynolds Kent State University Agree 9 The details matter (money doesn't solve anything by itself) but the evidence is clear that mental health and substance abuse issues have negative individuals, households and society. Additionally, existing support systems are strained and underfunded. So well-directed money would likely have high net returns.
Lewis Sage Baldwin Wallace University Strongly Disagree 9
Kay E Strong Independent Strongly Agree 10
Albert Sumell Youngstown State University Strongly Agree 10 Economic research unequivocally show spending on mental health services, research, and job development is a good investment with positive social returns.
Ejindu Ume Miami University Strongly Agree 8
Andy Welki John Carroll University Agree 7
Rachel Wilson Wittenberg University Strongly Agree 10

Question B: Increasing state spending on mental health services, research, and job development will reduce poverty/inequality in Ohio.

Economist Institution Opinion Confidence Comment
Jonathan Andreas Bluffton University Agree 3 It seems probable, but as mentioned above, it can be hard to know in advance.
Bizuayehu Bedane Marietta College Uncertain 8
David Brasington University of Cincinnati Agree 8
Kevin Egan University of Toledo Strongly Agree 10 Yes, support is not available evenly to all citizens. This will help address that.
Hasan Faruq Xavier University Agree 10
Bob Gitter Ohio Wesleyan University Agree 9 The evidence I have seen and gathered shows that services do result in increased employment for consumers and hence higher incomes for many lower income consumers.
Paul Holmes Ashland University Strongly Agree 8 Access to mental health care is currently much easier for the well-off. Expanded access would surely benefit those on lower incomes, along with providing additional service-sector employment.
Faria Huq Lake Erie College Agree 8 The effect on poverty and inequality will depend on the implementation of the programs and accessibility to people who would actually need those services.
Michael Jones University of Cincinnati Uncertain 5
Fadhel Kaboub Denison University Strongly Agree 10
Charles Kroncke Mount Saint Joseph University Disagree 7
Trevon Logan Ohio State University Strongly Agree 8
Diane Monaco Heidelberg University Strongly Agree 10 The US House just passed the “Mental Health Matters Act” in Sept 2022 addressing the mental health concerns of the students, families, and educators in the US including in the Ohio gerrymandered supermajority Republican legislature. ALL Congressional House Republican Reps voted AGAINST the Act (except for Congressional Rep Brian Fitzpatrick (PA)) including all those in Ohio! Now Governor Mike DeWine will be submitting his new and upcoming two-year budget proposal with many good intentioned mental health priorities in it in 2023. If passed by the OH gerrymandered Republican supermajority legislature and signed into law, DeWine’s “New Mental Health Priorities Proposal” would provide grants to establish a pipeline for school-based mental health service professionals. Additionally, it would grow the number of mental health experts at elementary and secondary schools that are based in high-need locations which is something our students, families, educators care deeply about!! Do we think it will happen based on our CONTINUED current legislative environment and our current Governor’s inability to work within this environment? I think within this Ohio legislative environment with no change, new mental health priorities are not likely to happen.
Joe Nowakowski Muskingum University Agree 8
Curtis Reynolds Kent State University Agree 8 Mental health and substance abuse issues affect labor market participation and therefore affect poverty and inequality. Addressing these issues would help decrease poverty and reduce inequality.
Lewis Sage Baldwin Wallace University Uncertain 8
Kay E Strong Independent Strongly Agree 10
Albert Sumell Youngstown State University Strongly Agree 10 This is why spending on mental health services, research, and job development is a good investment with positive social returns - it reduces poverty and unemployment.
Ejindu Ume Miami University Agree 7
Andy Welki John Carroll University Agree 6
Rachel Wilson Wittenberg University Strongly Agree 10

Question C: Increasing state spending on mental health services, research, and job development will increase employment in Ohio.

Economist Institution Opinion Confidence Comment
Jonathan Andreas Bluffton University Uncertain 4 It is unlikely to have a measurable effect on employment, but if mental health services cure problems so that patients can enter the workforce then that will increase labor force participation. And if job development services allow faster matching of employers it will reduce frictional unemployment. The main reason for spending on health (including mental health) is to reduce suffering and increase flourishing and so it is odd to worry about the effect upon employment which is minor.
Bizuayehu Bedane Marietta College Agree 8
David Brasington University of Cincinnati Agree 8
Kevin Egan University of Toledo Strongly Agree 10 Yes, I think it will marginally increase employment and moreover increase the productivity of the workers already employed if they know they can get support.
Hasan Faruq Xavier University Agree 10
Bob Gitter Ohio Wesleyan University Agree 9 The devil is in the details and it would be good if DeWine's proposals were fleshed out.
Paul Holmes Ashland University Agree 6 On balance, probably so, but I think this one's a little tricky. Traditionally many mental health care services have been provided outside of formal employment (through volunteers, family, friends, social groups/clubs/churches, etc.). I think it's likely increased funding will push more of this to the formal employment sector, so measured employment will probably increase.
Faria Huq Lake Erie College Agree 7
Michael Jones University of Cincinnati Uncertain 5 I don't have enough knowledge of the mental-health care system to know if current government funding is being efficiently allocated.
Fadhel Kaboub Denison University Strongly Agree 10
Charles Kroncke Mount Saint Joseph University Disagree 7
Trevon Logan Ohio State University Strongly Agree 9
Diane Monaco Heidelberg University Strongly Agree 10 See above comment.
Joe Nowakowski Muskingum University Agree 8
Curtis Reynolds Kent State University Agree 8 Mental health and Mental health and substance abuse issues affect labor market participation. Addressing them would help to increase labor market participation and (presumably) employment.
Lewis Sage Baldwin Wallace University Agree 9
Kay E Strong Independent Strongly Agree 10
Albert Sumell Youngstown State University Strongly Agree 10 This is why spending on mental health services, research, and job development is a good investment with positive social returns - it reduces poverty and unemployment.
Ejindu Ume Miami University Agree 8
Andy Welki John Carroll University Agree 6
Rachel Wilson Wittenberg University Agree 8

November 2022 Survey:

Question A: A state student loan forgiveness program would help Ohio retain educated workers.

Economist Institution Opinion Confidence Comment
Albert Sumell Youngstown State University Agree 8 Some students on the margin would stay if it meant some of their loans would be forgiven.
Jonathan Andreas Bluffton University Agree 4 Probably not much effect and it would need to be targeted to have maximal bang for the buck. For example, just forgive a portion for each year of state residency so that people don't just get their loans cancelled in year one and then leave.
Charles Kroncke Mount Saint Joseph University Agree 8
David Brasington University of Cincinnati Strongly Disagree 10
Diane Monaco Heidelberg University Disagree 6 All but one state has a student loan forgiveness program that offers relief for students struggling to pay student loan debt. However, the Biden student debt forgiveness program at the National level should be unblocked first (illegally blocked by the courts) before analyzing any changes to the existing state level loan forgiveness programs. President Biden has the legal authority to forgive student debt up to 10,000 dollars or 20,000 dollars if Pell grants were received, and Ohio has 1.68 million of those students. The courts are NOT part of this system! In addition to the student debt forgiveness, the Biden plan also extends some current student repayment. The Trump appointed Judge Mark Pittman illegally struck down the debt forgiveness program and issued a national injunction to block it. Every challenge to the Biden loan forgiveness plan at this point, has been thrown out of court for a “lack of standing” which is a technical doctrine.
Dean Snyder Antioch College Agree 5
Joe Nowakowski Muskingum University Agree 7
Fadhel Kaboub Denison University Uncertain 10 Student debt cancellation should be a national policy, rather than state by state. There is no guarantee that beneficiaries of student debt cancellation will stay in Ohio unless it is tied to a minimum years of public service or employment requirement in Ohio. Say after 5 years of working in Ohio the full balance of your student debt is cancelled.
Kevin Egan University of Toledo Disagree 8 Where people choose to live and work has many factors--I don't view this as being a major factor.
Lewis Sage Baldwin Wallace University No Opinion 5
Michael Jones University of Cincinnati Uncertain 5
Nancy Haskell University of Dayton Uncertain 5 I think it really depends on details of how the loan forgiveness program is targeted.
Paul Holmes Ashland University Uncertain 5 I guess such a plan could work if it were designed to do so, forgiving a fraction of the amount per year someone works in Ohio. But I doubt a one-time transfer would achieve this goal.
Bob Gitter Ohio Wesleyan University Agree 8 If the program was structured such that the foregivenss was conditional in staying in Ohio for a certain period of time.
Cort Rodet Ohio University Uncertain 10 There's too much uncertainty about how such a program would work, how it would be financed, and what criteria would be used to determine eligibility to offer any kind of conjecture. Would anyone in the state be eligible? Would it only be those who studied in Ohio? Could it attract borrowers from other states? Would those who qualify have to stay in the state following forgiveness? How would this be enforced? Estimates suggest that the Biden plan would wash away over $16B in debt for Ohioans, which is about a quarter of all student debt carried by state residents. That's not a small amount by any means. If the State were to match the Biden plan, how would it be financed? Perhaps more importantly, what would it mean for the average monthly budget for Ohioans with outstanding debt? A vast majority of borrowers in the state owe more than $10k, so while forgiveness will certainly help them, they'll still be left repaying a majority of their outstanding debt. Also, given the options for income driven repayment plans at the federal level, it's not clear what the effect on monthly budgets would be for households. It might not amount to much on a monthly basis, so it comes down to the long view of borrowers. Is a slight reduction in monthly expenses worth staying in Ohio to qualify for debt forgiveness to get out of debt sooner but far down the road? Is it worth the potential increase in future taxes to finance forgiveness? It's impossible to say at this point.
Kay E. Strong Independent Strongly Agree 10
Ejindu Ume Miami University Strongly Agree 8
Rachel Wilson Wittenberg University Uncertain 6 It doesn't fix the long term problem of higher education affordability.

Question B: A state student loan forgiveness program would increase tuition costs at colleges and universities in Ohio.

Economist Institution Opinion Confidence Comment
Albert Sumell Youngstown State University Strongly Disagree 10 State Universities would not be able to increase tuition because of a state a student loan forgiveness program.
Jonathan Andreas Bluffton University Agree 3 It would increase demand, but probably not much effect because it is so far in the future for students, they would see it as uncertain as to whether the program would still be there, and part of it would just crowd out other funding.
Charles Kroncke Mount Saint Joseph University Strongly Agree 10
David Brasington University of Cincinnati Disagree 8 It would encourage future college students to take out more student loans than they otherwise would have...and to delay paying them off.
Diane Monaco Heidelberg University Disagree 6 All but one state has a student loan forgiveness program that offers relief for students struggling to pay student loan debt. However, the Biden student debt forgiveness program at the National level should be unblocked first (illegally blocked by the courts) before analyzing any changes to the existing state level loan forgiveness programs. President Biden has the legal authority to forgive student debt up to 10,000 dollars or 20,000 dollars if Pell grants were received, and Ohio has 1.68 million of those students. The courts are NOT part of this system! In addition to the student debt forgiveness, the Biden plan also extends some current student repayment. The Trump appointed Judge Mark Pittman illegally struck down the debt forgiveness program and issued a national injunction to block it. Every challenge to the Biden loan forgiveness plan at this point, has been thrown out of court for a “lack of standing” which is a technical doctrine.
Dean Snyder Antioch College Disagree 5
Joe Nowakowski Muskingum University Uncertain 5
Fadhel Kaboub Denison University Uncertain 10 Tuition increases are directly related to 1/ lack of state/federal funding to public colleges and universities, 2/ rising cost of healthcare, energy, and construction/maintenance required to operate institutions of higher education. Cancelling student debt helps students, but it does not help colleges reduce the cost of doing business.
Kevin Egan University of Toledo Strongly Disagree 10 I assume this would be a one-time debt forgiveness like the federal program so it would not be a factor about future college pricing.
Lewis Sage Baldwin Wallace University Strongly Disagree 9
Michael Jones University of Cincinnati Agree 5
Nancy Haskell University of Dayton Uncertain 5 Again, very much depends on the parameters of how narrowly (or broadly) the program eligibility is defined.
Paul Holmes Ashland University Disagree 6 It might be used as an excuse to raise tuition at state schools, but that's a political decision, not an automatic result of a loan forgiveness policy. I doubt this would have any significant effect on private schools.
Bob Gitter Ohio Wesleyan University Disagree 8 I don't see how the program would affect the costs of the colleges and universities unless an increase in the demand to attend their schools allowed them to raise prices.
Cort Rodet Ohio University Uncertain 10 The answer to this question depends on how forgiveness is financed, who qualifies and when. If forgiveness is a one time event and mostly affects borrowers who have already left university, then I wouldn't anticipate forgiveness driving up tuition costs. Forgiveness isn't like a grant or easy credit, which tend to increase demand for higher education, leading to greater tuition costs.
Kay E. Strong Independent Disagree 9
Ejindu Ume Miami University Disagree 6
Rachel Wilson Wittenberg University Uncertain 6 If it became regularly done then it would be incorporated into the expected price thus universities could increase their price.

Question C: A state student loan forgiveness program would increase inflation.

Economist Institution Opinion Confidence Comment
Albert Sumell Youngstown State University Strongly Disagree 10 If it had any impact on inflation it would so negligible that it couldn't be measured.
Jonathan Andreas Bluffton University Strongly Disagree 10 No measurable effect because inflation is everywhere and always a nationwide phenomena, and this Ohio program is simply far too small to have any discernible effect. The state routinely makes much bigger fiscal changes that have had no effect. Plus the state has a constitutional balanced budget requirement, so the state would have to make a contractionary adjustment elsewhere in the budget. Even if it could have a measurable effect on inflation, the Fed would adjust monetary policy to keep inflation on target, so there is simply no way it could cause inflation.
Charles Kroncke Mount Saint Joseph University Disagree 10
David Brasington University of Cincinnati Agree 4
Diane Monaco Heidelberg University Strongly Disagree 8 All but one state has a student loan forgiveness program that offers relief for students struggling to pay student loan debt. However, the Biden student debt forgiveness program at the National level should be unblocked first (illegally blocked by the courts) before analyzing any changes to the existing state level loan forgiveness programs. President Biden has the legal authority to forgive student debt up to 10,000 dollars or 20,000 dollars if Pell grants were received, and Ohio has 1.68 million of those students. The courts are NOT part of this system! In addition to the student debt forgiveness, the Biden plan also extends some current student repayment. The Trump appointed Judge Mark Pittman illegally struck down the debt forgiveness program and issued a national injunction to block it. Every challenge to the Biden loan forgiveness plan at this point, has been thrown out of court for a “lack of standing” which is a technical doctrine.
Dean Snyder Antioch College Disagree 8
Joe Nowakowski Muskingum University Disagree 8
Fadhel Kaboub Denison University Strongly Disagree 10 The main sources of inflation in the US are healthcare, energy, transportation, real estate, pandemic-induced global supply chain disruptions, and Russia-Ukraine conflict/sanctions. Cancelling or keeping student debt does not affect the main drivers of inflation.
Kevin Egan University of Toledo Disagree 8 Inflation is a national issue. Federal student debt forgiveness was expected to have a very small impact so just Ohio would be about zero. My preference is for the federal govt. to expand pell grants and the State of Ohio could do its own Pell grant program for students in need and then also have loan repayments based on a percent of income earned.
Lewis Sage Baldwin Wallace University Strongly Disagree 10
Michael Jones University of Cincinnati Strongly Agree 8
Nancy Haskell University of Dayton Uncertain 5 Same comments as above.
Paul Holmes Ashland University Disagree 8 The amounts of loan forgiveness proposed would have a small effect on disposable income, and only for a relatively small group of people. If this spending had to be offset in a balanced budget context, I wouldn't expect much of an effect on the overall economy, and particularly not on overall price levels.
Bob Gitter Ohio Wesleyan University Strongly Disagree 9 I don't think the increased spending by this one group would cause enough of an impact to matter.
Cort Rodet Ohio University Uncertain 10 A Biden-like plan would wipe out a huge chunk of debt. Nearly $17B for Ohioans. That's huge. But inflationary pressure probably comes down to how forgiveness affects spendable income. If most borrowers are on income driven repayment plans, forgiveness could add $100-$200 to their monthly spending. That's not likely to lead to inflation. But it's nearly impossible to judge because it comes down to how much individuals or household owe, what their current earnings look like, and what their current payments look like. Sources cite how much overall debt there is among Ohioans, but it would be more useful to see debt broken down by income and the distribution of debt payments.
Kay E. Strong Independent Disagree 9 "Inflation is Always and Everywhere a Monetary Phenomenon"---Milton Friedman
Ejindu Ume Miami University Uncertain 7
Rachel Wilson Wittenberg University Disagree 6

October 2022 Survey:

Question A: Requiring employers to pay workers with disabilities the same minimum wage as other workers will grow the economy.

Economist Institution Opinion Confidence Comment
Jonathan Andreas Bluffton University No Opinion 1 I think the main goal of minimum wages is to create equitable growth and dignity for workers. I'd be in favor of more equity and dignity even if it caused a little less growth, but the research on minimum wages generally finds that it doesn't cause problems so it looks like a way to increase equity without hurting growth. I've never seen research about the minimum wage for people with disabilities so I haven't seen enough information to know.
Kevin Egan University of Toledo Uncertain 6 "Growing the economy" is an efficiency question when the issue here is really about fairness. I would need more data on the employment of workers with disabilities. I think the most fair policy is to have the same minimum wage for everyone and govt. could help subsidize firms for any accommodations.
Vinnie Gajjala Tiffin University Agree 8
Nancy Haskell University of Dayton Disagree 7
Paul Holmes Ashland University Strongly Disagree 8 This is a civil rights issue, not an economic one. We're probably talking about between several hundred and a few thousand Ohioans, who could each see a few thousand dollars more a year (assuming full-time work, which is probably a bad assumption), very likely less than a $10m impact; and the money doesn't come from nowhere, it's a transfer from firms to disabled employees; and that's assuming the firms don't decrease employment as a result of a higher disabled minimum wage. Further, any means-tested government transfers to the workers may decrease as a result. Overall, the likely impact on the economy will be basically zero.
Faria Huq Lake Erie College Uncertain 5 From a normative standpoint, workers with disabilities should be paid the same minimum wage as other workers, as they are being hired to do the same job. Whether this will grow the economy or not will depend on whether employers would reduce their hiring of workers with disabilities as a result or not, the state of the labor market, the percentage of the labor force that are disabled, and several other factors.
Michael Jones University of Cincinnati Disagree 8
Fadhel Kaboub Denison University Strongly Agree 10
Charles Kroncke Mount St. Joseph University Uncertain 7
Trevon Logan Ohio State University Uncertain 8
Diane Monaco Heidelberg University Strongly Agree 10 But modifications are needed (see other answers)
Joe Nowakowski Muskingum University Uncertain 9
Curtis Reynolds Kent State University Uncertain 5
Lewis Sage Baldwin Wallace University No Opinion 10
Kay E. Strong Independent Agree 9 Is this act in violation of the 1965 Anti-discrimination law?
Albert Sumell Youngstown State University Uncertain 5 I don't think it would have a tangible effect on the economy. It should be done out of fairness, not efficiency.
Ejindu Ume Miami University Uncertain 5
Andy Welki Kent State University Disagree 7 Minimum wages are not consistent with growth oriented policies.

Question B: Requiring employers to pay workers with disabilities the same minimum wage as other workers will reduce poverty.

Economist Institution Opinion Confidence Comment
Jonathan Andreas Bluffton University No Opinion 1 The research on the overall minimum wage is pretty clear that it has helped reduce inequality at approximately zero cost to growth. BUT an excessive minimum wage COULD hurt low-wage workers by increasing unemployment. I don't know enough about unemployment among people with disabilities nor about their financial support options if they become unemployed, so I cannot venture an opinion. It seems like it could be a good idea, but I just don't know enough details. I have friends with severe disabilities who mainly like their work for the sense of purpose and dignity and they might lose some of their financial assistance if they earned higher wages and I'd hate for them to lose their jobs due to a change in regulations.
Kevin Egan University of Toledo Agree 7 Assuming there are citizens with disabilities getting paid less than minimum wage now and that employment is about the same then yes this is a pay raise for them.
Vinnie Gajjala Tiffin University Agree 8
Nancy Haskell University of Dayton Agree 7
Paul Holmes Ashland University Disagree 7 We're talking about just a few thousand Ohioans, but let's concentrate on them. The disabled Ohioans earning subminimum wages probably don't have a lot of options for full-wage employment (otherwise presumably they wouldn't take jobs paying sub-minimum wage). They're typically not living on the wages they earn - typically they're dependent on families or the state - so whether or not they are 'in poverty' is unlikely to be affected much by this change. My guess is a change like this might decrease the poverty ranks by a few dozen. But that's assuming firms continue hiring those same workers at higher rates, which is probably untrue. Overall the effect will likely be very small, and I think characterizing it as 'reducing poverty' is a big stretch.
Faria Huq Lake Erie College Uncertain 5
Michael Jones University of Cincinnati Disagree 8
Fadhel Kaboub Denison University Strongly Agree 10 Not paying workers with disabilities the same minimum wage as other workers is an abusive practice that is morally, economically, and legally indefensible.
Charles Kroncke Mount St. Joseph University Agree 6
Trevon Logan Ohio State University Agree 9
Diane Monaco Heidelberg University Strongly Agree 10 But modifications are needed (see other responses)
Joe Nowakowski Muskingum University Agree 8
Curtis Reynolds Kent State University Uncertain 5 The challenge, of course, is whether individuals will still have job opportunities at the higher wage. If yes, then the higher minimum wage would reduce poverty. If not, then it will not reduce poverty. I am not sure which will happen for this population (which has not been studied as much in research on minimum wage policies).
Lewis Sage Baldwin Wallace University Agree 10
Kay E. Strong Independent Strongly Agree 10
Albert Sumell Youngstown State University Agree 8 The effect will be modest but clearly some individuals with disabilities would benefit.
Ejindu Ume Miami University Uncertain 5
Andy Welki Kent State University Agree 7 It will have a minimal effect on the poverty level of workers with disabilities. It does make the situation more equitable.

Question C: Requiring employers to pay workers with disabilities the same minimum wage as other workers will hinder human capital development for workers with disabilities.

Economist Institution Opinion Confidence Comment
Jonathan Andreas Bluffton University No Opinion 1 This is a very specialized policy area. I'm unqualified.
Kevin Egan University of Toledo Uncertain 7 Again, this is an efficiency question. I don't think its fair to pay anyone less then the low minimum wage we have now. To encourage employment for everyone, the govt. can subsidize firms to assist with accommodations.
Vinnie Gajjala Tiffin University Uncertain 6
Nancy Haskell University of Dayton Agree 7
Paul Holmes Ashland University Uncertain 6 This one is complicated. Higher wages might attract more disabled Ohioans to the labor force, but would discourage hiring those workers. However perhaps firms would give choose to give more training to get those workers performing more valuable tasks. I don't have a good feel for which effect would be strongest.
Faria Huq Lake Erie College Uncertain 6
Michael Jones University of Cincinnati Agree 8
Fadhel Kaboub Denison University Strongly Disagree 10 Workers with disabilities not only deserve the same minimum wage as other workers, but also additional wrap around services (transportation, housing, counseling, training..) and other professional development opportunities that give them the same opportunities to thrive professionally and in their life in general. Employers, in conjunction with state and federal authorities must underwrite the cost of such programs.
Charles Kroncke Mount St. Joseph University Disagree 7
Trevon Logan Ohio State University Disagree 8
Diane Monaco Heidelberg University Strongly Disagree 10 Under current Ohio state labor law, employers can pay people with disabilities less than the minimum wage. Economic analysis of our “current” two-tiered systems do not show benefits/values and employment outside current subminimum wage rates for people with disabilities as the system is flawed, and these results are in lockstep with U.S. Federal Law since 1938 (New Deal Era Laws) under section 14(c) of the Fair Labor Standards Act, which has been a travesty for most of these wage systems! All current wage systems are flawed and need to be revised. Current programs limit workers potential while using them as cheap labor. But any phasing-out of current programs should occur simultaneously to the phasing-in of new/modified programs that will enhance workers skill potential and current/future job earnings. The “Americans with Disabilities Act” (ADA) “prohibits a covered entity from discriminating against a qualified individual on the basis of disability in regard to employee compensation or other terms, conditions and privileges of employment.” But economic analysis has found that after 30 years since the ADA passage, that pay gaps persist for people with disabilities. Furthermore, people with disabilities (and accompanying subminimum wage rate structures) do not have the same protections and opportunities as people at or above minimum wage rates currently.
Joe Nowakowski Muskingum University Disagree 8
Curtis Reynolds Kent State University Disagree 5 I doubt that this would be true if we are talking about outside of work opportunities (such as training and schooling). If it limits job opportunities then that would hinder job-specific human capital development.
Lewis Sage Baldwin Wallace University Strongly Disagree 8
Kay E. Strong Independent Disagree 9
Albert Sumell Youngstown State University Strongly Disagree 10 I honestly don't understand the basis of an argument that this would hinder human capital development.
Ejindu Ume Miami University Strongly Disagree 7
Andy Welki Kent State University Uncertain 6 For those who maintain jobs, yes, for those who might lose jobs or not be hired at all, no.

September 2022 Survey:

Question A: The current $200 annual fee for registering electric vehicles in Ohio is progressive.

Economist Institution Opinion Confidence Comment
Jonathan Andreas Bluffton University Agree 8 This is technically correct, but $200 has a trivial impact on the progressivity of our overall tax system and it is irrational to subsidize EVs to encourage use and then tax it back! It should add a teeny amount of progressivity given that the average fleet age of electric cars is a lot newer than for gas cars and that the ratio of high-end electric cars is higher than for gas cars and the fact that the poorest Ohioans don't have a car or generally drive a used, gas-powered car.
Bizuayehu Bedane Marietta College Agree 8
David Brasington University of Cincinnati Strongly Agree 9
Ron Cheung Oberlin College Disagree 7
Kenneth Fah Ohio Dominican University Disagree 7
Vinnie Gajjala Tiffin University Disagree 8
Bob Gitter Ohio Wesleyan University Strongly Agree 9 Progressive? Yes, as few low-income families are buying EVs. I would, however, support reducing the fee to support the use of green vehicles.
Paul Holmes Ashland University Agree 5 Essentially this comes down to whether households increase their likelihood to drive an electric car increases more or less than proportionately with income. I think it increases more than proportionately with income, which would make the fee progressive, at least in the income range where people are at least somewhat likely to own electric cars.
Michael Jones University of Cincinnati Disagree 5
Charles Kroncke Mount St. Joseph University Strongly Agree 10 The fee is a substitute for the gas tax that the EV owner is not paying. EV owners use the road in the same way combustion engine owners do. It is a good fee.
Trevon Logan Ohio State University Disagree 8
Diane Monaco Heidelberg University Strongly Disagree 10 I just purchased a non-plug-in hybrid Camry less than one year ago and there was indeed a higher “Annual Registration and Fuel Type fee” assessed for electric vehicles than there is for traditional gasoline vehicles! However, the non-progressive gasoline tax and fuel registration fees throughout the country, including in Ohio, that are the basis for our current tax and fee structures, are ridden with misallocations for several reasons. Firstly, electricity is already taxed through the country. Secondly, the major source of highway and road degradation requiring maintenance comes from the use of heavy-duty semi-trucks. Thirdly, electric (and hybrid) vehicles contribute significantly small amounts of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides into the atmosphere that is the ultimate basis for the push toward electric vehicles and the public infrastructure needed to support them.
Michael Myler University of Mount Union Agree 7 Let's assume that (1) the fee, after federal subsidy, is about the same for every electric vehicle; (2) every electric vehicle costs about the same amount; and (3) only high-income earners buy electric vehicles. Then the $200 fee is progressive. Drop any one of these assumptions, and the question becomes much more complex!
Curtis Reynolds Kent State University Uncertain 5 Currently, it is somewhat progressive but only because purchases of electric cars are by higher income individuals (so only they are paying the fee). As lower-income households begin to purchase, this would be regressive.
Lewis Sage Baldwin Wallace University Agree 9
Kay E. Strong Independent Strongly Disagree 10 A progressive tax would rise with income. The flat fee has a greater regressive impact. Encouraging conversion to non-gas vehicles should not be punitive for middle lower and lower income individuals.
Albert Sumell Youngstown State University Strongly Disagree 10
Andy Welki John Carroll University Uncertain 5 I do not know about the distribution of electric car ownership by income group.
Rachel Wilson Wittenberg University Agree 8 As long as e-vehicles remain signals of income. As that shifts then it will become regressive.

Question B: To encourage greater take-up of electric vehicles, public expenditure on infrastructure to support them (such as charging stations) is likely to be more cost-effective than providing equivalent amounts as tax credits/purchase rebates for buyers.

Economist Institution Opinion Confidence Comment
Jonathan Andreas Bluffton University Uncertain 7 I'm sure this would have been true in the past when infrastructure was a big problem for electric cars, and I'd guess that it may still be true partly because buyer subsidies are expensive relative to the cost of level-2 charging stations and partly because the government sometimes does a better job producing infrastructure than an absence of involvement, but this is too complicated for me to prognosticate about without more data.
Bizuayehu Bedane Marietta College Agree 9
David Brasington University of Cincinnati Agree 8
Ron Cheung Oberlin College Disagree 7
Kenneth Fah Ohio Dominican University Disagree 7
Vinnie Gajjala Tiffin University Agree 9
Bob Gitter Ohio Wesleyan University Uncertain 1 I don’t have enough information.
Paul Holmes Ashland University Uncertain 5 I'd lean toward agreeing (that infrastructure is more cost-effective than tax credits) but I'm really unsure. I suspect that a lack of charging infrastructure is much less important in Ohio, where most car-owners have a garage to charge in, than in states with populations in dense urban cities.
Michael Jones University of Cincinnati Agree 4
Charles Kroncke Mount St. Joseph University Strongly Agree 10 The price of EVs will fall as technology progresses. The infrastructure will eventually benefit all drivers. In fact, it will benefit all Americans with cleaner air.
Trevon Logan Ohio State University Agree 6
Diane Monaco Heidelberg University Uncertain 6 It depends on the policies ultimately implemented.
Michael Myler University of Mount Union Agree 8 A car is more useful to you if you know at the time of buying it that you can use it for long-distance driving. I see no direct link between rebates and increased number of charging stations. "Range Anxiety" is not an insignificant issue that buyers can easily ignore.
Curtis Reynolds Kent State University Agree 6 Rebates and tax credits are good for bringing the purchase price down, but the lack of infrastructure (or perceived lack of charging stations, etc.) makes it less likely households will choose to buy even if the price of the vehicle is lowered.
Lewis Sage Baldwin Wallace University Strongly Agree 10 My answers are probably biased because I own a Nissan Leaf as my primary vehicle.
Kay E. Strong Independent Strongly Agree 10
Albert Sumell Youngstown State University Uncertain 7 This question is challenging. Both are very important in the choice of consumers. The federal government should also be involved in incentivizing usage of electric vehicles, but state governments should devote more resources toward improving infrastructure.
Andy Welki John Carroll University Disagree 6
Rachel Wilson Wittenberg University Disagree 8 Both are needed

August 2022 Survey:

Rising inequality in Ohio is slowing state economic growth.

Economist Institution Opinion Confidence Comment
Jonathan Andreas Bluffton University Uncertain 5 I expect that rising inequality WILL slow growth in Ohio, but I doubt that we can know whether it IS already slowing growth at current levels. One of the ways that inequality hurts growth is by degrading institutions and human capital (see Acemoglu and Robinson and the resource curse literature). That effect takes a while to show up in the data. However, there are lots of other reasons to want to reduce inequality and the fact that it is hard to see any short-term relationship between growth and inequality in developed nations means that we can probably reduce inequality without reducing short-term growth. Plus, it could boost long-term growth depending on how it is done.
Bizuayehu Bedane Marietta College Uncertain 8
David Brasington University of Cincinnati Disagree 7
Kevin Egan University of Toledo Strongly Agree 10 Rising inequality is not only slowing the states' economic growth, you can even see it in life expectancy. Ohio ranks 42nd nationally for life expectancy and is the worst-ranked of the ten most populous states. As axios.com reports ("Ohio's life expectancy among the worst in U.S., Alissa Widman Neese, 2/17/22, axios.com) there is a "massive gap between residents of Franklinton, the census tract with the lowest life expectancy in Ohio (60), and Stow, a northeast Ohio suburb with the highest (89.2)." High income-high education-high tax base areas do well but at the expense of lower income-lower education-lower tax base areas and the end result is the state overall is pulled down. Truly we are all in this together as every household is workers, especially investments in children as future workers and Ohio has a child poverty rate of 19% which is double the child poverty rate of some other states. We could choose many efficient and fair policies to reverse this, beginning with reducing child poverty rates.
Kenneth Fah Ohio Dominican University Agree 8
Hasan Faruq Xavier University Agree 9
Vinnie Gajjala Tiffin University Agree 9
Paul Holmes Ashland University Uncertain 6 My gut says 'agree' but I don't think the evidence is clear. I think it also depends on what we mean by 'growth'; GDP per capita could be increased by inequality while median household income could be decreased, for example.
Faria Huq Lake Erie College Agree 8
Michael Jones University of Cincinnati Uncertain 5
Fadhel Kaboub Denison University Strongly Agree 10 The empirical literature is very clear on the negative impact that inequality has on economic growth. The most impactful pro-growth policies are the ones that invest in education, health, infrastructure, and job creation opportunities for the bottom half of the income ladder.
Charles Kroncke Mount St. Joseph University Disagree 6
Trevon Logan Ohio State University Agree 8
Diane Monaco Heidelberg University Strongly Agree 10 There is a difference between rising “wealth” inequality and rising “income” inequality and its effect on economic growth. Wealth inequality in the U.S. is much larger than income inequality but they both do indeed suppress economic growth. Income inequality suppresses economic growth in general in aggregate demand. But it is possible for increasing wage growth, if sufficient enough, to help facilitate economic growth, however in the U.S., wage increases have been continually slowing for at least 90 percent of workers resulting in a slowing effect overall in economic growth for the U.S.
Michael Myler University of Mount Union Uncertain 2
Joe Nowakowski Muskingum University Agree 9
Curtis Reynolds Kent State University Uncertain 5
Martin Saavedra Oberlin College Uncertain 4
Lewis Sage Baldwin Wallace University Uncertain 3 Because the term "economic growth" is undefined, it's hard to have a defensible opinion.
Dean Snyder Antioch College Strongly Agree 8 Economic inequality has been a major cause of stagnation. Consumer debt has been on the rise since 2013 and wages have not kept pace with inflation. Target’s recent announcement of a 90% plunge in profits shows how central consumer buying power is to the U.S. and Ohio economies. Debt-financed consumption is a weak driver of economic growth.
Kay E. Strong Independent Strongly Agree 10 Income inequality is a statement about the extent to which income is distributed unevenly among households. The existence of poverty is an indicator of how extreme income inequality has become.
Albert Sumell Youngstown State University Agree 6 Empirical research suggests high inequality hinders economic growth. I'm not aware of any research specific to Ohio but think it's fair to presume macroeconomic research on the impact to countries also applies to states.
Thomas Traynor Wright State University Disagree 8
Ejindu Ume Miami University Strongly Agree 9
Andy Welki John Carroll University Disagree 8
Rachel Wilson Wittenberg University Agree 10

August 2022 Survey:

A windfall tax on the excess profits of large oil and gas companies – with the revenue rebated to households – would be an efficient way to provide temporary relief for the average household in Ohio from rising energy costs.

Economist Institution Opinion Confidence Comment
Jonathan Andreas Bluffton University Agree 5 I think it is more about political symbolism than efficient relief, but in theory it is likely to be a relatively efficient transfer of resources compared with most other kinds of tax-and-redistribution programs, depending upon the administrative costs.
Bizuayehu Bedane Marietta College Uncertain 8
David Brasington University of Cincinnati No Opinion 10 It's economically efficient, but you'd have to have windfall subsidies to oil companies when oil prices are low, too. Don't want to go there.
Ron Cheung Oberlin College Agree 6
Kevin Egan University of Toledo Agree 8 I would prefer all subsidies that support all fossil fuels were eliminated and anti-trust laws enforced so no one company has too much market power.
Kenneth Fah Ohio Dominican University Agree 8
Hasan Faruq Xavier University Agree 9
Vinnie Gajjala Tiffin University Agree 9
Bob Gitter Ohio Wesleyan University Disagree 9 With a limited supply of crude and refinery capacity, we don’t want to help people buy more. In times of inflation, we don’t need to stimulate demand, either.
Nancy Haskell University of Dayton Uncertain 5
Paul Holmes Ashland University Strongly Agree 8
Michael Jones University of Cincinnati Strongly Disagree 5 The best way to combat rising energy costs is to lower the cost of energy production. A windfall tax does the opposite. A tax makes it more expensive, not less expensive, to supply energy to the market.
Charles Kroncke Mount St. Joseph University Agree 9
Trevon Logan Ohio State University Uncertain 7
Diane Monaco Heidelberg University Strongly Agree 10 A windfall tax would reduce energy production as it did in 1980 with President Carter's enacted bill. The same would be true as a measure in President Biden's $370 billion clean energy bill. While energy "imports" increased in 1980 due to the very limited energy alternatives that existed at the time, that is no longer the case in 2022! Current energy sources such as solar and wind power are at an all time low and are expected to go down even further with the current clean energy bill incentives! Also, the clean energy bill has $30 billion tax credits for solar, wind, and batteries as well as electric vehicle (EV) purchase and energy-efficient home credits. Consumer benefits will help consumers cut utility costs, increase their use of EVs, and energy-efficient home utilization; thus, overall reducing the amount of toxins in the environment.
Michael Myler University of Mount Union Strongly Agree 10 Let the market determine the price of goods. Reimburse the consumers so that they could buy the same amount of the high-priced good (gasoline/fuel oil/electricity) if they choose to spend their money that way. Micro theory suggests consumers will buy less of the high-priced good and spend a portion of the reimbursement on other goods.
Joe Nowakowski Muskingum University Agree 8
Lewis Sage Baldwin Wallace University Strongly Agree 10
Dean Snyder Antioch College Agree 7 We can look to the ongoing situation in France as an example. The French energy giant TotalEnergies reduced prices at the pump in response to the possibility of a windfall profit tax. The real threat of a windfall tax may be an effective way to reduce consumer energy prices.
Kay E. Strong Independent Disagree 8 Discussion of windfall taxes on "excess" oil and gas company profits has already brought down the price at the pump! The kicker on this proposal is defining what is excess profit and what is normal profits. While rebating revenue to households has short term value, perhaps, using the excess gains to support green energy development would be in the long term interest of households.
Melissa Thomasson Miami University Uncertain 5
Thomas Traynor Wright State University Agree 9 I consider this to be true as long as the details, such as what constitutes windfall profits, are done correctly with efficiency in mind.
Ejindu Ume Miami University Agree 7
Andy Welki John Carroll University Disagree 7
Rachel Wilson Wittenberg University Disagree 7
Kathryn Wilson Kent State University Uncertain 3 In terms of efficiency, the primary question would be what effect does the tax have on future decisions of oil and gas companies. If it does not change behavior, then it would be an efficient way to provide temporary relief. However, if it causes these companies to change their future behavior, then the efficiency implications are not as clear.

June 2022 Survey:

Question A: A state version of the 2021 expansion of the child tax credit would reduce child poverty substantially.

Economist Institution Opinion Confidence Comment
Bizuayehu Bedane Marietta College Agree 9
David Brasington University of Cincinnati Disagree 8
Jay Corrigan Kenyon College Agree 6 There's no doubt a state version of the 2021 child tax credit would reduce child poverty. What's harder to say is whether it would reduce poverty "substantially."
Kevin Egan University of Toledo Strongly Agree 10 Children are our future workers. I think this is one of the most efficient and fair uses of our tax dollars.
Kenneth Fah Ohio Dominican University Agree 6
Vinnie Gajjala Tiffin University Strongly Agree 9
Bob Gitter Ohio Wesleyan University Disagree 9 The amount of the tax credit would determine the effect on reducing child poverty. Given the amount of the credit in other states, ($200-$1,000 per child) if the credit was on that order of magnitude it would not lift that many children out of poverty.
Nancy Haskell University of Dayton Agree 8 "substantially" is tough to quantify. It will reduce child poverty. However, these tend to miss families that do not owe and thus may not file taxes.
Paul Holmes Ashland University Strongly Agree 10 This is almost tautologically true. The only debate can come regarding the word 'substantially', but I think the evidence from the federal-level 'experiment' makes this clear.
Faria Huq Lake Erie College Agree 4 While there may be some reduction in child poverty, whether that reduction is substantial will depend on supporting policies in place.
Michael Jones University of Cincinnati Agree 8
Charles Kroncke Mt. St. Joseph University Agree 9
Bethany Lemont Ohio University Agree 1 It likely would reduce child poverty but I'm not sure what exactly would constitute a "substantial" reduction.
Joe Nowakowski Muskingum University Agree 8
Curtis Reynolds Kent State University Agree 7 It obviously depends on the size of the tax credit and whether the federal one remained, but in general child tax credits would reduce children in poverty.
Martin Saavedra Oberlin College Strongly Agree 10
Lewis Sage Baldwin Wallace University Strongly Agree 10
Kay E. Strong Independent Strongly Agree 10
Albert Sumell Youngstown State University Agree 8 The federal version has a greater impact than the state version.
Ejindu Ume Miami University Agree 7
Andy Welki John Carroll University Agree 7
Rachel Wilson Wittenberg University Agree 9
Kathryn Wilson Kent State University Agree 6 It depends on size of the tax credit, whether it is refundable, and who qualifies. A larger tax credit that is refundable and available to lower-income households with children can definitely reduce child poverty substantially. On the other hand, a small credit or one that is not refundable or has qualification hurdles may have a limited effect.

Question B: The costs of increasing resources for low-income families via a state child tax credit would be offset over the long term by the fiscal benefits of improving life outcomes for children no longer growing up in poverty.

Economist Institution Opinion Confidence Comment
Bizuayehu Bedane Marietta College Agree 9
David Brasington University of Cincinnati Disagree 8
Jay Corrigan Kenyon College Uncertain 5
Kevin Egan University of Toledo Agree 8
Kenneth Fah Ohio Dominican University Agree 8
Vinnie Gajjala Tiffin University Agree 8
Bob Gitter Ohio Wesleyan University Uncertain 5 This depends on the structure of the credit. If it goes to all families or those in the upper middle class the long run impact on those children would be minimal. Targeting it to low income children would have an impact that might result in the program paying for itself in the long run.
Nancy Haskell University of Dayton Agree 5 Nationally, yes. At at state level, probably, but it depends on the extent to which the children continue to work and live in the state in adulthood.
Paul Holmes Ashland University Strongly Agree 8 I think this is very likely true, based on experimental evidence from the US and from comparison to other countries with more progressive tax codes.
Faria Huq Lake Erie College Agree 4
Michael Jones University of Cincinnati Disagree 8
Charles Kroncke Mt. St. Joseph University Agree 8
Bethany Lemont Ohio University Agree 2 In general, programs that benefit low-income children have had fiscal benefits that exceed their costs in the long run but I don't know enough about state child tax credits to assert that that would also be the case with this particular hypothetical policy.
Joe Nowakowski Muskingum University Agree 8
Curtis Reynolds Kent State University Agree 8
Martin Saavedra Oberlin College Agree 6
Lewis Sage Baldwin Wallace University Agree 8
Kay E. Strong Independent Strongly Agree 10
Albert Sumell Youngstown State University Agree 7
Ejindu Ume Miami University Strongly Agree 9
Andy Welki John Carroll University Agree 8
Rachel Wilson Wittenberg University Agree 7
Kathryn Wilson Kent State University Strongly Agree 9 Research is strong that investment in low-income children not only increases the quality of life for those children but also provides financial returns later in life for the individual and the state.

Question C: Parental labor supply would be likely to fall significantly following introduction of an expanded child tax credit.

Economist Institution Opinion Confidence Comment
Bizuayehu Bedane Marietta College Disagree 8
David Brasington University of Cincinnati Disagree 8
Jay Corrigan Kenyon College Agree 4
Kevin Egan University of Toledo Disagree 8 I don’t think parent labor supply will change much but I don’t really care what the answer is. Support parents and let them decide.
Kenneth Fah Ohio Dominican University Disagree 8
Vinnie Gajjala Tiffin University Disagree 8
Bob Gitter Ohio Wesleyan University Agree 8 The effect would be largest for low-income single parents. I would imagine there would not be much of an effect for others.
Nancy Haskell University of Dayton Disagree 7 Labor supply is relatively income inelastic. Although, the pandemic has certainly changed attitudes toward work in recent years.
Paul Holmes Ashland University No Opinion 1 I'm not familiar enough with the evidence here to comment. Labor supply is...weird.
Faria Huq Lake Erie College Uncertain 4
Michael Jones University of Cincinnati Uncertain 5
Charles Kroncke Mt. St. Joseph University Disagree 9
Bethany Lemont Ohio University Uncertain 10 This would depend on how the child tax credit was structured.
If it has a phase-in and phase-out range based on income like the EITC, then it could actually increase parental labor supply. (See https://www.nber.org/digest/aug06/earned-income-tax-credit-raises-employment)
If it would just be a lump-sum credit, it has the potential to reduce parental labor supply but it's hard to tell if the potential reduction would be "significant" without having more information about the size of the credit.
Joe Nowakowski Muskingum University Disagree 7
Curtis Reynolds Kent State University Disagree 7 This would definitely depend on the size of the credit, but it is unlikely to have any significant impact on parental labor supply.
Martin Saavedra Oberlin College Uncertain 1
Lewis Sage Baldwin Wallace University Disagree 8 some reduction is likely
Kay E. Strong Independent Strongly Disagree 10 To suggest that a child tax credit would create a backward bending labor supply curve for targeted low and moderate income families would indeed be a spectacle to behold!

With a 12% poverty rate for Ohio's children and food insecure homes, a family would be fortunate to buff up the calories for underweight children. The USDA reported in 2020 that 14.8 percent of households with children were food-insecure, up from 13.6 percent in 2019.
Albert Sumell Youngstown State University Strongly Disagree 10 Child tax credits do not have an impact on labor supply.
Ejindu Ume Miami University Disagree 5
Andy Welki John Carroll University Disagree 5
Rachel Wilson Wittenberg University Disagree 8 I don't think the amount is enough to significantly impact the labor supply. Large amounts of parents in poverty are not going to quit their jobs to then live in deep poverty
Kathryn Wilson Kent State University Strongly Disagree 8

May 2022 Survey:

Question A: Prohibition of abortion in Ohio would reduce women's educational attainment in the state.

Economist Institution Opinion Confidence Comment
Jonathan Andreas Bluffton University Agree 6 Abortion prohibition would only have a very small effect on these averages because demand for legal abortion is quite inelastic and the majority of women will/would probably find substitutes that are either more expensive (legal abortion in neighboring states) or less safe (abortion pills delivered through the mail or worse). The availability of abortion pill technologies is a dramatic change from 1973 that will increase the prevalence of relatively inexpensive, illegal abortions if medically-supervised abortions are banned. Also see subsequent comments.
Bizuayehu Bedane Marietta College Uncertain 9
Ron Cheung Oberlin College Strongly Agree 8
Kenneth Fah Ohio Dominican University Agree 8 The cost of access increases as women seek alternatives in states that provide access. The increased access would be more impactful for those who don't have the resources to seek alternatives, mostly those from low-income households. Higher education is already a challenge, financially and socially.
Hasan Faruq Xavier University Agree 9
Vinnie Gajjala Tiffin University Agree 9
Sucharita Ghosh University of Akron Strongly Agree 9
Bob Gitter Ohio Wesleyan University Agree 7 Given the fact that most women who have an abortion have completed their schooling this effect would be small.
Nancy Haskell University of Dayton Strongly Agree 10
Faria Huq Lake Erie College Strongly Agree 10
Michael Jones University of Cincinnati Strongly Disagree 10
Fadhel Kaboub Denison University Strongly Agree 10 The empirical evidence is very clear about the negative impact of unplanned pregnancies on women's educational attainment, especially when support services are unavailable or unaffordable.
Charles Kroncke Mt. St. Joseph University Strongly Agree 10
Bethany Lemont Ohio University Strongly Agree 10 See this twitter thread for a summary of the economic evidence:
https://twitter.com/keds_economist/status/1524030047987851266

Time is a scarce resource. When women have to spend time to take care of children, they have less time to spend pursuing an education.
Trevon Logan Ohio State University Strongly Agree 10
Diane Monaco Heidelberg University Strongly Agree 10 The State of Mississippi is asking the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade in Dobbs v. Jackson maintaining that there is “no causal link” between abortion access and the determination of when and under what conditions women become mothers. This belief could not be further from the truth. Economic research overwhelmingly indicates that abortion rights greatly affect the educational level, career opportunities, earning and wealth enhancement potential for women. Abortion rights advantages are especially profound for historically marginalized women as well. Furthermore, women who do not have abortion access can struggle for years to complete their education and establish careers as they sacrifice opportunities that mostly can never be regained. Finally, abortion rights causal linkage advantages continue to the next generation where children born to mothers with access to family planning greatly benefit in their own ability to earn income over their lifetimes.
Michael Myler University of Mount Union Strongly Agree 9
Joe Nowakowski Muskingum University Strongly Agree 10
Curtis Reynolds Kent State University Strongly Agree 8 The research is strong about the importance of women being able to control fertility and their educational attainment and labor force participation.
Lewis Sage Baldwin Wallace University Agree 9
Kay E. Strong Independent Strongly Agree 10 By allocating $$$$$$ for "free" high quality nursery and pre-K services for families and lowering the barriers to educational access, the state could take steps toward mitigating the poverty rate of 13.5% (2022). Human capital is not a "throw-away" commodity but rather the basis of future prosperity for everyone.
Ejindu Ume Miami University Strongly Agree 9
Rachel Wilson Wittenberg University Strongly Agree 10
Kathryn Wilson Kent State University Strongly Agree 9 Evidence suggests that high school graduation rates would be lower and college graduation rates would be lower.

Question B: Prohibition of abortion in Ohio would reduce women's labor force participation in the state.

Economist Institution Opinion Confidence Comment
Jonathan Andreas Bluffton University Agree 6 In addition to my comment on the first part of the abortion question, this kind of cost is irrelevant to the legalization debate. The moral case AGAINST abortion is that it is murder and even very large educational or labor-force costs are worth it if abortion is murder. The moral case FOR abortion is that it is killing flesh that isn't sentient (and/or religious people believe that it doesn't yet have a soul). If so, then these kinds of costs to society are irrelevant to what people should be able to do with their own bodies.
Bizuayehu Bedane Marietta College Uncertain 9
Ron Cheung Oberlin College Strongly Agree 8
Kenneth Fah Ohio Dominican University Agree 8
Hasan Faruq Xavier University Agree 9
Vinnie Gajjala Tiffin University Agree 9
Sucharita Ghosh University of Akron Agree 9
Bob Gitter Ohio Wesleyan University Strongly Agree 10 A number of studies show that having a child reduces labor force participation.
Nancy Haskell University of Dayton Strongly Agree 10
Faria Huq Lake Erie College Strongly Agree 10
Michael Jones University of Cincinnati Strongly Disagree 10
Fadhel Kaboub Denison University Strongly Agree 10 The empirical evidence is very clear about the negative impact of unplanned pregnancies on women's labor force participation, especially when support services like childcare are unavailable or unaffordable.
Charles Kroncke Mt. St. Joseph University Uncertain 8
Bethany Lemont Ohio University Strongly Agree 10 See this twitter thread for a summary of the economic evidence:
https://twitter.com/keds_economist/status/1524030047987851266

Time is a scarce resource. When women have to spend time to take care of children, they have less time to spend working.
Trevon Logan Ohio State University Strongly Agree 10
Diane Monaco Heidelberg University Agree 8
Michael Myler University of Mount Union Strongly Agree 9
Joe Nowakowski Muskingum University Strongly Agree 10
Curtis Reynolds Kent State University Strongly Agree 8 The research is strong about the importance of women being able to control fertility and their educational attainment and labor force participation.
Lewis Sage Baldwin Wallace University Uncertain 10 Single parenthood could--I suppose--increase labor-force participation if state income support rules be sufficiently draconian.
Kay E. Strong Independent Strongly Agree 10 Every choice has a trade-off, a fundamental truth of life and economics. The cost of choosing "A" is the value involved in opportunity "B". Supply your own "A" and "B". Living in paradise is currently beyond both our productive and consumptive possibilities.
Ejindu Ume Miami University Strongly Agree 9
Rachel Wilson Wittenberg University Strongly Agree 10
Kathryn Wilson Kent State University Strongly Agree 9

Question C: Prohibition of abortion in Ohio would reduce women's earnings in the state.

Economist Institution Opinion Confidence Comment
Jonathan Andreas Bluffton University Agree 6 As mentioned in my first two comments about abortion, again, I don't think prohibition would have much effect on average earnings and I don't think anyone will change their mind about abortion based on these kinds of costs to society because the ethics hinge on whether it is more like murder or an appendectomy! Another reason why abortion will have a small effect on average income and education statistics is that the women who are affected the most by prohibition are the poorest women who have the least opportunities. Middle-class and wealthy women just pay more money and get out-of-state abortions or pay illegal providers in state.
Bizuayehu Bedane Marietta College Uncertain 9
Ron Cheung Oberlin College Strongly Agree 7
Kenneth Fah Ohio Dominican University Agree 8
Hasan Faruq Xavier University Strongly Agree 9
Vinnie Gajjala Tiffin University Agree 9
Sucharita Ghosh University of Akron Strongly Agree 10
Bob Gitter Ohio Wesleyan University Strongly Agree 10 Sadly, having a child reduces the earnings of a woman.
Nancy Haskell University of Dayton Strongly Agree 10
Faria Huq Lake Erie College Agree 9
Michael Jones University of Cincinnati Strongly Disagree 10
Fadhel Kaboub Denison University Strongly Agree 10 The empirical evidence is very clear about the negative impact of unplanned pregnancy on women's educational attainment and participation in the labor force, both of which lead to employment options with lower wages, benefits and upward mobility. It's a poverty trap for women of color in particular.
Charles Kroncke Mt. St. Joseph University Agree 7
Bethany Lemont Ohio University Strongly Agree 10 See this twitter thread for a summary of the economic evidence:
https://twitter.com/keds_economist/status/1524030047987851266

Time is a scarce resource. When women have to spend time to take care of children, they have less time to spend working.
Trevon Logan Ohio State University Strongly Agree 10
Diane Monaco Heidelberg University Strongly Agree 10
Michael Myler University of Mount Union Strongly Agree 9
Joe Nowakowski Muskingum University Strongly Agree 10
Curtis Reynolds Kent State University Strongly Agree 7 Given a lack of universal access to low-cost/high-quality child care, young children make it difficult for caregivers to work full-time or they must make tradeoffs to accommodate childcare which can lead to lower earnings.
Lewis Sage Baldwin Wallace University Agree 9
Kay E. Strong Independent Strongly Agree 10 In 2022, the uncontrolled gender pay gap is $0.82 for every $1 that men make, which is the same as last year. The mother penalty is real! When women indicated they were a parent or primary caregiver, we observed an uncontrolled pay gap of $0.74 for every dollar earned by a male parent. The trajectory of a woman's lifetime earnings declines as well with the addition caregiver responsibilities. For a reality check on the "gaps": https://www.payscale.com/research-and-insights/gender-pay-gap/
Ejindu Ume Miami University Strongly Agree 9
Rachel Wilson Wittenberg University Strongly Agree 10
Kathryn Wilson Kent State University Strongly Agree 9

April 2022 Survey:

Question A: A universal state pre-kindergarten program would have economic benefits that would outweigh its economic costs.

Economist Institution Opinion Confidence Comment
Jonathan Andreas Bluffton University Agree 7 Pre-K education is generally more cost effective than spending on education for older youths because it is relatively cheap, and the true direct cost is also much smaller than the sticker price because it would replace expensive existing programs and tax subsidies and it would increase tax revenues by increasing workforce participation among parents. It also has the advantage of potentially boosting later educational outcomes for more years. The big uncertainty is whether it would be implemented as effectively as the many programs that have been studied in the past that have shown high ROI.
Bizuayehu Bedane Marietta College Agree 9
David Brasington University of Cincinnati Uncertain 5
Ron Cheung Oberlin College Strongly Agree 9
Glenn Dutcher Ohio Univeristy Agree 9
Kevin Egan University of Toledo Agree 8 I think the economics benefits are greater than the economic costs as children are our future workers and the first 5 years is so important. However, it may be best to have optional pre-K vs. mandatory so parents can decide if the subsidized pre-k program is better or not than their current alternative.
Vinnie Gajjala Tiffin University Strongly Agree 9
Bob Gitter Ohio Wesleyan University Agree 9 The evidence clearly shows that investment in providing pre-kindergarten improves earnings down the road enough to justify the expenditure just on those grounds. Also, parents could more easily seek employment, paying in more more tax dollars.
Nancy Haskell University of Dayton Agree 8
Paul Holmes Ashland University Strongly Agree 10 I think there's broad agreement about this in the literature.
Michael Jones University of Cincinnati Uncertain 1 There are so many ways to implement these programs, that the devil is really in the details. We've seen some programs with great returns, but the recent research from Vanderbilt showing negative returns to universal pre-k is concerning.
Fadhel Kaboub Denison University Strongly Agree 10 Absolutely, the empirical evidence is very clear about the importance of early childhood education having a high return on investment in the long term.
Bethany Lemont Ohio University Agree 10 Additionally, evidence exists that suggests that a universal program would be more economically efficient than a targeted program: According to Cascio (2021) “The constellation of evidence is consistent with universal pre-K delivering greater benefits to the population it serves, relative to the costs, than targeted pre-K.”

Source:
Cascio, Elizabeth. 2021. “Does Universal Preschool Hit the Target? Program Access and Preschool Impacts,” The Journal of Human Resources
See also:
https://www.policyimpacts.org/policy/79a44c75-ff1e-818e-2bac-7a82e2337586/pre-school-(untargeted-programs)
Trevon Logan Ohio State University Strongly Agree 9
Joe Nowakowski University of Mount Union Agree 9
Curtis Reynolds Kent State University Agree 8 The research is pretty strong to support this, with two caveats: 1) the focus needs to be on high quality pre-K (so need to fund enough), and 2) it would be good for the children, but not necessarily long term for the state if they migrate somewhere else (a constant problem in Ohio, but maybe this would encourage people to move here or stay here).
Lewis Sage Baldwin Wallace University Strongly Agree 10
Dean Snyder Antioch College Agree 8
Kay E. Strong Independent Strongly Agree 10 Assuming a high-quality pre-kindergarten program with sufficient funding to include use and support of comprehensive early learning standards and curricula; credentialed teachers; ongoing teacher training and support; appropriate class size and teacher-student ratio; and a system of continuous quality improvement, then the children of the State are winners both in short and long term respects. That is really all that should matter because they are the future upon which everything else in the State will be built.
Albert Sumell Youngstown State University Strongly Agree 10 Studies have shown that Universal Pre-K programs are one of the most cost effective ways to improve childhood outcomes for low income families. It also increases labor force participation.
Melissa Thomasson Miami University Strongly Agree 10
Thomas Traynor Wright State University Strongly Agree 9 Most independent research indicates that pre-K education generates benefits that far exceed costs (assuming it is implemented reasonably well).
Ejindu Ume Miami University Strongly Agree 10
Andy Welki John Carroll University Strongly Agree 9
Rachel Wilson Wittenberg University Strongly Agree 10 Economic research consistently supports this. https://heckmanequation.org/resource/invest-in-early-childhood-development-reduce-deficits-strengthen-the-economy/#:~:text=In%20this%20two%2Dpage%20summary,need%20for%20costly%20social%20spending.
Kathryn Wilson Kent State University Agree 5 It is not clear if the universal pre-kindergarten program would be required or would be made available to all who wanted to attend. I believe that making pre-kindergarten programming available to all would have benefits that outweigh the economics costs, recognizing that many of those benefits may come well into the future while the costs are now.

Question B: A universal state pre-kindergarten program would reduce poverty and inequality in the state of Ohio.

Economist Institution Opinion Confidence Comment
Jonathan Andreas Bluffton University Agree 9 Although it would replace means-tested programs, those programs tend to miss a lot of low-income people and universal programs tend to be more, well, universal! Political incentives also mean that programs for the poor can have poor quality compared with universal programs.
Bizuayehu Bedane Marietta College Agree 9
David Brasington University of Cincinnati Uncertain 5
Ron Cheung Oberlin College Strongly Agree 9
Glenn Dutcher Ohio Univeristy Agree 9
Kevin Egan University of Toledo Strongly Agree 10
Vinnie Gajjala Tiffin University Agree 8
Bob Gitter Ohio Wesleyan University Agree 9 One of the largest drivers of inequality is the low levels of education among lower income individuals. Universal pre-kindergarten would improve the job prospects of those who receive it 15 or 20 years down the road.
Nancy Haskell University of Dayton Agree 8
Paul Holmes Ashland University Strongly Agree 10 Again, I think there's broad agreement about this in the literature.
Michael Jones University of Cincinnati Uncertain 1
Fadhel Kaboub Denison University Uncertain 10 Universal pre-K education is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for reducing poverty and inequality. It must be supplemented by a comprehensive set of investments in health, education/training, housing, transportation, infrastructure, and job creation programs.
Bethany Lemont Ohio University Agree 5
Trevon Logan Ohio State University Agree 7
Joe Nowakowski University of Mount Union Agree 9
Curtis Reynolds Kent State University Agree 7 I agree, but see my caveats to the first question.
Lewis Sage Baldwin Wallace University Strongly Agree 10
Dean Snyder Antioch College Agree 5
Kay E. Strong Independent Strongly Agree 10
Albert Sumell Youngstown State University Strongly Agree 10
Melissa Thomasson Miami University Uncertain 8
Thomas Traynor Wright State University Strongly Agree 9 Most independent research indicates that pre-K education is a low cost way to reduce poverty (assuming it is implemented reasonably well).
Ejindu Ume Miami University Strongly Agree 10
Andy Welki John Carroll University Agree 8
Rachel Wilson Wittenberg University Strongly Agree 10
Kathryn Wilson Kent State University Agree 5

Question C: A universal state pre-kindergarten program would improve educational outcomes such as high school graduation rates and college enrollment in Ohio.

Economist Institution Opinion Confidence Comment
Jonathan Andreas Bluffton University Agree 8 As proposed, it would be an increase in educational spending. That tends to have a positive effect on outcomes. My amateurish read of the literature indicates that early-childhood education is so much more cost-effective than secondary or university education that it would probably improve overall outcomes even if total education spending were held constant and the money for universal pre-K was transferred from cuts on spending for older youth, but I'm less confident about this latter scenario.
Bizuayehu Bedane Marietta College Strongly Agree 9
David Brasington University of Cincinnati Uncertain 5
Ron Cheung Oberlin College Strongly Agree 7
Glenn Dutcher Ohio Univeristy Agree 7
Kevin Egan University of Toledo Agree 7
Vinnie Gajjala Tiffin University Agree 8
Bob Gitter Ohio Wesleyan University Agree 9 Previous studies do show this. The reason is most likely improved cognitive skills.
Nancy Haskell University of Dayton Strongly Agree 9
Paul Holmes Ashland University Strongly Agree 10 Again, I think there's broad agreement about this in the literature.
Michael Jones University of Cincinnati Uncertain 1
Fadhel Kaboub Denison University Uncertain 10 Universal pre-K education is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for improving high school graduation rates and college enrollment. It must be supplemented by a comprehensive set of investments in after-school programs, youth centers, summer camps with sports, arts, science, tech/innovation programs.
Bethany Lemont Ohio University Agree 5 Cascio (2021) provides evidence of improved third-grade test scores but she is uncertain about longer-run improved educational outcomes. Related evidence on improving early K-3 education suggests that improved test scores early on do lead to increased college enrollment and adult earnings (Chetty et al. 2011). I imagine that effects would be similar for increasing access to pre-K but I have no directly relevant evidence to support this assertion.

Source:
Raj Chetty, John N. Friedman, Nathaniel Hilger, Emmanuel Saez, Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach, Danny Yagan, How Does Your Kindergarten Classroom Affect Your Earnings? Evidence from Project Star , The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Volume 126, Issue 4, November 2011, Pages 1593–1660
Trevon Logan Ohio State University Strongly Agree 9
Joe Nowakowski University of Mount Union Agree 6
Curtis Reynolds Kent State University Agree 8 The research is pretty clear that this would be true, particularly if the universal pre-k was good quality.
Lewis Sage Baldwin Wallace University Strongly Agree 10
Dean Snyder Antioch College Agree 7
Kay E. Strong Independent Strongly Agree 10
Albert Sumell Youngstown State University Strongly Agree 10 Economic studies have shown this to be the case.
Melissa Thomasson Miami University Agree 9
Thomas Traynor Wright State University Strongly Agree 9 Most independent research indicates that pre-K education generates higher educational achievement at a relatively low cost (assuming it is implemented reasonably well).
Ejindu Ume Miami University Strongly Agree 10
Andy Welki John Carroll University Agree 8
Rachel Wilson Wittenberg University Strongly Agree 10 This would all take time. The best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago. The second best time is today.
Kathryn Wilson Kent State University Agree 5

March 2022 Survey:

Increased work-from-home practice will reduce Ohio municipal revenues over the next few years.

Economist Institution Opinion Confidence Comment
Jonathan Andreas Bluffton University Agree 4 It will decrease revenues somewhat because it will increase Tiebout choice and increase competition between jurisdictions to reduce local taxes. That isn't necessarily a bad thing because local income taxes are administratively inefficient (high transactions costs per dollar) and often relatively regressive compared with state and federal income taxes. Very few states/nations have ever imposed local income taxes separately from state/federal income taxes for this reason and we also have a fourth income tax for local school districts. It is administrative madness! Ohio would grow better with fairer and more efficient taxation.
Bizuayehu Bedane Marietta College Agree 7
Glenn Dutcher Ohio Univeristy Uncertain 9 We are certainly in a transition as the majority of companies employing white-collar workers are stating they intend to make the hybrid work design permanent (workers come to the office 2-3 days per week). Very few firms are adopting 100% remote work. These hybrid designs do not lend themselves to buying a house too far from the office spaces. This has led to a demand for better home-offices, which is reflected in real estate price surges for larger residences. This will eventually lead to demand for better amenities where individuals live. So, while we may see some reduction in revenue in the locations for the traditional office spaces, we may see an increase in revenue in the locations where people live. The increased revenue where people live may more than offset the reductions in revenue in more urban areas given the large increases in pay we are witnessing for these workers.
Kevin Egan University of Toledo Disagree 8 This is only relevant in the limited case for a worker who lives in a township with no income tax and also they actually file for the refund. I do not expect many people to fall into this category.
Kenneth Fah Ohio Dominican University Uncertain 8
Hasan Faruq Xavier University Disagree 7
Nancy Haskell University of Dayton Agree 7
Paul Holmes Ashland University Agree 5 Increased work-from-home will decrease revenues a lot in pre-pandemic worker-importing counties (those with fewer residents per job offered), while increasing them in worker-exporting counties. Overall, if current tax rules remain (i.e. incomplete credit for local taxes paid in non-home counties), tax revenues should decrease. Some worker-importing counties may need to raise tax rates to meet the shortfall, which could be significant. Long term, this could change residence patterns; I could see a scenario where a county tried to attract higher-income residents with low local income taxes.
Michael Jones University of Cincinnati Strongly Agree 9 With fewer people working in cities though, municipal costs should go down. It's an open question though if city leadership will cut costs at a rate proportional to the loss in revenue.
Fadhel Kaboub Denison University Uncertain 10 Very few workers will take advantage of this, except individuals in the highest income brackets who also happen to work remotely from home in municipalities that have low or no income tax. This is the result of a race-to-the-bottom public finance philosophy, and in this case would need to be offset by support from the State of Ohio (or the Federal government).
Bill Kosteas Cleveland State University Uncertain 8 We need to factor in how WFH practices affect location choices. Does this lead to more people leaving expensive coastal cities and settling in lower cost Ohio (especially for Ohio natives)? What about outmigration of Ohioans who are now free to live anywhere even while their jobs are "in Ohio?"
Charles Kroncke Mount St. Joseph University Disagree 8
Bethany Lemont Ohio University Agree 5 I agree but I doubt it will be a significant reduction for most cities. In order for a worker to avoid paying this tax they would need to primarily work from home, not live in the same city where their place of work is based, know about this tax rule, live in a city with a smaller municipal tax rate than the one for the city where their work is based, and then take the time to file for it. I don’t imagine that very many people will be benefiting from this tax reduction. Additionally, even for people who benefit from this, the amount of money that they wouldn’t be paying towards their work city as a result of this is probably relatively minor in comparison to the city’s overall tax revenues.
Trevon Logan Ohio State University Uncertain 8
Michael Myler University of Mount Union Disagree 6
Joe Nowakowski Muskingum University Agree 7
Cort Rodet Ohio University Uncertain 5 The outcome for any particular municipality will be highly dependent on the proportion of locals who commute out versus those that commute into the area. In theory, working from home could result in a net loss, net gain, or revenue neutrality depending on the location. College towns and places where a significant chunk of the labor force commutes into the location only for work stand to lose the most.
Lewis Sage Baldwin Wallace University Uncertain 1
Kay E. Strong Independent Disagree 8 This appears to be a simple "redistribution" issue. If a person is employed--and assuming being paid above the table---then taxes will be collected at the point of service---the business location or a remote location or both. Perhaps, a more interesting question is: What is the employer's obligation to source an employee's tax obligations appropriately based on work location and whether local, same state or different state?
AJ Sumell Youngstown State University Uncertain 1 I don't foresee it having a significant difference in municipal revenues. Depends how many more or less people work from home in a given municipality.
Melissa Thomasson Miami University Disagree 9 Tax laws restrict this
Ejindu Ume Miami University Uncertain 5
Andrew Welki John Carroll University Strongly Disagree 8
Rachel Wilson Wittenberg University Uncertain 7
Kathryn Wilson Kent State University Agree 5

February 2022 Survey:

Social media platforms like Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter operate as monopolies within their specific content area.

Economist Institution Opinion Confidence Comment
Jonathan Andreas Bluffton University Agree 8 Most of the disagreement here is about how different economists define "monopoly". We can all agree that these companies have considerable monopoly power which gives them vastly more influence over global society than any small businesses and generates much higher profit margins than the average small business. But literalists define "monopoly" as a single-seller without competition and these platforms do compete with each other more like an olygopoly.
Bizuayehu Bedane Marietta College Agree 7
Glenn Dutcher Ohio Univeristy Strongly Disagree 10 There exist viable substitutes for these organizations' products/services.
Kevin Egan University of Toledo Strongly Agree 10 It was not efficient to allow the big 5 (Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Microsoft) to buy 519 other firms in the past decade. Of course these firms know it is better (for them) to buy than compete. However, I expect our anti-trust officials to know what is better for society--sufficient competition. Why was Facebook allowed to buy Instragram? Why was Alphabet allowed to buy Youtube? The list goes on and on for 517 other examples.
Kenneth Fah Ohio Dominican University Agree 8 Each has extensive market power as it channels information within its content area and the accompanying network externalities accord each increasing market power. However, to remain an effective information channel within its content area, it has a responsibility to ensure that information on the platform is not harmful or illegal.
Hasan Faruq Xavier University Agree 9
Nancy Haskell University of Dayton Uncertain 5 Depends on how narrow/broad is the definition of "content area"
Paul Holmes Ashland University Disagree 7 I don't think 'monopoly' is the right concept. I do think they have substantial market power. But I think their market power is more fragile than is commonly believed. Re: the current proposed intervention, I trust Schumpeter's 'creative destruction' to diminish that market power more than I trust the government's ability to do so.
Faria Huq Lake Erie College Agree 9
Michael Jones University of Cincinnati Strongly Disagree 8 Monopolies are better defined by barriers to entry. TikTok has already surpassed Facebook as measured by app downloads. Consumers need to decide what platform to use, not governments.
Fadhel Kaboub Denison University Strongly Agree 10 Social media platforms are quasi-monopolies and should be regulated at the federal level via better anti-trust legislation and FCC regulations, but they do still have first amendment rights, and they must abide by regulations against hate speech and misinformation. Ohio's HB441 has a misleading and sloppy approach to an important issue. It has a narrow political motivation behind it, and it is likely to face a substantial legal challenge in court.
Charles Kroncke Mount St. Joseph University Agree 5
Bethany Lemont Ohio University Agree 1 I’m interpreting this statement as “Facebook operates as a monopoly within the market for Facebook”. Sure, that’s true, but it’s kind of silly to declare. We don’t say that “McDonald’s has a monopoly in the market for McDonald’s.” That’s not how economists usually think about the scope of markets.The spirit of this question seems to be trying to ask if large social media platforms have too much market power in comparison to perfectly competitive markets. I would agree that the social media market is not perfectly competitive but there is not one company who is the sole supplier of social media. Therefore, I would not characterize it as a monopolistic market. Instead, I believe it falls more into the category of a monopolistically competitive market: there are large suppliers of the goods who are offering highly differentiated versions of social media to consumers. Because of this high degree of product differentiation, they still have a lot of “market power” within their respective offerings even though we wouldn’t call them pure monopolists. I think a lot of non-economists falsely believe that markets are either governed by a monopolistic supplier or they’re “competitive”. In reality, markets can fall anywhere along a spectrum from “perfectly competitive” to “monopolistic”.
Trevon Logan Ohio State University Uncertain 7
Diane Monaco Heidelberg University Strongly Agree 10 Facebook whistleblower, Frances Haugen, provided evidence of Facebook's damaging effects that puts profits before the well-being of its users which in turn damages fundamental freedoms, electoral integrity and democracy. Frances Haugen has also called for stricter government oversight to address these problems. However, she is an "opponent of censorship" rebutting conservative criticism that she opposes free speech!!!
Michael Myler University of Mount Union Disagree 8 A monopoly based on knowledge is likely to be short lived. You may have a monopoly this year, but you are certainly aware that a firm from outside your field--loaded with talent--is probably already developing technology that will let them break into your market.
Joe Nowakowski Muskingum University Strongly Agree 9
Curtis Reynolds Kent State University Agree 8 They certainly have a form of market power in the control of information (and ability to monetize it through adversing).
Cort Rodet Ohio University Strongly Disagree 9 By strict definition, these companies are not monopolies because their products clearly serve as substitutes for one another. Policy makers seem to be confounding two related but distinct issues related to tech and social media platforms. First, in terms of platforms for expressing opinion, options abound and are not limited to social media. One can write an op-ed, rent a billboard, share pamphlets, etc. But more seriously, there are outlets all over the internet where like-minded individuals congregate and share their thoughts - everything from DIY chat boards, hobby groups, and politically minded groups. Furthermore, the number of users on specific platforms fluctuates as preferences change. The most obvious example is the shift of younger users from Facebook to TikTok. If strict policies on opinion sharing turn off users, they can and will find a better outlet. For this reason, it appears that this legislation is motivated more by politics than by consumer welfare or free speech. The second issue related to these companies' size that has more merit but is unrelated to free speech is their ability to gather massive amounts of data in order to cater to customers through predictive analytics. The head start of Google, Meta, etc., on having existing data and the infrastructure to collect and use it has the potential to inhibit competition from startups. This is an issue unlike those typically dealt with in the antitrust arena and where policy makers ought to be focusing their inquiries. What are the tradeoffs from allowing tech companies to grow in the age of the 'internet of things'? Do the benefits to consumers from tailored goods and services outweigh the potential barriers to entry? However, this is not the underlying concern of this proposed legislation.
Lewis Sage Baldwin Wallace University Strongly Agree 10
Dean Snyder Antioch College Strongly Agree 8
Kay E. Strong Independent Strongly Disagree 9 Being a monopoly and having monopoly power are not the same. Big tech firms are better characterized as being oligopolies, an industry with significant barriers to entry and strategic interdependency between firms. All firms, irrespective of market type, exercise both competitive and monopoly power not unlike most big league sports.
Albert Sumell Youngstown State University Disagree 8 As evidenced by the decline of users on Facebook and the rapid increase of users on TikTok and Snapchat, there is a large amount of competition in this industry.
Melissa Thomasson Miami University Disagree 7
Thomas Traynor Wright State University Agree 9
Ejindu Ume Miami University Uncertain 7
Matthew Weinberg Ohio State University Agree 10 Certainly they have some degree of market power, but that doesn’t necessarily imply they shouldn’t monitor what’s on their platform or that they are violating any antitrust laws.
Andy Welki John Carroll University Strongly Agree 8
Rachel Wilson Wittenberg University Agree 8 But monopolies for ads not for users. For a party that claims to be about freedom, they sure want to restrict for companies that should have the right to moderate content.
Kathryn Wilson Kent State University Disagree 3 It seems the appropriate "industry" to think of is avenues for sharing one's viewpoint. In that context, no one platform is a monopoly. There are many social media platforms that a person could choose to use, and social media is not the only place to share one's viewpoint.

January 2022 Survey:

Decreasing state highway spending for the next five years by repealing increases to the state gas tax would create economic benefits that outweigh the policy's economic costs.

Economist Institution Opinion Confidence Comment
Jonathan Andreas Bluffton University Strongly Disagree 10 Most economists, right and left, agree that gas taxes are generally too low in the USA because they don't even pay for roadway spending nationally, much less the environmental costs and other negative externalities of driving. And reducing investment in road maintenance would just be robbing the future in order to cut taxes today.
Bizuayehu Bedane Marietta College Disagree 8
Ron Cheung Oberlin College Strongly Disagree 9
Jay Corrigan Kenyon College Disagree 7
Glenn Dutcher Ohio University Agree 8
Kevin Egan University of Toledo Strongly Disagree 10 The highway spending will happen. The only question is if it is funded from the higher gas tax. Those citizens and businesses using the roads more should pay more through the gas tax to maintain those roads (benefits principle). Moreover, driving causes large negative externalities through air pollution, congestion, and accidents and thus is efficient to be taxed more to encourage less driving and/or driving more fuel efficient vehicles.
Kenneth Fah Ohio Dominican University Disagree 7
Vinnie Gajjala Tiffin University Disagree 7
Bob Gitter Ohio Wesleyan University Strongly Disagree 9 Ohio roads need a lot of work. We would benefit from a better infrastructure.
Nancy Haskell University of Dayton Disagree 8
Michael Jones University of Cincinnati Uncertain 1 The outcome of the cost-benefit analysis depends on the specific infrastructure projects in the state; and I don't have the background or knowledge on these projects. However, the benefits from a reduction in gas taxes will affect many more people overall than particular highway projects.
Fadhel Kaboub Denison University Strongly Disagree 10 This policy will reduce funding available for roads repair, which will have a negative economic impact on the state. If the goal is to reduce transportation costs on Ohioans, then a broader transportation strategy is needed, including investing in public transportation, replacing heavy trucks with rail, and accelerating the decarbonization of the transportations sector. Ohio can lead the effort by calling on the Federal government to fund a a structural transportation of transportation and logistics across the country. Unfortunately, SB 277 is shortsighted and misleading.
Bill Kosteas Cleveland State University Disagree 6 Gasoline is underpriced given the negative externalities associated with its consumption. Roadway quality is an important component of transportation costs for goods.
Charles Kroncke Mount St. Joseph University Disagree 7
Bethany Lemont Ohio University Disagree 3 According to the ODOT’s 2021 annual report, “The bulk of ODOT’s budget, approximately 64 percent, is currently prioritized toward highway construction, where it is most effective in meeting the state’s transportation needs. Of the department’s construction funds, 96 percent is devoted to preservation.” Therefore, it is likely that any decreases in state highway spending would result in less money be spent on maintaining the state’s highway system. I believe that the benefits of maintaining the current highway system outweigh the costs of doing so. However, it is also likely that the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has shifted the burden of who is primarily paying the gas tax. Many lower-income workers do not have an option to work remotely and are required to commute to work, while many higher paying jobs do have remote options.* If the gas tax is unusually regressive right now due to the pandemic, there could be substantial equity benefits from temporarily repealing the increases to the gas tax that could theoretically outweigh the costs of having more poorly maintained highways. *Source: https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2021/03/working-from-home-during-the-pandemic.html
Trevon Logan Ohio State University Strongly Disagree 10
Paul M Holmes Ashland University Disagree 8
Michael Myler University of Mount Union Strongly Disagree 9 Improving the infrastructure increases economic efficiency.
Joe Nowakowski Muskingum University Uncertain 5
Curtis Reynolds Kent State University Disagree 7 State gas taxes tend to be pushed onto the consumer in the form of higher prices, so not having the tax may free up a spending for consumers. However, the effect is not likely to be very large and highway maintenance is also very important for economic growth (and is overdue).
Cort Rodet Ohio University Strongly Disagree 10 Gas taxes are highly efficient in terms of tying the use of a public good to paying for its provision. Drivers benefit from good roads, and a gas tax allows state government to target road users to pay for them. Research also shows they are a better means of addressing climate issues than are fuel standards. Furthermore, I doubt the benefit to individual households of freezing tax increases will be substantial. If the average household consumes 1,200 gallons of gas per year and pays $0.28 per gallon in taxes, that implies a total gas tax bill of $336 per year per household, which is about 0.5% of the average Ohio household's income. Stopping increases will not do much for the average household, while it could mean roads and improvements fall by the wayside.
Martin Saavedra Oberlin College Strongly Disagree 10
Lewis Sage Baldwin Wallace University Strongly Disagree 10 Taxes are the price of civilization.
Kay E. Strong Independent Disagree 8 This proposal simply shifts burdens; while motorists save pennies at the pump, dollars will be spent on expedited vehicle depreciation and in repair shops over the five years plus of highway maintenance neglect. The trucking industry with heavyweight, road decimating vehicles will cash in on savings and cushion their bottom line at the expense of the passenger vehicle drivers.
AJ Sumell Youngstown State University Strongly Disagree 10 Repealing the tax would further reduce the quality of our roads, create incentives to drive more, increasing congestion and pollution. The economic costs would far exceed the benefits in tax savings.
Melissa Thomasson Miami University Strongly Disagree 10
Thomas Traynor Wright State University Uncertain 5 Spending from the 2021 federal infrastructure package (Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act) will at least partially offset the reduced spending. I would need more granular information to be able to answer the question, and that is not available yet.
Ejindu Ume Miami University Agree 8
Andy Welki John Carroll University Strongly Disagree 8 Tying costs of road usage to users makes sense.
Matthew Weinberg Ohio State University Uncertain
Rachel Wilson Wittenberg University Strongly Disagree 8 There is no indication that the highways are over funded. Infrastructure is vital commerce.
Kathryn Wilson Kent State University Strongly Disagree 7 Ohio, like the rest of the country, has underinvested in infrastructure such as roads. While I do not know the exact magnitude of the effects, I expect that less spending on highways will increase maintenance costs of vehicles (such as flat tires, suspensions, etc.) and potentially increase accidents. At best, it will push required highway repairs and upgrades into the future and place a higher burden on taxpayers in the future.

December 2021 Survey:

Question A: Legalization of sports gambling in the state of Ohio would create economic benefits that outweigh the policy's economic costs.

Economist Institution Opinion Confidence Comment
Jonathan Andreas Bluffton University Uncertain 6 If gambling brings in revenues from suckers in other states, that would benefit Ohio, and it would be beneficial if it is merely replacing illegal gambling and gambling money that Ohio suckers are sending to other states, but it wouldn't be an economic benefit if it just replaces other less-addictive forms of entertainment in the state. I don't know enough about the current situation to guess.
Bizuayehu Bedane Marietta College Uncertain 8
David Brasington University of Cincinnati Strongly Agree 10
Ron Cheung Oberlin College Agree 8
Kevin Egan University of Toledo Agree 5 I think it is possible for benefits of legalized sports gambling to be greater than the costs however the law needs to be carefully designed to maximize small amounts of recreational gambling and minimize problem gambling. A relatively high tax rate for legal gambling is optimal to discourage problem gambling and ideally part of the tax revenue be used to help the few that do become problem gamblers. Optimally gambling needs to be taxed at a higher rate than other substitute forms of entertainment.
Kenneth Fah Ohio Dominican University Uncertain 8
Vinnie Gajjala Tiffin University Agree 8 It is addictive - especially for young adults - and hence a higher percentage of the net revenue should be set aside for problem gambling services.
Bob Gitter Ohio Wesleyan University Agree 7 Probably true but no great effect. Have to consider additional gambling problems but hard to put a dollar value on additional enjoyment of legal gambling.
Nancy Haskell University of Dayton Uncertain 6
Paul Holmes Ashland University Uncertain 8 It's clear some people enjoy sports gambling, the increased consumer enjoyment is the main benefit, though there are other potential benefits also. Whether or not these outweigh the negatives from the inevitable increase in problem gambling is hard to predict.
Faria Huq Lake Erie College Agree 5 Tax revenue and job creation would be some of the economic benefits. However, there would be social costs due to the addictive nature of gambling which would disproportionately affect lower income households.
Michael Jones University of Cincinnati Disagree 3 Mobile sports betting is highly competitive and will cannibalize higher margin, on-site casino revenue. If mobile betting is legal, Ohio citizens will be more comfortable with the technology (and gambling in general), and they will turn to global, cryptocurrency platforms with built-in anonymity. This will simultaneously deprive the State of any of this potential tax revenue while siphoning revenue from existing gambling sources.
Charles Kroncke Mount St. Joseph University Strongly Agree 10
Trevon Logan Ohio State University Uncertain 7
Joe Nowakowski Muskingum University Agree 4
Curtis Reynolds Kent State University Disagree 7 Research on expansions of sports gambling suggest that tax revenue gains are relatively small (and may be offset by declines in tax revenues from other sources such as casinos). So economic benefits may not be that large, costs are harder to quantify.
Lewis Sage Baldwin Wallace University Uncertain 1
Kay E Strong Baldwin Wallace University Strongly Disagree 10
Thomas Traynor Wright State University Agree 8 Sports gambling is already prevalent in Ohio, the state will now earn revenue, anti-gambling law enforcement spending will decline, and Ohio wage and salary earnings will rise. However, gambling addiction problems will increase and many gambling losses will be suffered by low income households.
Ejindu Ume Miami University Uncertain 7
Andy Welki John Carroll University Agree 7
Rachel Wilson Wittenberg University Disagree 7 It will not bring in enough new dollars, but rather reallocate state entertainment spending.
Kathryn Wilson Kent State University Uncertain 3

Question B: Legalization of sports gambling with new revenue dedicated to education or low-income tax breaks would reduce inequality in the state of Ohio.

Economist Institution Opinion Confidence Comment
Jonathan Andreas Bluffton University Disagree 5 In theory, this could undo some harms that gambling tends to disproportionately inflict upon low-income and low-education people, but education spending is fungible and existing funding is likely to get crowded out by gambling funds with zero long-run increase. Plus gambling revenues are more volatile than traditional tax revenues, so the instability from year to year would create new challenges for education funding.
Bizuayehu Bedane Marietta College Uncertain 8
David Brasington University of Cincinnati Agree 6
Ron Cheung Oberlin College Strongly Agree 8
Kevin Egan University of Toledo Uncertain 5 Depends on if higher income or lower income people do more legal sports gambling and depends on the substitution away from state lotteries or will legal sports gambling be complementary and lead to more state lottery, etc? Either way, income inequality is a major issue so regardless I support the use of the funds to assist lower income households, such as through state universal high quality pre-k education for everyone.
Kenneth Fah Ohio Dominican University Agree 8
Vinnie Gajjala Tiffin University Uncertain 8
Bob Gitter Ohio Wesleyan University Disagree 8 When Ohio said we would use lottery funds to support education, other state education expenditures did not remain constant. Just a different source of funding.
Nancy Haskell University of Dayton Agree 6
Paul Holmes Ashland University Disagree 6 Would the 'new revenue' supplement or replace existing (planned) spending? Public Finance history tells us it's likely to replace it, so that suggests there would be little effect on spending. But the negative financial effects of gambling will fall on lower- to middle-class people (mostly men) so I would guess a small worsening of inequality.
Faria Huq Lake Erie College Uncertain 4 It would depend on HOW the revenue is distributed within education. In addition, while it may redistribute some income to low income households, it would also increase income for wealthier households, and may end up widening the income gap.
Michael Jones University of Cincinnati Disagree 3
Charles Kroncke Mount St. Joseph University Strongly Disagree 10
Trevon Logan Ohio State University Uncertain 7
Joe Nowakowski Muskingum University Agree 4
Curtis Reynolds Kent State University Disagree 7 Revenue gains are not likely to be large so not much help on reducing inequality. However, research does appear to suggest that this is less regressive than other forms of gambling taxes, so may not worsen inequality. Ultimately, probably has no measurable effect in aggregate.
Lewis Sage Baldwin Wallace University Uncertain 1 Sports betting will only help education if it does not displace other funding sources. Sports betting will reduce inequality only if bettors are upper-income and the revenues are spent on lower-income households.
Kay E Strong Baldwin Wallace University Strongly Disagree 10 I believe the same "pitch" was used to push through the legalization of a state lottery. Schools receive minimal benefit for the state lottery system. As is, the state reduces is contribution of dollars on a one to one basis for every "lottery" dollar received by a school. NOT nice!!!!!!!
Thomas Traynor Wright State University Uncertain 5 Since state government can shuffle other funds around, it is unclear whether state gambling revenue increases net spending on education or low-income tax breaks. Also, low income households, as a whole, may be a net payer of gambling tax revenue relative to their benefits.
Ejindu Ume Miami University Agree 8
Andy Welki John Carroll University Agree 7
Rachel Wilson Wittenberg University Agree 6
Kathryn Wilson Kent State University Agree 3 This depends greatly on how exactly the tax revenue is spent. If it is targeted towards education with a disproportionate number of low-income children then it may help reduce inequality some. However, I would not expect it to be a large effect.

November 2021 Survey:

Subsidies for sports stadiums create local economic benefits that outweigh their economic costs.

Economist Institution Opinion Confidence Comment
Bizuayehu Bedane Marietta College Agree 8
David Brasington University of Cincinnati Agree 7 It's national advertising for a city and promotes social cohesion.
Jay Corrigan Kenyon College Strongly Disagree 7
Kevin Egan University of Toledo Strongly Disagree 10 Local economic impact is tiny since if no stadium/team citizens spend elsewhere. More important is that there is MUCH better use of taxpayer dollars to subsidize education, walking paths, expanded public parks, better transportation infrastructure; all local things that actually boost local productivity.
Kenneth Fah Ohio Dominican University Uncertain 7 It is necessary to also examine the potential multiplier effects of other community projects, and consider the timeline of potential benefits before allocating subsidies to a sport stadium.
Vinnie Gajjala Tiffin University Disagree 8
Robert Gitter Ohio Wesleyan University Disagree 7 In general, they are a losing proposition for the city in economic terms. As to whether it is money well spent for something the citizens want, that is another story but there is not a net dollars and cents benefit.
Nancy Haskell University of Dayton Uncertain 6
Paul Holmes Ashland University Disagree 8 Generally not, assuming we're meaning American pro-sports-type stadiums.
Michael Jones University of Cincinnati Strongly Disagree 9 The details of the subsidies matter, but the evidence is fairly convincing that the costs exceed the benefits for most projects.
Fadhel Kaboub Denison University Disagree 10 Yes, in the narrow sense, but it's not the case when the State is neglecting other priorities that generate substantial social costs. I'd rather prioritize weatherizing homes, lead remediation, decarbonizing the grid and public transportation, public education and youth programs, re-entry, addiction, and recovery services. The returns on investment are much higher in these areas than subsidizing sports stadia.
Charles Kroncke Mount St. Joseph University Strongly Disagree 10
Trevon Logan Ohio State University Strongly Disagree 10
Joe Nowakowski Muskingum University Disagree 7
Curtis Reynolds Kent State University Disagree 7 It may somewhat depend on the details (how large are the subsidies, is it for a new stadium or an upgrade, size of project, whether it is paired with other development) but the research is pretty clear that stadium investments are not effective economic development tools. Using the same money for other investments would have higher returns.
Martin Saavedra Oberlin College Disagree 7
Lewis Sage Baldwin Wallace University Disagree 8
Kay E. Strong Baldwin Wallace University Disagree 8 Sports is a business. Stadiums are the "factory." Businesses operated for profit should be self-supporting.
Thomas Traynor Wright State University Uncertain 6 The magnitude of the subsidy varies greatly in past cases, and this matters very much.
Ejindu Ume Miami University Disagree 5
Andy Welki John Carroll University Disagree 7
Rachel Wilson Wittenberg University Strongly Disagree 7
Kathryn Wilson Kent State University Disagree 6 It depends on how "local economic benefits" are defined. For example, sports stadiums in Cleveland may provide an economic benefit for businesses near the stadium, but to the detriment of businesses further from the stadium or in the suburbs. Research suggests that stadiums change where the money is spent rather than changing the amount of money spent.

October 2021 Survey:

Subsidies for coal plants paid for through state-mandated rate increases such as those in HB6 have economic benefits that outweigh their costs.

Economist Institution Opinion Confidence Comment
Jonathan Andreas Bluffton University Strongly   Disagree 9 Subsidies would only be justified by positive externalities, but burning coal produces the opposite. If energy prices need to rise to encourage supply, then that would allow any producer to compete for business, but instead of letting markets work, politicians picked two winning power plants to award money upon. That smells of corruption. Half of the money is going to an out-of-state plant and most of the benefits probably go to out-of-state shareholders! Bad for Ohio.
Bizuayehu Bedane Marietta College Uncertain 8
Ron Cheung Oberlin College Disagree 6
Kevin Egan University of Toledo Strongly Disagree 10 Coal is now a more expensive source of energy than natural gas or renewable sources such as solar and wind AND coal is the most polluting source of energy. Thus it is efficient to dramatically reduce our use of coal. Instead Ohio is propping it up with not efficient corporate subsidies. Complete 100% waste of taxpayer dollars.
Kenneth Fah Ohio Dominican University Disagree 8
Vinnie Gajjala Tiffin University Disagree 8
Bob Gitter Ohio Wesleyan University Strongly Disagree 10 If there is evidence of a net positive impact, I have not seen it. Those that use the electricity should pay the full cost.
Nancy Haskell University of Dayton Disagree 7
Paul Holmes Ashland University Strongly Disagree 8
Michael Jones University of Cincinnati Disagree 1
Fadhel Kaboub Denison University Strongly Disagree 10 Coal plants emit particles and produce coal ash ponds that are extremely hazardous for human health and the environment. Not only do we need to eliminate the subsidies, but we also need to replace them with renewable energy sources, and transition their workers to local green jobs with equivalent pay and benefits packages.
Charles Kroncke Mount St. Joseph University Strongly Disagree 10
Trevon Logan Ohio State University Disagree 8
Michael Myler University of Mount Union Disagree 3 Wow. You picked a difficult proposition this month!
Joe Nowakowski Muskingum University Strongly Disagree 10 There are two problems with the subsidies: they cause distortions in the market, and the negative externalities stemming from the use of fossil fuels has huge additional costs for society.
Curtis Reynolds Kent State University Strongly Disagree 9 Coal has been used in the market because it is cheap while more environmentally-friendly energy sources are more expensive. Which means that we do not need to subsidize coal. If we want to subsidize energy, we should subsidize "green" energy sources. The hope is that such subsidies encourage more use of green energy sources, more innovation and development in those sources, and hopefully the price of those sources will continue to fall over time.
Lewis Sage Baldwin Wallace University Strongly Disagree 9
Dr. Kay E. Strong Baldwin Wallace University Strongly Disagree 9 Transitioning away from climate jeopardizing activities is in the interest of all beings. Subsidies maintain minority interest in coal-related work, production, and profits, when the same funds could be diverted to "clean" work, production, and profits.
Albert Sumell Youngstown State University Strongly Disagree 10 Subsidizing coal plants now would be like subsidizing the pay phone industry 20 years. There’s no reason to invest resources to offer temporary help to a dying industry. Resources would be much better invested in growing and training workers for jobs in the renewable energy sector.
Ejindu Ume Miami University Strongly Disagree 9
Kathryn Wilson Kent State University Disagree 7
Rachel Wilson Wittenberg University Strongly Disagree 8

September 2021 Survey:

Question A: Mandating vaccinations for workers at long-term care facilities and hospitals will result in economic benefits that outweigh the policy's economic costs.

Economist Institution Opinion Confidence Comment
Jonathan Andreas Bluffton University Strongly Agree 10 If you believe the science, and I do, then vaccines for adults are a no-brainer. Donald Trump already paid for the vaccines and the health benefits are tremendous. Vaccines are not approved for most children so I cannot really answer the last question for those ages, but it makes sense for the ages that can get it. Anyhow IF all adults were vaccinated, then there would likely be enough herd immunity to vanquish the virus enough that there might not be significant benefit from vaccinating all children too.
Greg Arburn University of Findlay Strongly Agree 9
Bizuayehu Bedane Marietta College Strongly Agree 9
Kevin Egan University of Toledo Strongly Agree 10 Benefits greater than cost personally and way more so when you factor in the positive spill over to others from reducing the chance of spreading the virus; same reason why all contagious viruses, like chicken pox, have mandated vaccines.
Hasan Faruq Xavier University Strongly Agree 10
Vinnie Gajjala Tiffin University Strongly Agree 10
Bob Gitter Ohio Wesleyan University Agree 8 It is a bit tricky when you are looking at economic costs. One of the main benefits of vaccinations is lives saved. There is not an agreement as to the dollar value of saving a human life. Also, I think the jury is still out on the degree to which vaccination might help children under the age of 12.
Nancy Haskell University of Dayton Strongly Agree 9
Paul Holmes Ashland University Strongly Agree 9
Faria Huq Lake Erie College Agree 9
Fadhel Kaboub Denison University Strongly Agree 10 Reaching a high vaccination rate at the local, national and global levels is the only way to put an end to this pandemic and to reduce the likelihood of new variants. Mandating vaccinations in as many professional and academic space as possible is both a public health and economic imperative.
Charles Kroncke Mount St. Joseph University Strongly Agree 5
Trevon Logan Ohio State University Strongly Agree 9
Joe Nowakowski Muskingum University Strongly Agree 9
Mingming Pan Wright State University Strongly Agree 10 Covid vaccination not only protects the individual’s health but also generates positive externalities such as slowing/stopping the spread of virus, preventing the virus from evolving into even more deadly variants, avoiding future economic disruptions, and increasing productivity.
Curtis Reynolds Kent State University Strongly Agree 7 There is clear precedent for vaccination requirements against communicable diseases in health care and education, and that certainly makes sense from an economic (and public health) perspective. The business question is slightly less clear. The 100 employees is arbitrary (but consistent with a host of policies that exempt "small" businesses) but it probably matters more about what kinds of interactions between workers and customers occur. However, a "100 worker" requirement is much simpler to implement.
Martin Saavedra Oberlin College Agree 7
Lewis Sage Baldwin Wallace University Strongly Agree 10
Kay E. Strong Baldwin Wallace University Agree 9
Albert Sumell Youngstown State University Strongly Agree 10 Of course only for those of age with medical and religious exemptions permitted.
Thomas Traynor Wright State University Strongly Agree 10 See https://doi.org/10.1080/13696998.2021.1965732
Ejindu Ume Miami University Strongly Agree 8
Andy Welki John Carroll University Agree 7
Rachel Wilson Kent State University Strongly Agree 10
Kathryn Wilson Wittenberg University Strongly Agree 8

Question B: Mandating vaccinations for workers at all companies with 100 or more employees will result in economic benefits that outweigh the policy's economic costs.

Economist Institution Opinion Confidence Comment
Jonathan Andreas Bluffton University Strongly Agree 10 If you believe the science, and I do, then vaccines for adults are a no-brainer. Donald Trump already paid for the vaccines and the health benefits are tremendous. Vaccines are not approved for most children so I cannot really answer the last question for those ages, but it makes sense for the ages that can get it. Anyhow IF all adults were vaccinated, then there would likely be enough herd immunity to vanquish the virus enough that there might not be significant benefit from vaccinating all children too.
Greg Arburn University of Findlay Strongly Agree 9
Bizuayehu Bedane Marietta College Agree 8
Kevin Egan University of Toledo Strongly Agree 10 Benefits greater than cost personally and way more so when you factor in the positive spill over to others from reducing the chance of spreading the virus; same reason why all contagious viruses, like chicken pox, have mandated vaccines.
Hasan Faruq Xavier University Strongly Agree 10
Vinnie Gajjala Tiffin University Strongly Agree 10
Bob Gitter Ohio Wesleyan University Agree 7 It is a bit tricky when you are looking at economic costs. One of the main benefits of vaccinations is lives saved. There is not an agreement as to the dollar value of saving a human life. Also, I think the jury is still out on the degree to which vaccination might help children under the age of 12.
Nancy Haskell University of Dayton Agree 8
Paul Holmes Ashland University Strongly Agree 9
Faria Huq Lake Erie College Agree 9
Fadhel Kaboub Denison University Strongly Agree 10 Reaching a high vaccination rate at the local, national and global levels is the only way to put an end to this pandemic and to reduce the likelihood of new variants. Mandating vaccinations in as many professional and academic space as possible is both a public health and economic imperative.
Charles Kroncke Mount St. Joseph University Disagree 8
Trevon Logan Ohio State University Agree 9
Joe Nowakowski Muskingum University Strongly Agree 9
Mingming Pan Wright State University Strongly Agree 10 Covid vaccination not only protects the individual’s health but also generates positive externalities such as slowing/stopping the spread of virus, preventing the virus from evolving into even more deadly variants, avoiding future economic disruptions, and increasing productivity.
Curtis Reynolds Kent State University Agree 8 There is clear precedent for vaccination requirements against communicable diseases in health care and education, and that certainly makes sense from an economic (and public health) perspective. The business question is slightly less clear. The 100 employees is arbitrary (but consistent with a host of policies that exempt "small" businesses) but it probably matters more about what kinds of interactions between workers and customers occur. However, a "100 worker" requirement is much simpler to implement.
Martin Saavedra Oberlin College Agree 8
Lewis Sage Baldwin Wallace University Strongly Agree 10
Kay E. Strong Baldwin Wallace University Agree 9
Albert Sumell Youngstown State University Strongly Agree 10 Of course only for those of age with medical and religious exemptions permitted.
Thomas Traynor Wright State University Strongly Agree 10 See https://doi.org/10.1080/13696998.2021.1965732
Ejindu Ume Miami University Uncertain 7
Andy Welki John Carroll University Uncertain 5
Rachel Wilson Kent State University Strongly Agree 10
Kathryn Wilson Wittenberg University Strongly Agree 8

Question C: Mandating vaccinations for children in schools will result in economic benefits that outweigh the policy's economic costs.

Economist Institution Opinion Confidence Comment
Jonathan Andreas Bluffton University Agree 5 If you believe the science, and I do, then vaccines for adults are a no-brainer. Donald Trump already paid for the vaccines and the health benefits are tremendous. Vaccines are not approved for most children so I cannot really answer the last question for those ages, but it makes sense for the ages that can get it. Anyhow IF all adults were vaccinated, then there would likely be enough herd immunity to vanquish the virus enough that there might not be significant benefit from vaccinating all children too.
Greg Arburn University of Findlay Strongly Agree 9
Bizuayehu Bedane Marietta College Uncertain 8
Kevin Egan University of Toledo Strongly Agree 10 Benefits greater than cost personally and way more so when you factor in the positive spill over to others from reducing the chance of spreading the virus; same reason why all contagious viruses, like chicken pox, have mandated vaccines.
Hasan Faruq Xavier University Agree 8
Vinnie Gajjala Tiffin University Strongly Agree 10
Bob Gitter Ohio Wesleyan University Agree 6 It is a bit tricky when you are looking at economic costs. One of the main benefits of vaccinations is lives saved. There is not an agreement as to the dollar value of saving a human life. Also, I think the jury is still out on the degree to which vaccination might help children under the age of 12.
Nancy Haskell University of Dayton Agree 8
Paul Holmes Ashland University Strongly Agree 9
Faria Huq Lake Erie College Agree 9
Fadhel Kaboub Denison University Strongly Agree 10 Reaching a high vaccination rate at the local, national and global levels is the only way to put an end to this pandemic and to reduce the likelihood of new variants. Mandating vaccinations in as many professional and academic space as possible is both a public health and economic imperative.
Charles Kroncke Mount St. Joseph University Disagree 9
Trevon Logan Ohio State University Agree 9
Joe Nowakowski Muskingum University Strongly Agree 9
Mingming Pan Wright State University Strongly Agree 10 Covid vaccination not only protects the individual’s health but also generates positive externalities such as slowing/stopping the spread of virus, preventing the virus from evolving into even more deadly variants, avoiding future economic disruptions, and increasing productivity.
Curtis Reynolds Kent State University Strongly Agree 8 There is clear precedent for vaccination requirements against communicable diseases in health care and education, and that certainly makes sense from an economic (and public health) perspective. The business question is slightly less clear. The 100 employees is arbitrary (but consistent with a host of policies that exempt "small" businesses) but it probably matters more about what kinds of interactions between workers and customers occur. However, a "100 worker" requirement is much simpler to implement.
Martin Saavedra Oberlin College Agree 8
Lewis Sage Baldwin Wallace University Strongly Agree 10
Kay E. Strong Baldwin Wallace University Agree 9
Albert Sumell Youngstown State University Strongly Agree 10 Of course only for those of age with medical and religious exemptions permitted.
Thomas Traynor Wright State University Strongly Agree 10 See https://doi.org/10.1080/13696998.2021.1965732
Ejindu Ume Miami University Agree 8
Andy Welki John Carroll University Disagree 6
Rachel Wilson Kent State University Strongly Agree 10
Kathryn Wilson Wittenberg University Strongly Agree 8

August 2021 Survey:

The DeWine Administration's decision in 2020 to cut spending rather than use "Rainy Day" budget stabilization funds during the pandemic will lead to more economic growth for Ohio in the long run.

Economist Institution Opinion Confidence Comment
Jonathan Andreas Bluffton University Disagree 5 I doubt it will make any measurable difference because it is such a small amount, but ceteris paribus the best time to increase deficit spending is during an economic crisis like during the pandemic and the best time to cut (and build up rainy-day funds) is during an economic boom.
Bizuayehu Bedane Marietta College Uncertain 8
Ron Cheung Oberlin College Disagree 7
Kevin Egan University of Toledo Disagree 7 Particularly reducing state k-12 funding during the pandemic is problematic.
Kenneth Fah Ohio Dominican University Agree 8 The ability to raise funds in the future through bond financing for growth opportunities is enhanced by good budget stability strategies.
Bob Gitter Ohio Wesleyan University Disagree 7 It is probably true that keeping the rainy day fund intact improved the State's bond rating but if we put the money into pubic schools I believe that would have had a larger long run positive impact on growth
Nancy Haskell University of Dayton Disagree 5
Paul Holmes Ashland University No Opinion 7
Faria Huq Lake Erie College Disagree 5
Michael Jones University of Cincinnati Agree 3 Many of the cuts were to K-12 and higher education. However, federal stimulus funds may have replaced many of these cuts; and so I'm not sure that Ohio's total education expenditures actually decreased that much as a result of COVID.
Fadhel Kaboub Denison University Strongly Disagree 10 We can't grow the economy by neglecting strategic investments in health, education, housing, broadband, and green infrastructure. A rainy day fund only makes sense once we've fully funded our strategic needs.
Charles Kroncke Mount St. Joseph University Strongly Agree 9
Trevon Logan Ohio State University Uncertain 7
Michael Myler University of Mount Union Disagree 8 Cutting spending is a contractionary fiscal policy. A contractionary fiscal policy is unlikely to lead to economic growth. Why have a "rainy day" fund if you are reluctant to use it on a rainy day?
Joe Nowakowski Muskingum University Disagree 7
Curtis Reynolds Kent State University Disagree 7 Odd question. It is nice to have a rainy day budget for future emergencies, but hard to believe that there will be anything in the near future like what we experienced during this pandemic. So we saved money for what, exactly? The pandemic is likely to have long term consequences for firms, workers, children, schools, etc.
Lewis Sage Baldwin Wallace University Strongly Disagree 8 It depends on what the spending would have bought: only investment spending matters to long-run growth, whether in the public sector or private.
Kay E. Strong Baldwin Wallace University Strongly Disagree 9
Albert Sumell Youngstown State University Strongly Disagree 10 It was raining pretty hard in 2020. If that didn't warrant using some rainy day funds I don't know what would.
Thomas Traynor Wright State University Agree 8 Since federal stimulus served most the purposes that the rainy day fund could have served, saving those funds for a "rainier day" in the future is a better long-run choice in my opinion.
EJ Ume Miami University Strongly Disagree 9
Andy Welki John Carroll University Agree 9 It forced deliberations about efficiencies rather than a path of least resistance approach to possible solutions.
Kathryn Wilson Kent State University Disagree 3 There is a tradeoff. On the positive, there are more reserves for the state for the future and the higher bond rating; these will both bode well for long-term growth. However, on the negative, if the state had tapped into the rainy day fund there may have been fewer businesses closed and workers laid off allowing for a smoother economic transition out of the pandemic. I don't think there is enough information at this point to definitively say whether the positive is greater than the negative, but I tend to think we would be in a stronger economic position if we had fewer business closings and worker disruptions (particularly workers who have now left the labor market permanently).
Rachel Wilson Wittenberg University Disagree 7

July 2021 Survey:

Ohio's "Vax-a-Million" program is a cost-effective program for encouraging vaccination in the state.

Economist Institution Opinion Confidence Comment
Jonathan Andreas Bluffton University Uncertain 6 Ex-ante I was hopeful about the creativity of the strategy, but in hindsight it doesn't look like it worked as well as I would have hoped. It was worth a try and now we know that the results turned out to be mediocre at best. I'd have to see a cost-benefit analysis to fully answer the question though.
Bizuayehu Bedane Marietta College Uncertain 9
Ron Cheung Oberlin College Disagree 7
Kevin Egan University of Toledo Strongly Agree 10 We have already observed the vaccination rate increase substantially after the lottery was announced showing the program is effective; and also cost-effective as it is likely one of the cheapest ways to achieve such a large increase in the vaccination rate. For example, an equally expensive advertising-only campaign about benefits of vaccination would likely be less effective than this lottery program which resulted in much free publicity about it.
Hasan Faruq Xavier University Agree 8
Vinnie Gajjala Tiffin Univeristy Strongly Agree 9
Robert Gitter Ohio Wesleyan University Agree 7 It probably did not do much good but did not cost that much. The uptick in vaccinations was primarily due to making the vaccine available to 12-15 year olds rather than Vax-a-Million.
Nancy Haskell University of Dayton Uncertain 8 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/2781792
Paul Holmes Ashland University Uncertain 4
Faria Huq Lake Erie College Agree 8
Michael Jones University of Cincinnati Disagree 7 A recent JAMA research article finds no evidence that vax-a-million increased vaccination rates. So far, it's the only peer-reviewed article evaluating the program that I've seen.
Fadhel Kaboub Denison University Strongly Disagree 10 The State should have spent that money on a more serious campaign to educate the public about the health risks and the economic consequences associated with the choice to not get vaccinated. Vax-a-Million is a gambling technique that should be used by Casinos rather than State institutions.
Charles Kroncke Mount St. Joseph University Disagree 10
Trevon Logan Ohio State University Uncertain 8
Michael Myler University of Mount Union Strongly Agree 10 Undertaking a cost/benefit analysis requires that you place a $-value on a "standard statistical" human life. I think different agencies of the federal government each come up with their own number, but it appears to be in the 7-10 million-dollar range for one "average" human. If we are each worth that much to the economy, vaccinating the entire population is a no-brainer. If you are truly afraid of getting vaccinated, the wisest thing to do is persuade everyone else to get vaccinated.
Joe Nowakowski Muskingum University Disagree 8 Most people realized they weren't going to become millionaires. Might have been more effective to offer a tax rebate to vaccinees.
Curtis Reynolds Kent State University Uncertain 5 I have no objection to the idea and it might work, but I have not yet seen high-quality research evaluating the effectiveness
Martin Saavedra Oberlin College Agree 9
Lewis Sage Baldwin Wallace University Agree 7 A better format would have made the monthly jackpot contingent on the number of new vaccinations.
Kay E. Strong Baldwin Wallace University Uncertain 10 Rather than one mega "prize" expenditure, diversification of the portfolio of options into smaller pots of focused "opportunities" directed at specific resistant population sectors would likely provide a higher yield over the longer run.
Albert Sumell Youngstown State University Strongly Agree 10 The costs associated with even a few hundred non-vaccinated people contracting COVID would far exceed the costs of administering this program. If anything the state shot too low with a million. It should be VAX-A-BILLION next time.
Melissa Thomasson Miami University Strongly Agree 10
Thomas Traynor Wright State University Uncertain 6 Higher quality analyses than those completed thus far are needed.
Mark Votruba Case Western Reserve University Disagree 8 The evidence I've seen so far (recent NBER study out of BU) makes it look pretty ineffective.
Andy Welki John Carroll University Uncertain 5 Would probably depend upon whether the unvaccinated are normally lottery players.
Rachel Wilson Wittenberg University Agree 7
Kathryn Wilson Kent State University Agree 3 There were positive design features of the program such as having it be multiple weeks and people become eligible for remaining drawings once they are vaccinated and sign up. In addition, the program provided a lot of "free advertising" about the vaccination as there were many news stories both at the local and national level. Presumably it also increased discussions about vaccinations among families and friends and these personal conversations may increase vaccination. It is not clear, though, how much it ultimately increased vaccination rates.

June 2021 Survey:

Question A: Rural broadband programs funded with income taxes will lead to higher state economic growth in the long run.

Economist Institution Opinion Confidence Comment
Jonathan Andreas Bluffton University Uncertain 2 It could lead to higher growth in theory, but I just don't know enough about the details to be able to give an opinion.
Bizuayehu Bedane Marietta College Strongly Agree 9
Ron Cheung Oberlin College Disagree 7
Kevin Egan University of Toledo Strongly Agree 10 Reliable and fast internet connection everywhere is the modern equivalent of building the interstate highway system in the 1950s. And note those highways are still FREE, funded with taxpayer dollars.
Kenneth Fah Ohio Dominican University Agree 8
Vinnie Gajjala Tiffin Univeristy Agree 8 Difficult to quantify extent of economic growth
Robert Gitter Ohio Wesleyan University Strongly Agree 9 In this day and age broadband is almost as necessary as roads and other utilities.
Nancy Haskell University of Dayton Agree 7
Paul Holmes Ashland University Uncertain 7 Benefits from rural broadband programs would likely be large for rural consumers, but gains are more likely consumptive than productive. I suspect education benefits are probably overstated.
Michael Jones University of Cincinnati Agree 3
Charles Kroncke Mount St. Joseph University Disagree 9
Michael Myler University of Mount Union Strongly Agree 7 If broadband within a large city leads to economic growth, it ought to do the same for rural areas.
Joe Nowakowski Muskingum University Strongly Agree 10
Curtis Reynolds Kent State University Agree 6 Broadband access is far from universal and would be beneficial. Income tax cuts are unlikely to produce economic growth (tax rates are already low). So it would seem that cutting this program to pay for income tax cuts would be worse for economic growth.
Lewis Sage Baldwin Wallace University Agree 6
Dean Snyder Antioch College Agree 8
Kay E. Strong Baldwin Wallace University Strongly Agree 10 The super highway of today is the internet. Without access or affordability to this super highway economic growth is stifled for ALL.
Melissa Thomasson Miami University Strongly Agree 9
Thomas Traynor Wright State University Strongly Agree 10
Ejindu Ume Miami University Uncertain 5 While state funding for rural broadband deployment will lead to growth, financing specifics will determine the level of growth. For instance, will the funding for broadband compete against other important government services like education, healthcare, transportation, etc.? Will the funding be combined with other grants or loans? And, which part of the broadband project will receive funding: first-mile, middle-mile, or last-mile?
Andy Welki John Carroll University Agree 8 Broadband access is necessary to eliminate the digital divide.
Rachel Wilson Wittenberg University Agree 6
Kathryn Wilson Kent State University Agree 7

Question B: Rural broadband programs funded with income taxes will reduce state income inequality in the long run.

Economist Institution Opinion Confidence Comment
Jonathan Andreas Bluffton University Agree 3 Universal benefit programs usually reduce inequality, but this is only universal in rural areas where people are richer and low-income people use less broadband, so not sure.
Bizuayehu Bedane Marietta College Agree 9
Ron Cheung Oberlin College Disagree 7
Kevin Egan University of Toledo Strongly Agree 10 Many people would like to stay in their smaller community and reliable and fast and affordable internet connections will allow this by increasing remote work opportunities and equalizing education opportunities which are increasingly internet based.
Kenneth Fah Ohio Dominican University Strongly Agree 9
Vinnie Gajjala Tiffin Univeristy Agree 9
Robert Gitter Ohio Wesleyan University Strongly Agree 10 It is the lower income areas of the state such as Appalachia and inner cities that lack broadband.
Nancy Haskell University of Dayton Strongly Agree 9
Paul Holmes Ashland University Strongly Agree 9 The benefits accrue to those without broadband access, who are generally poorer than average. (Of course, this depends on the equity effects of the income taxes.)
Michael Jones University of Cincinnati Uncertain 5
Charles Kroncke Mount St. Joseph University Disagree 10
Michael Myler University of Mount Union Uncertain 5 That would be true if rural areas are currently poor relative to urban areas.
Joe Nowakowski Muskingum University Agree 8
Curtis Reynolds Kent State University Agree 8 This seems clearer in that there are clear differences in broadband access which hinders economic activities, plus income tax cuts are not likely to reduce income inequality. It is a bad tradeoff if the goal is to reduce income inequality.
Lewis Sage Baldwin Wallace University Agree 6
Dean Snyder Antioch College Agree 7
Kay E. Strong Baldwin Wallace University Strongly Agree 10 The internet is a utility---no different than water, sewer or electricity. There should be no discrimination in its access or affordability.
Melissa Thomasson Miami University Agree 7
Thomas Traynor Wright State University Agree 7 I would more strongly agree if this question was "all else is equal"
Ejindu Ume Miami University Strongly Disagree 9
Andy Welki John Carroll University Agree 8
Rachel Wilson Wittenberg University Agree 8
Kathryn Wilson Kent State University Agree 7

May 2021 Survey:

The economic benefits of state funding for opioid overdose reversal medication outweigh the economic costs.

Economist Institution Opinion Confidence Comment
Jonathan Andreas Bluffton University Agree 9 Naloxone availability does encourage opioid use somewhat, but the elasticity of demand determines whether that causes a net problem and everyone agrees that addictive drugs have highly inelastic demand so naloxone saves lives.
Bizuayehu Bedane Marietta College Agree 9
Ron Cheung Oberlin College Strongly Agree 8
Kevin Egan University of Toledo Strongly Agree 10 it is always efficient to subsidize Naloxone and make it more widely available. it is relatively cheap medication with a high probability of saving a life. Moreover, we should make Naloxone widely available because it is the right thing to do.
Kenneth Fah Ohio Dominican University Uncertain 9 Additional resources would be needed to transition them into the labor force if drug use leads to unemployment. Significant economic benefits may not be realized if this is not part of a package of treatment.
Hasan Faruq Xavier University Agree 8
Vinnie Gajjala Tiffin Univeristy Agree 9
Robert Gitter Ohio Wesleyan University Strongly Agree 8 This is a hard one to answer. Essentially, it is asking if spending X dollars to save Y lives is worth it. That requires some assumptions about the dollar value of a life but I am willing to state that it is worth it.
Nancy Haskell University of Dayton Agree 7
Faria Huq Lake Erie College Agree 8 As emergency room visits could be lowered, a portion of the burden of the costs that fall on the state could be reduced. Effect on costs in terms of lost productivity would be harder to estimate due to possibility of relapse.
Michael Jones University of Cincinnati Strongly Agree 1 At a cost of just over $40 per medication, the benefit of saving a life would exceed the cost. However, whether the state or the local government should absorb this cost is a different question.
Fadhel Kaboub Denison University Strongly Agree 10 Overdose reversal is often the first step in recovery. The cost of doing nothing about the opioid crisis are much larger than the cost of doing the right thing.
Charles Kroncke Mount St. Joseph University Disagree 9
Trevon Logan The Ohio State University Agree 9
Michael Myler University of Mount Union Strongly Agree 10 For Cost-Benefit Analysis, the federal government's Office of Management and Budget uses $7-$9 million as the value of a human life. If the Ohio program ($13 mil) saves 2 lives, it will be an economic success.
Joe Nowakowski Muskingum University Strongly Agree 10 ~$42 per dose seems like a bargain if it saves a life. A life.
Curtis Reynolds Kent State University Agree 8
Lewis Sage Baldwin Wallace University Strongly Agree 10
Olga Standrityuk Ohio University Agree 7
Kay E. Strong Baldwin Wallace University Strongly Agree 10 When "[d]etractors say supporting [an overdose-reversal drug] encourages bad behavior," detractors demonstrate ignorance of the complexity of the situation. Complex problems demand knowledge of complexity science not throwback pseudoscience.
Albert Sumell Youngstown State University Strongly Agree 10 The alternative is to let opioid addicts die if they overdose. The choice is both ethically and economically obvious.
Melissa Thomasson Miami University Agree 8
Thomas Traynor Wright State University Agree 8 The specifics of how the funding is targeted matters greatly -- https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w28067/w28067.pdf; https://ldi.upenn.edu/brief/expanding-access-naloxone-review-distribution-strategies
Ejindu Ume Miami University Agree 9
Andy Welki John Carroll University Agree 8
Kathryn Wilson Kent State University Agree 8 Academic studies of naloxone distribution find a high cost-effectiveness, measured as money spent per quality-adjusted year of life saved.
Rachel Wilson Wittenberg University Agree 7

April 2021 Survey:

Question A: Less rigid residential zoning codes in Ohio municipalities would reduce future cost of housing.

Economist Institution Opinion Confidence Comment
Jonathan Andreas Bluffton University Agree 9
Bizuayehu Bedane Marietta College Agree 8
Ron Cheung Oberlin College Agree 7
Jay Corrigan Kenyon College Agree 4
Kevin Egan University of Toledo Strongly Agree 10 Yes, it is efficient to allow multi-family units to be built anywhere and allow mixed residential and businesses to allow "walkable" neighborhoods.
Kenneth Fah Ohio Dominican University Uncertain 10 Future costs of housing depends on many critical factors beyond residential zoning.
Vinnie Gajjala Tiffin Univeristy Strongly Agree 9
Bob Gitter Ohio Wesleyan University Agree 8 If the code specifies minimum acreage per lot then this would be the case but I would be less certain in terms of other changes.
Nancy Haskell University of Dayton Agree 8
Paul Holmes Ashland University Agree 4 I'm not familiar enough with the Ohio situation to be certain; but in my home country, zoning restrictions are partly to blame for our large housing shortage and high housing prices.
Faria Huq Lake Erie College Strongly Agree 9
Michael Jones University of Cincinnati Strongly Agree 7
Fadhel Kaboub Denison University Uncertain 10 It depends on what the zoning restrictions are for. There is no such thing as a silver bullet solution to these multifaceted problems. We need multi-pronged solutions.
Charles Kroncke Mount St. Joseph University Strongly Agree 10
Trevon Logan The Ohio State University Agree 8
Michael Myler University of Mount Union Agree 7
Joe Nowakowski Muskingum University Agree 9
Martin Saavedra Oberlin College Agree 7 Zoning may affect housing costs in Ohio, but any effect is likely larger is more expensive MSAs, such as San Francisco.
Lewis Sage Baldwin Wallace University Uncertain 10 Zoning regulations will only work if they make multi-family and small-lot housing more profitable than other forms of development.
Kay E. Strong Baldwin Wallace University Agree 8
Albert Sumell Youngstown State University Strongly Agree 10 Numerous studies have shown zoning to be a major impediment to building affordable housing in higher income areas.
Thomas Traynor Wright State University Agree 8
Ejindu Ume Miami University Strongly Agree 8
Andy Welki John Carroll University Agree 7 The issue is "does the reduced future cost come as a result of reduced quality"
Rachel Wilson Wittenberg University Uncertain 5 It depends on how you define rigid.
Kathryn Wilson Kent State University Strongly Agree 8 Less rigid residential zoning codes would allow the supply of housing to increase. This increase in supply would result in a higher quantity and lower price of housing.

Question B: Less rigid residential zoning codes in Ohio municipalities would reduce levels of residential segregation.

Economist Institution Opinion Confidence Comment
Jonathan Andreas Bluffton University Agree 9 A certain amount of segregation is inevitable because there are many causes, but reducing zoning regulations would decrease economic-class segregation somewhat.
Bizuayehu Bedane Marietta College Uncertain 8
Ron Cheung Oberlin College Disagree 6
Jay Corrigan Kenyon College Uncertain 1
Kevin Egan University of Toledo Strongly Agree 10 Yes single family only zoning is exclusionary and leads to inflated home prices in "good" school districts. Leads to the issue of stop funding education via local property taxes which leads to some schools better funded than others.
Kenneth Fah Ohio Dominican University Uncertain 10
Vinnie Gajjala Tiffin Univeristy Strongly Agree 9
Bob Gitter Ohio Wesleyan University Agree 7
Nancy Haskell University of Dayton Agree 9
Paul Holmes Ashland University No Opinion 6
Faria Huq Lake Erie College Strongly Agree 9
Michael Jones University of Cincinnati Uncertain 5
Fadhel Kaboub Denison University Agree 10 To some extent yes, but again residential segregation is a serious structural problem that requires more attention than just less rigid zoning codes.
Charles Kroncke Mount St. Joseph University Strongly Agree 10
Trevon Logan The Ohio State University Agree 8
Michael Myler University of Mount Union Uncertain 4 It should reduce segregation based on income and wealth; but I don't see an obvious connection to other kinds of segregation.
Joe Nowakowski Muskingum University Uncertain 5
Martin Saavedra Oberlin College Uncertain 5
Lewis Sage Baldwin Wallace University Uncertain 10 Zoning regulations will only work if they make multi-family and small-lot housing more profitable than other forms of development.
Kay E. Strong Baldwin Wallace University Agree 8
Albert Sumell Youngstown State University Strongly Agree 10 Numerous studies have also shown zoning to be a major contributor to residential segregation, particularly income segregation.
Thomas Traynor Wright State University Uncertain 5
Ejindu Ume Miami University Strongly Disagree 8
Andy Welki John Carroll University Uncertain 6
Rachel Wilson Wittenberg University Uncertain 5 It depends on how you define rigid.
Kathryn Wilson Kent State University Agree 6

March 2021 Survey:

Question A: Until mass vaccination is achieved, any additional government spending going directly to households should focus on keeping low-income individuals and families safe and healthy rather than on boosting current economic activity.

Economist Institution Opinion Confidence Comment
Jonathan Andreas Bluffton University Strongly Disagree 8 Any money spent on keeping people healthy and helping low-income individuals will also be the most effective kind of economic boost. But there is also a good case to be made for additional spending particularly for others affected too.
Bizuayehu Bedane Marietta College Uncertain 8
Ron Cheung Oberlin College Agree 7
Jay Corrigan Kenyon College Disagree 6
Kevin Egan University of Toledo Strongly Agree 10 Economic aid right now is best thought of as disaster relief not necessarily economic stimulus.
Hasan Faruq Xavier University Agree 8
Vinnie Gajjala Tiffin Univeristy Strongly Agree 10
Bob Gitter Ohio Wesleyan University Strongly Disagree 10 You can't separate out income support from health and safety. We are still down about ten million jobs income supported is needed as well as an economic stimulus.
Nancy Haskell University of Dayton Agree 9
Paul Holmes Ashland University Strongly Agree 10 Low-income households have been hit disproportionately hard, and need relief much more than middle-income families
Faria Huq Lake Erie College Disagree 7 They are correlated. Providing direct payments to households will automatically boost economic activity and it is important to provide assistance to small businesses with vaccinations already underway.
Michael Jones University of Cincinnati Disagree 8 Boosting economic activity can still be done safely (e.g. grocery delivery, restaurant take-out, etc.).
Fadhel Kaboub Denison University Agree 10 It is possible to do both. For example, we can boost meals on wheels, wellness checks, vaccination site staff/assistants to create jobs that pay well and meet high safety standards.
Bill Kosteas Cleveland State University Agree 7
Charles Kroncke Mount St. Joseph University Disagree 6
Trevon Logan The Ohio State University Agree 8
Michael Myler University of Mount Union Agree 9 Low-income households are likely to spend most of the funds they receive.Hence, funds sent to low-income households can accomplish both objectives: maintain their health and safety and boost the economy--if we allow businesses to re-open.
Joe Nowakowski Muskingum University Agree 8
Mingming Pan Wright State University Disagree 8
Curtis Reynolds Kent State University Uncertain 6 This is important, but also important to sustain (smaller) businesses
Martin Saavedra Oberlin College Strongly Agree 8
Kay E. Strong Baldwin Wallace University Disagree 9 Combining the actions is better than one alone.
Albert Sumell Youngstown State University Disagree 8 The majority of spending should go to keeping low-income secure, but there's no reason to completely ignore economic activity.
Thomas Traynor Wright State University Strongly Disagree 9
Ejindu Ume Miami University Strongly Agree 9
Mark Votruba Case Western Reserve University Strongly Disagree 9
Andy Welki John Carroll University Agree 8
Rachel Wilson Wittenberg University Strongly Disagree 10
Kathryn Wilson Kent State University Agree 8 My only caveat is that I also believe the money should be focused on businesses that are particularly hard hit by COVID, such as restaurants.

Question B: If the goal is to boost current economic activity, targeting checks at households making less than $75,000 per year would be more cost-effective than providing checks to higher income households as well.

Economist Institution Opinion Confidence Comment
Jonathan Andreas Bluffton University Strongly Agree 8 High-income people won't spend additional money. Money that isn't spent has no effect on the economy, and we need stimulus now. The rich also have less need for a small percentage increase in their income. But universal checks don’t hurt.
Bizuayehu Bedane Marietta College Agree 9
Ron Cheung Oberlin College Agree 7
Jay Corrigan Kenyon College Strongly Agree 9
Kevin Egan University of Toledo Strongly Agree 10 Low income households more likely to spend the aid and high income households more likely to save it so yes checks to lower income households is more stimulative. Also, on average, lower income households have been more impacted so they need more aid
Hasan Faruq Xavier University Agree 8
Vinnie Gajjala Tiffin Univeristy Strongly Agree 9
Bob Gitter Ohio Wesleyan University Strongly Agree 9 The evidence seems to show that lower income families spend almost all of their checks. A family making $200,000 receiving a check will save most of it.
Nancy Haskell University of Dayton Agree 9
Paul Holmes Ashland University Strongly Agree 8 There's a problem with identifying who has been hardest-hit and needs the relief most. Without any better targeting, 'low-income' households is probably best - though perhaps higher limits for those with families/dependents
Faria Huq Lake Erie College Uncertain 7 While targeted checks would be cost effective and also ensure that the money is spent rather than saved to boost the economy in the short run, it is important to consider those households that may have lost sources of income during the pandemic.
Michael Jones University of Cincinnati Uncertain 10 Economic activity can mean many things. Low-income households are more likely to spend targeted checks, and higher-income households are more likely to save. Both are examples of economic activity though.
Fadhel Kaboub Denison University Uncertain 8 If the goal was boost economic activity, then relief checks for the poor/unemployed should've been much larger. Cost-effectiveness is a misleading frame. The cost of doing nothing or too little is much higher than the cost of doing the right thing.
Bill Kosteas Cleveland State University Agree 6 Yes, since lower-income households have higher marginal propensities to consume. A more targeted approach would be to provide checks to households that lost income as a result of the pandemic (although this is difficult to implement).
Charles Kroncke Mount St. Joseph University Strongly Agree 10
Trevon Logan The Ohio State University Strongly Agree 9
Michael Myler University of Mount Union Agree 9 Two things reduce the effect of sending funds to high-income households: they are likely to save a lot of it rather than spend it and we cannot boost the economy a lot if businesses are not allowed to re-open.
Joe Nowakowski Muskingum University Strongly Agree 10
Mingming Pan Wright State University Strongly Agree 9 The propensity to consume the checks is much higher for lower-income households, and thus more effectively boost aggregate demand and economic activity.
Curtis Reynolds Kent State University Agree 6 Targeting based on means makes sense but adds complexity to getting money out quickly
Martin Saavedra Oberlin College Agree 7
Kay E. Strong Baldwin Wallace University Strongly Agree 10 Lower income households have the propensity to spend 100% of an additional dollar of income. Not so higher income households.
Albert Sumell Youngstown State University Strongly Agree 10 Bottom up stimulus is much more effective than top down. Households making less than $75,000 spend a much larger proportion of their stimulus than households making more than $75,000.
Thomas Traynor Wright State University Agree 9
Ejindu Ume Miami University Strongly Agree 9
Mark Votruba Case Western Reserve University Agree 8
Andy Welki John Carroll University Agree 7
Rachel Wilson Wittenberg University Disagree 8
Kathryn Wilson Kent State University Strongly Agree 9

February 2021 Survey:

Optimally, the state government would invest more than the proposed $1 billion in COVID relief in the form of support for small businesses, bars and restaurants, local infrastructure, and residential broadband.

Economist Institution Opinion Confidence Comment
Jonathan Andreas Bluffton University Uncertain 8 It depends on what the feds do. Biden’s present stimulus proposal is almost 2,000 times bigger. It is insufficient by itself, but Ohio has a constitutional balanced budget requirement that limits the effectiveness of state fiscal stimulus.
Bizuayehu Bedane Marietta College Agree 8
Ron Cheung Oberlin College Agree 5
Kevin Egan University of Toledo Strongly Agree 10 The article says the state is NOT using any of the "rainy-day" fund. It is pouring out. Now is the time to use part of it. However, states are limited so federal assistance is also needed.
Kenneth Fah Ohio Dominican University Agree 9 Include education
Hasan Faruq Xavier University Strongly Agree 10 There are currently 300K+ unemployed in Ohio. Even if $1B is divided only among the unemployed, each individual would receive $2-$3K (unless my math is wrong). This would translate to a helpful but modest stimulus in the end.
Vinnie Gajjala Tiffin Univeristy Strongly Agree 9
Bob Gitter Ohio Wesleyan University Agree 7 The money is certainly needed for rural broadband. Frankly, though, the magnitude of the overall problem is greater than $1 Billion or any amount the State could reasonably spend. A federal response is needed.
Nancy Haskell University of Dayton Agree 5 Difficult to answer without more information. Additional spending would benefit jobs, infrastructure, and growth, but could be offset by costs of increased taxes or reduced state financial security, depending on the source of the added funds.
Paul Holmes Ashland University Disagree 6 If 'support for small businesses' is poorly targeted (like the federal government's program) this may do more harm to the economy than good. Infrastructure support looks wise, though.
Michael Jones University of Cincinnati Agree 2 Expanding broadband access to every Ohioan is a key element for widespread, economic growth. I would like to see even more spending devoted to Internet infrastructure.
Fadhel Kaboub Denison University Strongly Agree 10 The jobs data is showing that the recovery is going to be slow and painful, especially in rural areas. OH should use its $2.7B rainy day fund to Use it to invest in broadband, affordable housing, clean energy/transportation to boost the recovery.
Michael Myler University of Mount Union Agree 7 Merely reallocating funds from one program to another program is not necessarily expansionary. Expansionary fiscal policy requires an increase in government spending.
Joe Nowakowski Muskingum University Agree 8 I didn't see anything in the plan for schools to reopen safely. That is key to bringing the economy back.
Curtis Reynolds Kent State University Agree 5 Expanded broadband is important, but won't happen for several years. Helping restaurants and bars is good, but was needed a while ago.
Martin Saavedra Oberlin College Disagree 4
Lewis Sage Baldwin Wallace University Agree 9 Smoothing and accelerating the recovery, particularly with infrastructure spending, is worth a tax increase.
Dean Snyder Antioch College Strongly Agree 8
Kay E. Strong Baldwin Wallace University Strongly Agree 9 Refilling the "till" will not support the transition of long-term unemployed to employability in the new jobs and new skills needed for the 21st Century economy!
Albert Sumell Youngstown State University Agree 8 $1 billion is inadequate given the scope of the problem. That being said, how the relief funds are prioritized is as important - if not more - than how much is invested.
Ejindu Ume Miami University Strongly Agree 8
Andy Welki John Carroll University Agree 7 While the optimal total number may be higher, the additions should be targeting toward statewide broadband coverage.
Kathryn Wilson Kent State University Agree 5 It is hard to know the appropriate size of the state investment without knowing the federal response. However, I believe there is room to do more as this does not tap into the rainy day fund at all, and the bigger harm is in not doing enough.

January 2021 Survey:

Question A: Ohio's economy would be substantially stronger today if state and local ‘stay-at-home’ orders had lasted longer in the first half of last year.

Economist Institution Opinion Confidence Comment
Jonathan Andreas Bluffton University Strongly Disagree 9 Local efforts don't work long run unless all visitors must quarantine. That is illegal for US local government. All the truly successful examples in the world show that an effective national policy is required for long-run success against Covid-19.
Greg Arburn University of Findlay Strongly Agree 10
Bizuayehu Bedane Marietta College Disagree 9
Ron Cheung Oberlin College Agree 6
Jay Corrigan Kenyon College Disagree 8
Kevin Egan University of Toledo Agree 8 We see substantial variation across states in orders and results. But there is also cross-border transmission so there is a limit to what any one state can achieve. What is needed is more National uniform policies such as national mask mandate.
Kenneth Fah Ohio Dominican University Uncertain 5 How long and would the citizens abide by measures against gathering and in favor of face masks.
Hasan Faruq Xavier University Agree 9
Vinnie Gajjala Tiffin Univeristy Agree 9
Robert Gitter Ohio Wesleyan University Uncertain 5 Six months back is a long time during a pandemic. It is hard to know what the effect of a "stay-at-home" order through June on Ohio's economy in January.
Nancy Haskell University of Dayton Uncertain 5
Paul Holmes Ashland University Disagree 8 Given the state of federal leadership, I don't think this would have been effective. A strategy like this needs wide coordination, not piecemeal efforts.
Faria Huq Lake Erie College Agree 5 It would depend on whether the stay at home order was enforced/followed and other complementary rules put in place to reduce the spread of COVID.
Michael Jones University of Cincinnati Strongly Disagree 5
Fadhel Kaboub Denison University Uncertain 10 The lockdown was meant to buy us time. The strength of the economy depended on federal relief for individuals and businesses. CARES act money was helpful but not sufficient, which is why the post-vaccine recovery is likely to be slow.
Bill Kosteas Cleveland State University Uncertain 5 Compliance is key. If extending the stay-at-home orders lead to lower compliance, it could have resulted in more Covid cases, not fewer. There are too many unknowns here to predict the effects of longer/stricter stay-at-home orders.
Trevon Logan Ohio State University Agree 7
Michael Myler University of Mount Union Disagree 7 I am getting the impression that universal mask usage, frequent hand-washing, and avoiding crowds is the key to reducing the spread of the virus. The lockdowns are substitutes for these three practices.
Joe Nowakowski Muskingum University Disagree 7 Without the additional steps of contract tracing, testing, and mask wearing, I don't think a longer lockdown would have helped that much.
Curtis Reynolds Kent State University Uncertain 6 I supported the stay at home orders, but I am not sure that longer orders earlier would matter now. Controlling the spread better now would seem to be the key issue.
Martin Saavedra Oberlin College Disagree 4
Lewis Sage Baldwin Wallace University Uncertain 10 There are too many confounding factors to make any counterfactual judgment.
Olga Standrityuk Ohio University Uncertain 5
Kay E. Strong Baldwin Wallace University Strongly Disagree 9 Universal compliance with sanitary procedures rather than executive orders would have had greater effect on today's economy.
Albert Sumell Youngstown State University Uncertain 1 This question is particularly tenuous. Preliminary data suggests that economies' duration of stay at home orders did not have a significant impact on post-lockdown economic activity.
Melissa Thomasson Miami University Disagree 6
Thomas Traynor Wright State University Strongly Disagree 10 It is very difficult to estimate how well the stay at home orders would have been followed. Also, the virus spreads so quickly that ending stay at home orders later would not have stopped the pandemic from eventually slowing the economy anyway.
Ejindu Ume Miami University Disagree 7
Mark Votruba Case Western University Disagree 7 The backlash would likely have been more severe.
Andy Welki John Carroll University Disagree 6
Rachel Wilson Wittenberg University Disagree 9
Kathryn Wilson Kent State University Disagree 6 The state is not an island unto itself. If Ohio's policies had lasted longer but other states had more lenient policies I would expect the virus to be widespread. My answer would change if nationwide restrictions were implemented and lasted longer.

Question B: Ohio's economy will receive a substantial boost as soon as K-12 schools can be safely opened in person statewide.

Economist Institution Opinion Confidence Comment
Jonathan Andreas Bluffton University Strongly Disagree 8 It will be a tiny boost, but impossible to measure change in the rest of the economy from such a tiny increase in spending. It is good, not "as soon as" it happens, but because it should boost long-run productivity, the main purpose of education.
Greg Arburn University of Findlay Agree 8
Bizuayehu Bedane Marietta College Agree 9
Ron Cheung Oberlin College Strongly Agree 7
Jay Corrigan Kenyon College Agree 6
Kevin Egan University of Toledo Agree 8 In-person schooling especially for younger children should be first priority. Close bars/inside eating and offer those establishments aid.
Kenneth Fah Ohio Dominican University Strongly Disagree 9 It will then be a signal to the rest of the population of the effectiveness of safety measures.
Hasan Faruq Xavier University Agree 9
Vinnie Gajjala Tiffin Univeristy Agree 9 Schools remaining closed would reduce the lifetime earnings of the children thus lowering GDP in the long term. Zoom not perfect substitute for in person classes.
Robert Gitter Ohio Wesleyan University Disagree 7 I don't think that remote and hybrid classes are a major factor in keeping the Ohio economy down.
Nancy Haskell University of Dayton Agree 9
Paul Holmes Ashland University No Opinion 1 This statement seems to imply causality, but I think there are too many confounding factors to establish a causal link. When schools return to normal, it will be happening because spread of the virus is being controlled; that will obviously be beneficial.
Faria Huq Lake Erie College Uncertain 6
Michael Jones University of Cincinnati Strongly Agree 10 Until schools reopen, there is a limit on how many individuals can go back to work. With schools closed, the natural rate of unemployment is higher.
Fadhel Kaboub Denison University Disagree 10 Unfortunately, some jobs have been lost permanent. Service jobs will only recover when public confidence in the effectiveness of the vaccines is fully established. Federal relief money can lead to a robust recovery even if schools are in remote mode.
Bill Kosteas Cleveland State University Agree 8 Remote K-12 education is a major burden on many households, reducing labor supply as one parent (more often the mother) devotes more time to childcare/assisting with schooling.
Trevon Logan Ohio State University Agree 8
Michael Myler University of Mount Union Disagree 7 Many parents would be available for outside jobs if they no longer had to baby-sit and home-school their children. But that does not mean that an outside job is available for them.
Joe Nowakowski Muskingum University Uncertain 5 Without masks, tracing, testing, and vaccination, opening schools may provide a boost but may set the state up for a relapse.
Curtis Reynolds Kent State University Uncertain 6 I strongly believe that virtual schooling has negatively impacted parent's ability to work. My uncertainty is how whether this will "substantially" boost the economy with all of the other Covid-19 related problems the economy faces.
Martin Saavedra Oberlin College Agree 6
Lewis Sage Baldwin Wallace University Strongly Agree 9 At a bare minimum, school is daycare, releasing adults into the labor force.
Olga Standrityuk Ohio University Agree 8
Kay E. Strong Baldwin Wallace University Disagree 9 Many of today's students will not appear in the labor force for more than a decade hence.
Albert Sumell Youngstown State University Agree 8 The boost will be linked to the ability of parents to work and go out, as well as the signal it sends to the general population about the ability to open the economy.
Melissa Thomasson Miami University Uncertain 8 What does “substantial" mean?
Thomas Traynor Wright State University Agree 7 I don't think the boost will be "substantial", but it will be measurable.
Ejindu Ume Miami University Disagree 6
Mark Votruba Case Western University Uncertain 4 The opening of K-12 isn't critical in itself, but would indicate things are improving
Andy Welki John Carroll University Agree 6
Rachel Wilson Wittenberg University Agree 8
Kathryn Wilson Kent State University Agree 7 The key is that if K-12 schools can be safely opened then that suggests other economic activity would also be safer than now. I do believe K-12 schools should be prioritized both due to impacts on kids and for labor productivity of parents.

December 2020 Survey:

A more equitable state school funding formula would substantially reduce inequality in the state of Ohio in the coming decades.

Economist Institution Opinion Confidence Comment
Jonathan Andreas Bluffton University Strongly Agree 8 Education is one of the most expensive programs that directly affects inequality, and we could do much better.
Bizuayehu Bedane Marietta College Strongly Agree 9
Ron Cheung Oberlin College Strongly Agree 8
Kevin Egan University of Toledo Strongly Agree 10 All students are our future workers. We should be spending more per pupil on education in the lowest income areas to equalize opportunity. Instead we spend less. This is neither fair nor efficient.
Kenneth Fah Ohio Dominican University Agree 10
Hasan Faruq Xavier University Agree 9
Vinnie Gajjala Tiffin Univeristy Strongly Agree 10
Bob Gitter Ohio Wesleyan University Agree 9 Better and more equitable school funding is a necessary but not sufficient condition for long run economic equality.
Nancy Haskell University of Dayton Agree 9
Paul Holmes Ashland University Agree 4
Faria Huq Lake Erie College Agree 9
Michael Jones University of Cincinnati Agree 5 While funding is important - how the money is spent is more important for student success than the amount of money spent.
Fadhel Kaboub Denison University Uncertain 8 While access to quality education is necessary for reducing inequality, it is unfortunately not sufficient. Education must be coupled with investments in health, infrastructure, direct job creation, and other public safety nets.
Bill Kosteas Cleveland State University Uncertain 6 More equitable school funding should help to reduce inequality. Whether that reduction is substantial depends on a variety of factors.
Charles Kroncke Mount St. Joseph University Strongly Agree 10 Politically difficult
Trevon Logan Ohio State University Strongly Agree 10
Joe Nowakowski Muskingum University Strongly Agree 8
Mingming Pan Wright State University Disagree 8
Curtis Reynolds Kent State University Agree 9 Reducing disparities in school funding would not completely solve economic inequality but would be an important first step for youth.
Martin Saavedra Oberlin College Agree 7
Lewis Sage Baldwin Wallace University Agree 6 Unequal distribution of educational resources reinforces and helps to perpetuate and accentuate socioeconomic difference. It would work better as part of a broader program of infrastructural reform.
Kay Strong Baldwin Wallace University Strongly Agree 10 Education is a public investment in tomorrow's workers. The best and brightest don't always live the well-funded neighborhoods. The lost opportunity of those young people is lost forever!
Albert Sumell Youngstown State University Agree 5 A lot depends on what defines "substantially."
Melissa Thomasson Miami University Strongly Agree 9
Thomas Traynor Wright State University Uncertain 8 The state school funding formula is only one of many factors that can reduce inequality. So, I am uncertain about the impact being "substantial."
Ejindu Ume Miami University Strongly Agree 9
Mark Votruba Case Western Reserve University Agree 8 Maybe not "substantially"
Andy Welki John Carroll University Agree 9 That is one dimension of the issue but educational funding is not a substitute for missing social infrastructure.
Kathryn Wilson Kent State University Agree 9 I chose "Agree" rather than "Strongly Agree" because to "substantially reduce inequality" will require more than just more equitable school funding. That said, I support more equitable school funding and think it will reduce inequality.
Rachel Wilson Wittenberg University Agree 9 We need to distinguish between equity and equality. School funding is one part of fixing the wicked problem of inequity.

November 2020 Survey:

State payments to firms to keep employees on payroll is an effective way to speed the state's recovery from recession.

Economist Institution Opinion Confidence Comment
Jonathan Andreas Bluffton University Uncertain 7 Given the state's balanced budget requirement, it wouldn't do much if the money doesn't come from federal sources. A federal stimulus works better because the money can be borrowed cheaply (often from the Fed).
Greg Arburn University of Findlay Agree 10 Depending on federal fiscal policy.
Bizuayehu Bedane Marietta College Agree 9
Volha Belskaya Ohio University Agree 9
Ron Cheung Oberlin College Strongly Agree 8
Kevin Egan University of Toledo Agree 9 Businesses need to know now both that there will be aid and that they need to keep paying their workers close to normal pay in order to get it.
Kenneth Fah Ohio Dominican University Agree 9
Hasan Faruq Xavier University Agree 9
Vinnie Gajjala Tiffin Univeristy Uncertain 7
Bob Gitter Ohio Wesleyan University Agree 7 Although it is helpful to keep spending up, there are firms that really would not be laying off workers, e.g. utilities, grocery stores, delivery services and others. The program should be targeted and not available to all firms.
Nancy Haskell University of Dayton Agree 9
Paul Holmes Ashland University Uncertain 8
Faria Huq Lake Erie College Disagree 8
Michael Jones University of Cincinnati Uncertain 7 Germany operates its unemployment system, Kurzarbeit, this way. If the pandemic quickly recedes, this is a good solution. But if there are more permanent disruptions, then labor needs to separate and reallocate to speed recover from the recession.
Fadhel Kaboub Denison University Strongly Agree 10 Ideally, the federal government ought to provide a transition job guarantee or cover the payroll when no alternative employment options are available. States can administer these programs with federal funding.
Trevon Logan The Ohio State University Agree 8
Philip Mellizo College of Wooster Agree 7
Joe Nowakowski Muskingum University Agree 9 It will be effective, but only as part of a comprehensive plan that involves making workplaces safe.
Mingming Pan Wright State University Strongly Disagree 10
Curtis Reynolds Kent State University Agree 6
Martin Saavedra Oberlin College Agree 8
Lewis Sage Baldwin Wallace University Agree 10 Policy a) constitutes fiscal stimulus, reducing the depth of the recession; b) preserves the employment relation, speeding expansion post-recession.
Dean Snyder Antioch College Disagree 7
Kay Strong Baldwin Wallace University Disagree 9 By subsiding firms, inefficiency can be maintained in the system. Some firms should, in fact, be allowed to close. The pandemic has as a catalyst to creative destruction.
Albert Sumell Youngstown State University Strongly Agree 9 I would prefer the question read "Government payments to firms..." It's not the specific source that determines the effectiveness of the payments.
Melissa Thomasson Miami University Agree 9
Thomas Traynor Wright State University Agree 7 The strength of my agreement with the statement depends on what, if any, state spending is given up elsewhere.
Ejindu Ume Miami University Disagree 8
Mark Votruba Case Western Reserve University Agree 7
Andy Welki John Carroll University Agree 4 It is one possible way to put some support on the household consumption expenditures.
Kathryn Wilson Kent State University Agree 5
Rachel Wilson Wittenberg University Agree 6

October 2020 Survey:

Question A: Charges paid by customers of electric utilities to compensate electric generating facilities fueled by nuclear power are practically a transfer of income from a large number of households to a small number of investors and workers.

Economist Institution Opinion Confidence Comment
Jonathan Andreas Bluffton University Agree 7 There are also two other places the resources go. Some benefits go to the world due to reducing carbon emissions. Some of the revenues are a deadweight loss due to the lower productivity of nuclear power.
Bizuayehu Bedane Marietta College Uncertain 9
Ron Cheung Oberlin College Agree 6
Kevin Egan University of Toledo Disagree 10 This statement is excluding the large positive spillover to all citizens from our continued use of nuclear power vs. coal/gas. I believe future citizens would rather have our nuclear energy waste (safely stored) than our greenhouse gas emissions.
Kenneth Fah Ohio Dominican University Agree 9
Hasan Faruq Xavier University Uncertain 8
Vinnie Gajjala Tiffin Univeristy Strongly Agree 9
Robert Gitter Ohio Wesleyan University Strongly Agree 9 In business if you take a risk you might fail. The only mitigating circumstance is that the companies have their prices and profits regulated.
Nancy Haskell University of Dayton Uncertain 6 It depends on the extent to which the customers have other options. Are they revealing preferences for nuclear power or not?
Paul Holmes Ashland University Disagree 7
Michael Jones University of Cincinnati Agree 8 While I agree with the statement, the fixed costs to bring new electric generating facilities onto the grid need to be considered if nuclear power plants are to be replaced.
Fadhel Kaboub Denison University Strongly Agree 10 in the case of HB6, we are looking at corporate theft and abuse of power by a handful of corrupt public officials. And to add insult to injury, this is done to support a dying industry struggling to compete with renewable energy job creators.
Kristen Keith University of Toledo Uncertain 10
Michael Myler University of Mount Union Agree 7 That's true but not necessarily bad. Buyers should pay the full cost of the electricity. If the biggest cost of a nuclear power plant is the fixed cost, it is wise to add a surcharge to cover the fixed cost.
Joe Nowakowski Muskingum University Agree 8
Mingming Pan Wright State University No Opinion 5
Curtis Reynolds Kent State University Uncertain 3
Martin Saavedra Oberlin College Disagree 5
Lewis Sage Baldwin Wallace University Agree 10 This reflects the structure of any market with limited ownership and a large customer base.
Olga Standrityuk Ohio University Agree 10
Kay Strong Baldwin Wallace University Strongly Agree 10 When a large number of households only see a small transfer of income, little is "made" of it. This is similar to protectionist trade policies. The few benefit at the expense of the many.
Albert Sumell Youngstown State University Agree 9 There are legitimate reasons to subsidize certain types of renewable energy. This is not one of them.
Melissa Thomasson Miami University Disagree 7 This can almost be said about any good or service. Are you getting at fixed v MC cost?
Thomas Traynor Wright State University No Opinion 5 The question lacks information sufficient for me to respond. What is the basis of the charges?
Ejindu Ume Miami University Agree 3
Mark Votruba Case Western Reserve University Agree 10 Beyond the amount minimally needed to ensure those nuclear-powered generators stay in production, every dollar beyond that is pure transfer.
Andy Welki John Carroll University Uncertain 5 I have not invested much time in this issue.
Kathryn Wilson Kent State University Agree 6
Rachel Wilson Wittenberg University Disagree 7 I'm not very informed on this topic.

The economic benefits of charges paid by customers of electric utilities to compensate electric generating facilities fueled by nuclear power outweigh the economic costs.

Economist Institution Opinion Confidence Comment
Jonathan Andreas Bluffton University Uncertain 9 I would hope that the benefits of reducing global warming would outweigh the cost, but not if an alternative expenditure would achieve it more cheaply nor if the money just increases profits without increasing production of carbon-free electricity.
Bizuayehu Bedane Marietta College Uncertain 9
Ron Cheung Oberlin College Disagree 7
Kevin Egan University of Toledo Agree 7 I'm not confident yet that all nuclear power will be replaced with renewables. Natural gas is cheap now. Soon hopefully all future new energy is renewable as it continues to become cheaper. Reducing GHG emissions is highest priority; nuclear helps.
Kenneth Fah Ohio Dominican University Uncertain 10
Hasan Faruq Xavier University Uncertain 8
Vinnie Gajjala Tiffin Univeristy Strongly Agree 9
Robert Gitter Ohio Wesleyan University Uncertain 3 The question is not clear. Do you mean the regular price we pay for electricity?
Nancy Haskell University of Dayton Agree 3 Nuclear power reduces carbon emissions, which has large economic benefits (likely larger than the added charges). However, I know very little about the science and potential costs of nuclear power (e.g. nuclear waste or risk of meltdowns).
Paul Holmes Ashland University Agree 7
Michael Jones University of Cincinnati Uncertain 2 To what are we comparing the economic costs and benefits of nuclear power? coal? natural gas? solar? wind?
Fadhel Kaboub Denison University Strongly Disagree 10 The real costs are: not having cheap & reliable renewable energy, not having more green jobs locally, having high risks of accidents, leakages, or nuclear waste contamination, and not investing in the clean energy and storage of the future.
Kristen Keith University of Toledo Uncertain 10
Michael Myler University of Mount Union Agree 8 As long as the total charges per kwh do not exceed the total cost per kwh of generating the electricity, buyers cannot complain.
Joe Nowakowski Muskingum University Disagree 8
Mingming Pan Wright State University No Opinion 5
Curtis Reynolds Kent State University Uncertain 3
Martin Saavedra Oberlin College Uncertain 1
Lewis Sage Baldwin Wallace University No Opinion 10 The benefits of this transfer are unclear to me.
Olga Standrityuk Ohio University Disagree 9
Kay Strong Baldwin Wallace University Uncertain 5
Albert Sumell Youngstown State University Strongly Disagree 9 Even without the public corruption surrounding HB6, the transfer of millions from consumers to energy producers in order to subsidize failing energy plants is not economically justified.
Melissa Thomasson Miami University No Opinion 10
Thomas Traynor Wright State University No Opinion 5 Again. I need more information to be able to answer this question.
Ejindu Ume Miami University Uncertain 2
Mark Votruba Case Western Reserve University Uncertain 8
Andy Welki John Carroll University Disagree 5 As a general rule, if subsidized, it does not pass the market test of benefits outweigh costs.
Kathryn Wilson Kent State University Disagree 6
Rachel Wilson Wittenberg University Agree 7

September 2020 Survey:

Question A: Laws that shield firms from liability relating to injury and death resulting from COVID-19 will speed the recovery from the current recession.

Economist Institution Opinion Confidence Comment
Jonathan Andreas Bluffton University Uncertain 5 The tradeoffs are complicated and the devil is in the details. Too little responsibility encourages reckless behavior but too much liability can cause too much caution.
Greg Arburn University of Findlay Agree 10
Bizuayehu Bedane Marietta College Disagree 9
David Brasington University of Cincinnati Agree 9
Ron Cheung Oberlin College Disagree 6
Kevin Egan University of Toledo Strongly Disagree 10 The pandemic IS the cause of the recession. Bringing the spread of COVID-19 under control IS the solution for quicker economic recovery. Shielding firms from liability is not efficient; gives them incentives to do too little for worker protection.
Kenneth Fah Ohio Dominican University Uncertain 8
Hasan Faruq Xavier University Disagree 8 The outcome may be different in the short run and long run.
Vinnie Gajjala Tiffin Univeristy Disagree 6
Sucharita Ghosh University of Akron Disagree 9 The current negligence standard is already quite high.
Robert Gitter Ohio Wesleyan University Uncertain 4 The devil is in the details. It is hard to answer without a more specific law.
Nancy Haskell University of Dayton Uncertain 5 Depends on law details: Broad liability protection could incentivize firms to put employee health at risk (moral hazard), prolonging the pandemic and economic recovery. Liability protection contingent on following CDC guidelines could be beneficial.
Paul Holmes Ashland University Agree 7
Faria Huq Lake Erie College Uncertain 5 Such laws would affect employers' incentives to provide much needed PPE to their employees leading to a sicker workforce. It would be difficult for employees to prove that they obtained COVID-19 from their workplace and win any kind of lawsuit.
Michael Jones University of Cincinnati Agree 7 This statement is more likely to be true in environments of high unemployment.
Fadhel Kaboub Denison University Strongly Disagree 10 We can't have a decent recovery if workers are worried about the health risks associated with their workplace conditions. Instead of exempting employers from COVID19-related liabilities, the government can help implement CDC safety guidelines.
Bill Kosteas Cleveland State University Agree 7
Charles Kroncke Mount Saint Joseph University Uncertain 6
Trevon Logan Ohio State University Disagree 7
Michael Myler University of Mount Union Disagree 8 In the short term, perhaps. But in the longer run, we can expect more Covid-19 cases and a return to shut-downs.
Joseph Nowakowski Muskingum University Uncertain 8 Such laws may make workers think that their employers will be able to cut safety corners, and may be unwilling to return to work.
Mingming Pan Wright State University Strongly Disagree 10
Curtis Reynolds Kent State University Uncertain 5 Unclear how much liability concerns are preventing firms from hiring relative to other factors (for example, lower demand for goods/services)
Martin Saavedra Oberlin College No Opinion 1
Lewis Sage Baldwin Wallace University Uncertain 8 A law indemnifying any agent against loss generally leads to sub-optimal care. If businesses save on care, they may recover more quickly, but at the expense of customers and employees.
Dean Snyder Antioch College Disagree 7
Olga Standrityuk Ohio University Agree 8
Kay E. Strong Baldwin Wallace University Strongly Agree 8 Laws that protect ineptitude or simply serve to protect profit margins will harm employees, households and consumers. A set-back slowing recovery. Confidence in "safety" matters.
Albert Sumell Youngstown State University Disagree 8
Melissa Thomasson Miami University Disagree 7
Thomas Traynor Wright State University Disagree 7 Low demand by consumers concerned about catching the Coronavirus is a larger drag on economic activity than low supply from firms concerned about law suits. Such laws might slow the recovery if consumers think firms become less safe (moral hazard).
Ejindu Ume Miami University Disagree 6
Mark Votruba Case Western Reserve   University Disagree 3
Matthew Weinberg Ohio State University Uncertain 10
Andy Welki John Carroll University Agree 8
Kathryn Wilson Kent State University Disagree 9 To speed the recovery the virus must be under control so people feel safe. Shielding firms from liability would be expected to reduce the safety measures firms take, increasing the spread of the virus and reducing consumer confidence.

Question B: Laws that shield firms from liability relating to injury and death resulting from COVID-19 will incentivize actions by firms that will increase the spread of COVID-19.

Economist Institution Opinion Confidence Comment
Jonathan Andreas Bluffton University Agree 9 In theoretical Coasean models that assume perfect-competition, changing rights only redistributes wealth, but in the real world it also changes what gets produced. The best thing for the economy is to stop the pandemic.
Greg Arburn University of Findlay Disagree 10
Bizuayehu Bedane Marietta College Disagree 9
David Brasington University of Cincinnati Disagree 8
Ron Cheung Oberlin College Uncertain 6
Kevin Egan University of Toledo Strongly Agree 10 Correct. Efficient laws would require firms to take actions to ensure the safety of their workers or face consequences.
Kenneth Fah Ohio Dominican University Disagree 8
Hasan Faruq Xavier University Strongly Agree 9
Vinnie Gajjala Tiffin Univeristy Agree 7
Sucharita Ghosh University of Akron Strongly Agree 9 The safe cars we drive today are due to lawsuits regarding negligence in the auto industry. Companies should be held to the same standard for COVID-19 cases.
Robert Gitter Ohio Wesleyan University Agree 7 To the extent a firm is shielded, they might not take that extra measure.
Nancy Haskell University of Dayton Uncertain 5 Depends on whether the liability protection laws are contingent on following CDC guidelines, and whether following those protocols is appropriately enforced.
Paul Holmes Ashland University Agree 8
Faria Huq Lake Erie College Agree 6
Michael Jones University of Cincinnati Disagree 6 Employers have an incentive to reduce COVID-19 spread since a sick or quarantined employee is not creating value for the firm.
Fadhel Kaboub Denison University Strongly Agree 10 The COVID-19 crisis is a reminder that we must enhance safety, health, and sanitation conditions to protect employees as well as the general public.
Bill Kosteas Cleveland State University Disagree 5
Charles Kroncke Mount Saint Joseph University Uncertain 7
Trevon Logan Ohio State University Agree 8
Michael Myler University of Mount Union Agree 8 If firms buy insurance policies to cover this risk, the insurance companies are likely to insist that re-openings be safe.
Joseph Nowakowski Muskingum University Agree 8
Mingming Pan Wright State University Strongly Agree 10
Curtis Reynolds Kent State University Uncertain 5 Absolutely could in some instances but unclear how consistent problems would be.
Martin Saavedra Oberlin College Agree 5
Lewis Sage Baldwin Wallace University Uncertain 5 My lack of confidence reflects my hope that protecting their reputations will lead at least smaller firms to act in the best interests of their communities.
Dean Snyder Antioch College Agree 7
Olga Standrityuk Ohio University Disagree 7
Kay E. Strong Baldwin Wallace University Strongly Agree 9 The Coase Theorem reminds us that private parties often fail to resolve negative externalities of their own volition.
Albert Sumell Youngstown State University Agree 6 I don't think it will change behavior of individual firms. Whether the spread of COVID increases as a result will depend on whether there are proper regulations (e.g. mask mandates) in place at the state level.
Melissa Thomasson Miami University Agree 9
Thomas Traynor Wright State University Agree 6 This will be true of some firms, but not others whose actions are readily visable, or are eventually learned by the public.
Ejindu Ume Miami University Agree 5
Mark Votruba Case Western Reserve   University Uncertain 4
Matthew Weinberg Ohio State University Agree 5
Andy Welki John Carroll University Disagree 8
Kathryn Wilson Kent State University Strongly Agree 10 Instituting safety measures is costly to firms. Laws to shield liability will reduce a benefit to the firm of making the safety changes (avoiding lawsuits) and thus some firms would be expected to not do the same investment in safety.

August 2020 Survey:

Question A: The long-term economic benefits of Ohio's mask mandate are higher than the long-term economic costs of the mandate.

Economist Institution Vote Confidence Comment
Jonathan Andreas Bluffton University Strongly Agree 9 The best economic stimulus is anything that reduces covid19 and masks are one of the cheapest ways to reduce the spread and nudge the economy back towards normal.
Gregory Arburn University of Findlay Strongly Agree 9
Bizuayehu Bedane Marietta College Strongly Agree 9
David Brasington University of Cincinnati Strongly Agree 10
Ron Cheung Oberlin College Strongly Agree 10
Jay Corrigan Kenyon College No Response No Response
Kevin Egan University of Toledo Strongly   Agree 9 The cost is relatively low and the benefits we are still learning about but highly likely the benefits exceed the low costs.
Kenneth Fah Ohio Dominican University Uncertain 9
Hasan Faruq Xavier University Strongly Agree 10
Vinnie Gajjala Tiffin Univeristy Strongly Agree 10
Sucharita Ghosh University of Akron Strongly Agree 9
Robert Gitter Ohio Wesleyan University Strongly Agree 10 Usually there are tradeoffs. The mask mandate reduces COVID-19 cases as well as allowing for a broader re-opening of the economy. Just look at Europe.
Nancy Haskell University of Dayton Strongly Agree 9
Paul Holmes Ashland University Strongly Agree 10
Faria Huq Lake Erie College Agree 9 My answer is predicated on the proper enforcement of the mask mandate.
Michael Jones University of Cincinnati Strongly Agree 5 Even though the long-term benefits are unknown, the costs of the mandate itself seem quite low.
Fadhel Kaboub Denison University Strongly Agree 10
Kristen Keith University of Toledo Disagree 6
Bill Kosteas Cleveland State University Strongly Agree 9 There is very little cost to wearing masks in public settings where you are likely to come in close contact with others who are not part of your household.
Charles Kroncke Mount Saint Joseph University Strongly Agree 8
Trevon Logan Ohio State University Strongly Agree 10
Phillip Mellizo The College of Wooster Strongly Agree 10
Diane Monaco Heidelberg University No Response No Response
Michael Myler University of Mount Union Strongly Agree 9
Joseph Nowakowski Muskingum University Strongly Agree 10 Masks are cheap; shutting down the economy again would be tremendously expensive.
Mingming Pan Wright State University Strongly Agree 10
Curtis Reynolds Kent State University Strongly Agree 10 Mask-wearing is a low-cost activity that has large benefits associated with maintaining economic/business activity (not to mention direct public health benefits).
Martin Saavedra Oberin College Strongly Agree 8
Lewis Sage Baldwin Wallace University Strongly Agree 9
Daniel Shoag Case Western Reserve University Agree 6 The value of a statistical life is around $10m and there are ~11.5 m Ohioans. How much would people pay not to have this mandate? Likely less than a few hundred, and I think it will save that many
Dean Snyder Antioch College Agree 7
Olga Standrityuk Ohio University Strongly Agree 8
Kay Strong Baldwin Wallace University Agree 9 In a weighing of alternative, mutually exclusive, the opportunity cost describes the trade-off. An economy is the construct for the living.
Albert Sumell Youngstown State University Strongly Agree 10 Without the mask mandate, COVID-19 will spread further, diminishes confidence in the public to go out, further undermining economic activity.
Melissa Thomasson Miami University Strongly Agree 10
Thomas Traynor Wright State University Strongly Agree 9
Ejindu Ume Miami University Strongly Agree 10
Mark Votruba Case Western Reserve University Strongly Agree 9
Matthew Weinberg Ohio State University Strongly Agree 7
Andrew Welki John Carroll University Strongly Agree 9 Given the few personal actions people can take to limit spread with so few economic costs, this is a no brainer.
Kathryn Wilson Kent State University Strongly Agree 8
Rachel Wilson Wittenberg University Strongly Agree 9 The issue is that the societal benefit is greater than the individual benefit.

Question B: Economic damage from COVID-19 and its economic fallout will ultimately fall disproportionately on low- and middle-income families.

Economist Institution Vote Confidence Comment
Jonathan Andreas Bluffton University Agree 6 It depends on how you measure it. In absolute dollars, the non-wealthy will suffer less, but not in more important measures like unemployment, mortality, and percentage drop in consumption spending.
Gregory Arburn University of Findlay Agree 9
Bizuayehu Bedane Marietta College Strongly Agree 10
David Brasington University of Cincinnati Agree 7 Will also hurt small business owners, landlords, and those who hold the most stocks.
Ron Cheung Oberlin College Strongly Agree 10
Jay Corrigan Kenyon College No Response No Response
Kevin Egan University of Toledo Agree 7
Kenneth Fah Ohio Dominican University Strongly Disagree 9 Jobs that require in-person availability tend to be held by low-income and immigrant families. The global economy favors those with current tech skills who can work from remote locations.
Hasan Faruq Xavier University Strongly Agree 10
Vinnie Gajjala Tiffin Univeristy Strongly Agree 10
Sucharita Ghosh University of Akron Agree 8
Robert Gitter Ohio Wesleyan University Agree 7 In terms of lost income, definitely. We don't know how taxes will be raised to pay for the various programs and who will pay for those.
Nancy Haskell University of Dayton Strongly Agree 9
Paul Holmes Ashland University Strongly Agree 8
Faria Huq Lake Erie College Strongly Agree 9
Michael Jones University of Cincinnati Uncertain 7
Fadhel Kaboub Denison University Strongly Agree 10
Kristen Keith University of Toledo Strongly Agree 10
Bill Kosteas Cleveland State University Agree 7 The answer depends on how we define fallout. If we include increases in future taxes to pay for recent and proposed COVID related spending, that likely shifts the burden towards higher income hh.
Charles Kroncke Mount Saint Joseph University Agree 8
Trevon Logan Ohio State University Strongly Agree 10
Phillip Mellizo The College of Wooster Strongly Agree 10
Diane Monaco Heidelberg University No Response No Response
Michael Myler University of Mount Union Agree 8 My response is based on what I read and hear in news reports.
Joseph Nowakowski Muskingum University Strongly Agree 9
Mingming Pan Wright State University Agree 8
Curtis Reynolds Kent State University Strongly Agree 9 Research is already showing this to be true. Less likely to be able to work remotely so more exposure to virus and layoffs. Issues with school re-openings hurts two-earner households.
Martin Saavedra Oberin College Agree 7
Lewis Sage Baldwin Wallace University Strongly Agree 9
Daniel Shoag Case Western Reserve University Agree 8 Higher income jobs are more likely to be able to be done remotely (see Dingel and Neiman)
Dean Snyder Antioch College Strongly Agree 9
Olga Standrityuk Ohio University Strongly Agree 9
Kay Strong Baldwin Wallace University Strongly Agree 10 Result of long-term neglect.
Albert Sumell Youngstown State University Strongly Agree 10 Data has already proven that low- and middle- income families have been disproportionally impacted by COVID-19.
Melissa Thomasson Miami University Strongly Agree 9
Thomas Traynor Wright State University Agree 7
Ejindu Ume Miami University Strongly Agree 8
Mark Votruba Case Western Reserve University Strongly Agree 9
Matthew Weinberg Ohio State University Strongly Agree 10
Andrew Welki John Carroll University Strongly Agree 9 Given the nature of educational access, family structure, and the way employment aligns by income level, remote burdens low income more than professionals.
Kathryn Wilson Kent State University Strongly Agree 9
Rachel Wilson Wittenberg University Strongly Agree 10 The job losses were born by those with less wealth to shelter them through it.