David A. Price interviews Ulrike Malmendier, “On law versus economics, the long-term effects of inflation, and the remembrance of crises past” (Econ Focus: Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, First/Second Quarter 2024, pp. 22-26). One theme of the interview is Malmendier’s recent work which emphasizes that living through a salient event can leave a lasting mark.
I mentioned how my early life path was influenced by my dad experiencing World War II and how everything can get destroyed — the house gets destroyed, you lose all your possessions and savings, and maybe your country’s currency isn’t worth anything anymore. One way of looking at the effects of this is simply in terms of information: After such an experience, you have new data about what can happen. That’s the traditional economic view. But I’d argue that there’s an element beyond the intellectual. When it’s your own life, you tend to put a lot of weight on what has happened to you. You’re pushed toward overweighing outcomes that have happened to you. I first worked on that in the context of the stock market, with a paper Stefan Nagel and I wrote on Depression babies in the U.S. We showed that people who experience big crashes of the stock market tend to shy away for years and decades from investing anything in the stock markets.
How might this experience of overweighting the past be playing out since the pandemic? One possibility is in how younger people, who had not previously experienced inflation, think about inflation.
For starters, look at inflation, which started creeping up since 2021, and then in 2022 you were getting close to the double digits. There was such a sharp contrast between the long period of the Great Moderation and all of a sudden that price shock kicking in. For older people, who have seen high inflation before in the ’80s or even the ’70s, I’m predicting they’re just taking that into the average of the long period of low inflation since the early 1980s and of their experience of high inflation in the 1970s and early 1980s. Given their long history of experiences, the new spike does not get too much weight. It just goes up a bit.
But for young people in the United States who basically had seen no inflation at all outside of textbooks, it’s a different story. All of their life before they had experienced very low inflation, and then all of a sudden there’s the spike. Initially, then, they might be a little slow to react. But if the spike in inflation lasts long enough — it isn’t just a two-month blip — they realize, whoa, the world I live in is different than the world I thought I was living in, where high inflation happens only in textbooks. So the weight they put on that experience increases and can in fact end up being much higher than for older generations because the new experience makes up a much larger part of their lives after it has happened for two years or so.
Another possibility relates to the question of why worker who were willing to come into the office five days every week have now become unwilling to do so.
One area where I do expect big experience effects from recent years is living through the COVID-19 crisis and many of us being relegated to working from home. I do expect there to be a lasting change in how we view the value of social interaction, the value of working from home versus working at your workplace. The leadership here at the Haas School of Business, where I am right now, is encountering exactly this issue. They wonder why the same people who were happily coming in five days a week before COVID absolutely refuse to do so now. It’s clearly an experience that has changed people. In the classical economic model, you would just talk about the information obtained from that experience and maybe the setup cost of learning Zoom. But that can’t explain everything. We knew the length of our commutes before COVID.
And yet, personally experiencing what remote work and cutting out your commute means for your personal life makes an enormous difference. You have to experience it first, not because of lack of information, not because you cannot add and subtract hours spent in the car versus not, but because it just enters your decision-making differently if you have physically experienced it.
In current work, Malmendier is looking at how the experience of being a CEO through a period of corporate success or failure leaves a mark on that person–and finds that being CEO during a period of corporate turmoil can literally take years off a person’s life. In a past essay back in 2015 for the Journal of Economic Perspectives (where I work as Managing Editor), Malmendier (with Geoffrey Tate) “Behavioral CEOs: The Role of Managerial Overconfidence.” Although she was not emphasizing the theme of how past experiences affect current judgments at the time, it seems obvious to wonder if those who have the past record to end up as CEOs may develop an inflated opinion of their own judgment and skills as they move forward.
