Swiftynomics: Who’s Afraid of Women’s Economic Power? (with Misty Heggeness)

Summary

---

Podcast Summary

Pitchfork Economics with Nick Hanauer

Episode: Swiftynomics: Who’s Afraid of Women’s Economic Power? (with Misty Heggeness)
Date: March 17, 2026
Host: Civic Ventures
Guest: Misty Heggeness, Associate Professor of Economics and Public Affairs, University of Kansas; Author of Swiftenomics: How Women Mastermind and Redefine Our Economy

---

Episode Overview

This episode explores the intersection of pop culture, economics, and gender, using Taylor Swift as a lens to examine women’s overlooked economic influence. Misty Heggeness joins hosts Nick Hanauer’s team to discuss her new book Swiftenomics, challenging old paradigms of economic theory and advocating for a more inclusive lens—one that recognizes the importance of women’s labor (both visible and invisible), culture, and care in driving the economy forward.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Why Taylor Swift? The Lens of a Pop Icon

[07:13, Misty Heggeness]

• Heggeness uses Taylor Swift not just as an economic actor, but as a muse to reframe how we see women’s roles in the economy.
• Swift’s career illustrates how women maneuver industries dominated by men and how female-driven markets are underestimated.
• "It's really about reframing how we think about women as economic agents today."

2. Women’s Work: Labor That Doesn't Get Counted

[03:28, Host Paul]

• Much of women's economic contributions—especially unpaid care and cultural work—are systematically excluded from orthodox models and GDP calculations.
• Art and culture, like Swift’s music, are economic drivers yet economics as a discipline tends to ignore them.
• "She talks about how art and culture is often ignored by economics as a profession... labor that women put into the economy that doesn't get measured."

3. The Myth of ‘Economic Man’ and Gender Bias in Economics

[04:39–05:17]

• Classical economics centers on "Homo Economicus": a rational, self-interested, genderless agent—which in practice defaults to a man in theory and modeling.
• Quote from Paul: "It is absolutely an economic man."
• Heggeness asks: what if today’s representative economic agent is not a man, but a woman or someone non-binary?
• "Just that observation kind of blew open a door that I didn’t even know was there." (Paul, 05:17)

4. Culture, Art, and the Real Economy

[09:49–12:02]

• Economics education prioritizes math and efficiency but neglects initial inequalities and culture, stifling innovation and real-world relevance.
• Art and culture shape societal priorities and consumption patterns, but are left out of economic modeling.
• "We need to incorporate that level of diversity and cultural differences into how we think about economic theories." (Misty, 11:32)

5. Beyond Math: Rethinking Economics as a Discipline

[12:07–13:28]

• Heggeness criticizes economics' obsession with mathematical modeling at the expense of addressing real-life determinants like care, culture, and equity.
• "The fact that we don't let people study economics even without a heavy background in math is a big disservice to society." (Misty, 13:18)
• Joan Robinson’s classic quote cited: "The purpose of studying economics is to learn how not to be deceived by economists." (Goldie, 13:28)

6. Systemic Exclusion: Women as “Too Complex” for Models

[13:51–14:35]

• Historically, women’s contributions—both unpaid domestic work and as "irrational consumers"—were excluded from economic models for being too complicated or "non-rational."
• "They just didn’t want to put in the work for that." (Goldie, 14:00)

7. Taylor Swift as a Case Study in Undervalued Markets

[16:46–18:30]

• Swift’s early career involved challenging music industry executives who did not see value in the teenage girl market—a parallel to economics ignoring women’s economic contributions.
• "When you look back now... all you can say is, boy, were they wrong. And gee, they must be kicking themselves in the shin right now." (Misty, 17:44)
• Hope for the "Taylor Swift of economics" to disrupt orthodox models.

8. Teaching Economics Through Culture

[18:53–19:43]

• Heggeness teaches an upper-level economics class on Taylor Swift, noting it attracts far more women than traditional classes—suggesting content relevance is key to inclusivity.

9. Care Privilege: Who Does the Invisible Work?

[21:15–25:01]

• Heggeness defines "care privilege" as the (often unnoticed) advantage of having someone else do care work—highlighting gendered expectations that drive policy gaps.
• Those with care privilege (often men or the economically privileged) design policies without understanding the realities of those without it.
• "If you’re a person who has lots of it, oftentimes it’s more challenging to understand the ways in which not having it holds people back." (Misty, 22:55)

10. What Would a More Inclusive Economy Look Like?

[25:01–28:29]

• Calls for counting unpaid care work, investing in child care and social policies, and correcting fiscal priorities.
• "We act as though these are insurmountable problems, but they’re not... None of this is hard, but we make it seem so hard." (Misty, 27:15)
• Cites historical precedent: WWII-era universal childcare.

11. Broader Impact: Gender, Race, Class, and Power in Economics

[30:16–31:35]

• The economics profession is still overwhelmingly white, male, and privileged, shaping its theories and models.
• Call for feminist economists to move from the "fringe" to the mainstream.
• "I want to be a feminist economist who is in mainstream... we all need to value these things." (Misty, 32:10)

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• "There’s always a woman beside the great man, doing all the things that allow them to get through life."
  — Goldie, [37:36]

• "The fact that we don't let people study economics even without a heavy background in math is a big disservice to society."
  — Misty Heggeness, [13:18]

• "Care privilege is this idea of recognizing why it’s really challenging for us as a society sometimes to create supports for people who have lots of care roles and responsibilities."
  — Misty Heggeness, [24:26]

• “If you read this book instead of Mankiw’s Principles of Economics, I think you would get a more useful understanding of how the economy works.”
  — Goldie, [35:53]

• "For every bad actor that exists in my profession... there’s another 10 or 15... who care a lot about the next generation."
  — Misty Heggeness, [32:53]

---

Timestamps for Important Segments

• Introduction & Taylor Swift as Economic Lens: [01:26–07:13]
• Women’s Work & Art in the Economy: [03:13–05:38]; [09:49–12:02]
• Homo Economicus & Gender Bias: [04:39–05:17]; [13:28]
• Teaching and Content Inclusivity: [18:53–19:43]
• Care Privilege Discussion: [21:15–25:01]
• Magic Wand: How to Build an Inclusive Economy: [25:01–28:29]
• Field of Economics & Diversity: [30:16–33:19]
• Book Recommendation & Final Reflections: [35:03–38:07]

---

Tone, Style, and Noteworthy Moments

The episode is light, occasionally self-deprecating (“Even a pop cultural idiot like yourself,” Paul to Goldie, [01:57]), but earnest about challenging economic orthodoxy. Misty Heggeness combines academic rigor with a pop-culture sensibility, making challenging concepts accessible. The hosts are playful, even as they sustain a critical edge toward traditional economics (“It focuses exclusively on men... these are people who are used to being taken care of, so they don't really value the care.” Goldie, [36:35]).

Notable lighter moment:

• Paul asking which Taylor Swift song would appeal most to Goldie and the resulting discussion (“The Last Great American Dynasty,” Misty, [33:50]).

---

Recommendations

• Both hosts strongly recommend Heggeness’s Swiftenomics as a more insightful introduction to economics than conventional textbooks.
• Available at bookshop.org or your local independent bookstore ([42:05]).

---

Conclusion

This episode offers a timely and provocative critique of mainstream economics, urging the discipline to recognize the power of women as economic agents and to count the full spectrum of labor and cultural contribution. Using Taylor Swift both as a case study and as metaphor, the conversation highlights the urgent need to update both our theories and our policies to build a more inclusive and equitable economy.

---

Transcript

[A]

The rising inequality and growing political instability

[B]

that we see today are the direct result of decades of bad economic theory. The last five decades of trickle down economics haven't worked. But what's the alternative?

[A]

Middle out economics is the answer.

[B]

Because the middle class is the source of growth, not its consequence. That's right.

[C]

This is Pitchfork Economics with Nick Hanauer, a podcast about how to build the economy from the middle out.

[B]

Welcome to the show. Hey, Goldie Paul.

[A]

I have a question for you, Goldie.

[B]

Okay.

[A]

What's your favorite Taylor Swift song?

[B]

Who? No, of course I know who Taylor Swift is. You know, I. I may not be much into pop music, but, you know, I. I'd even recognize her face. If you showed me her face, I'd know who she was, which is more than I could say for most pop stars. But I do not have a favorite Taylor Swift song. Not because I love them all equally, but because I could not name one. Okay, all right, great.

[A]

Well, you are the perfect co host for this episode.

[B]

No, I know.

[A]

And by the way, for the record, I. I like Folklore as an album and Midnights also as an album. And I really like the song I'm the Man because I went down a huge Taylor Swift rabbit hole when the Eras tour was going on a couple summers ago because it was just such a huge thing. It was, it was unignorable. Even a cultural idiot like you. Uh huh, sorry, sorry. A pop cultural idiot like yourself.

[B]

That stuff I listened to was popular in the 1950s and 60s.

[A]

That's why I said pop. Yes, and yeah, yeah, yes, exactly. Even a modern pop music idiot like yourself knew what was going on. You knew that Taylor Swift was dropping into these different cities and it was basically like, I almost want to say economic bomb, but it was a positive economic bomb. She was going from city to city and basically upending the transit, the systems, the hotels, the economies. She was at one point basically holding up the American economy coming out of COVID It was really quite remarkable. So yes, even you couldn't ignore it to the point where you know her name and her face, which is maybe even one step further than I thought was was possible. Even though you are not the Taylor Swift expert that I need by my side. I thought you would be an interesting co host for today's conversation with Misty Haganess. She is the author of a book called Swiftenomics How Women Mastermind and Redefine Our Economy. And yes, and I'm sure you cringed when you saw the title of the book.

[B]

Yeah, well, look, I think what we'll do is there's two of us here. We'll split the chore here. You can work on the Swifty part of the book and I'll work on the nomics.

[A]

Yeah. And because the nomics part is actually the meatier part of the book, there's a lot of conversation about Swift as an economic actor and the impact she has on the economy. But she uses the book. In the book, she uses Taylor Swift as sort of a lens to talk about a bunch of different things, including all the work that labor that women put into the economy that doesn't get measured. Something that's especially close to my heart is she talks about how art and culture is often ignored by economics as a profession and economists in general. There's a lot of really great economic thoughts in this book. There was one passage that really blew me away. We have talked on this podcast a lot about Homo economicus, the idea of the economic man who is perfectly rational and the idea that the perfectly rational, perfectly selfish, perfectly informed utility maximizer that operates in the economy. And she asks this question. There's this passage that I love. What if today's Homo economicus is not a man, but rather a woman or perhaps someone who identifies as non binary?

[B]

And it's interesting because that stood out to me too, Paul, because we've made fun of a lot. We've disputed the economicus part of it, the idea of economic man, that that's. We behave like economic creatures. And it never occurred to me that, in fact, part of the problem is that we're modeling this as a man specifically. Right. I'd always thought of it as, like, humankind, but no, no, these economists, they're really only looking at men.

[A]

It is absolutely an economic man.

[B]

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

[A]

And, and just, just that observation, like, kind of blew open a door that had been. I didn't even know was there when I was thinking about economics. And so the book really gets into all of the things that aren't measured. And so I'm excited to talk to Misty Haganas about the book and her observations about the economy.

[B]

Okay, then, let's talk to Misty.

[C]

My name is Misty Haganis. I am an associate professor of economics and Public affairs at the University of Kansas, former senior advisor at the U.S. census Bureau. And my book is called Swiftenomics How Women Mastermind and Redefine Our Economy.

[B]

You know, I should start with just, you know, fair warning. As Paul can attest, I have no pop culture knowledge whatsoever, but Taylor Swift is big enough. I was telling Paul beforehand. I would recognize her face. So.

[C]

Well, it's never too late. So I'm glad we're here talking.

[B]

And I also have a confession to make. You talk in the book about how some football fans were unhappy about her showing up at Chiefs games, and I'm one of them, but not for the reasons you cite in the book. It's because she was raised, like me, to be a Philadelphia Eagles fan. And this sort of disloyalty is just unforgivable. I mean, valid. Even Travis's brother is an Eagles fan. So I just have to start right there. So you're.

[C]

Totally makes sense. Totally makes sense.

[A]

Whereas I am familiar with Taylor Swift, but I don't follow sports at all, so I didn't get any of that last pick. So I guess we should probably start with the obvious question and one that I'm sure you've answered a bunch before. Why use Taylor Swift as the lens for your. For your book on economics?

[C]

Yeah, so my book is a general overview of women in the economy with a focus on the modern woman. And so thinking about how women act as economic agents today. And it actually looks different than the stereotypes that we have in our head about how women behave in the workforce or how they behave at home. And as an economist who lives deeply in this profession, I'm very aware of how these type of stereotypes around gender influence the way we see the world. They influence the models that economists work with. They just, you know, infiltrates everything. And so I've been working with data for more years than I would like to admit. And one of my favorite subjects is, you know, sleuthing, or one of my favorite things to do, sleuthing around in the data to look at what's going on with women, and particularly mothers. I'm a mother myself. The data just keeps on telling us different stories than what we tell ourselves in the news media or what we think about women. And so that's what the book is about. It's really about reframing how we think about women as economic agents today. As I was developing the concept for the book, I had been following Taylor's career and was just continually impressed with the way that she herself maneuvers in an industry that is very male leaning, especially in leadership and executive roles in the music industry. And I just felt like she would be such a great muse and infusing the stories of her career into this book about how women behave today economically, just felt like it had to be done, so I did it.

[A]

Did that speak to you? I mean, I think as a woman in the economics field, it's traditionally. I mean, it's still overwhelmingly male, I believe. Right. Statistically speaking, I think you actually, you

[B]

give it too much credit in the book for the progress it's made because compared to other fields, it's made far, far less progress.

[C]

It, it definitely has. And yeah, I mean, I, you know, I feel like a little bit like I. So I'm not of Taylor's generation. I'm a little bit older than she is. But I do feel like there's a lot of similarities in her experiences in the music industry and women's experiences in the field of economics. Definitely. And you know, I think that women in the field of economics actually could learn quite a bit by observing and paying attention to the way that Taylor has maneuvered in her own space. And you know, women in many indust. To be honest, I definitely over identify with Taylor.

[A]

Before we dig too much more into the book, I also wanted to talk. Something that really struck me about your book and the reason I flagged it as something I wanted to discuss was it's not just that it's about a woman, but that it's about culture and art. Right. I mean, even if, even though it's stadiums and it's a billion dollar business, it's art. Right. And I think that economists tend to treat culture as separate from the real economy. Right. In much the same way as they. They ignore a lot of women's work, which we'll get into soon. What do you think that we misunderstand when economists draw a line around, around culture and art as something sort of separate from. From the real economy?

[C]

Well, I mean, so I'll just say to start out with that, I really don't appreciate how we teach economics to the younger generation today, which is you have this bland textbook and there's lots of widgets and you know, we talk about efficiency, efficiency, efficiency, and we spend very little if any time talking about initial endowments and how there might be inequities there. One of the pieces of art and culture that I think is so beautiful is that it's innovative. And economists care a lot about innovation. We care a lot about technological change and innovation. And there's so much innovation that happens in art. And the other piece is that we have expectations about art and culture in the society around us. And those expectations fuel both how we see rank and order in society and then how we act amongst each other and within our social networks based on that rank and order. And that's something that permeates everything we do as economic agents. And I don't think that it's possible to talk about economics and the economy as some blank white sleep slate. I guess pun intended there with the. But you know, it's just like there's no, you know, we, we need to incorporate that level of diversity and cultural differences into how we think about economic theories if we're ever going to actually be helpful, you know, in the best way that we can in thinking about how economies function and how they flourish.

[B]

But if you can't mathematize those things, how do you work them into a model?

[C]

Yeah, I love the fact that we are so hung up on math. It's like I teach a class right now. Economics, Taylor Swift, and the very first day of class, I tell everyone it's upper level class and I say, there will be no math in this class. We're not going to do math. Math is easy. You memorize and it's predictable and you just have to train yourself on it. It's a lot harder to really use your brain to think about the broader aspects of what you're doing. You know, it's easy to like write down a model, but it's harder to think about what actually belongs in that model. Once you figure out what actually belongs in that model. The math is generally, usually straightforward. And I think economics is so caught up in math, math, math. And then we just to the extreme that we don't even value the ability to think about what actually belongs in this model and what actually are the determinants of influencing whatever outcome we're interested in looking at. And I think we need to get better at that. And you don't need, I mean, yes, you need. Yes, math is important in economics. Don't get me wrong, like, you know, everybody. Yes, go take your linear algebra, go take your calculus. Yes, you know, do all the things, real analysis. But you should be able to study economics even without a heavy background in math. And the fact that we don't let people do that is a big disservice to society.

[B]

One of my favorite quotes from an economist is, is a woman is Joan Robinson's classic quote that the purpose of studying economics is to learn how not to be deceived by economists. And it's funny, you talk about what belongs in the model. One of the things that clearly doesn't belong in the orthodox model is women for the most part.

[C]

Well, I mean, you look at the 1970s labor economists, you know, who would just throw women out of their models because we were too complex to figure out how to model both in terms

[B]

of the contributions in the home being hard to. Well, not really hard. They just didn't want to put in the work for that. As you mentioned in the book, there are ways to mathematize the contributions of home care and housework and cooking and so forth, but also too complex on the consumer side as well because it was assumed. Well, they're not behaving rationally like as you talk about in the book Homo Economicus. Now we hear Goldie mentioning that great passage on Homo economicus.

[A]

Misty and her team were kind enough to provide us the segment from her

[B]

book Swiftynomics, narrated here by Nan McNamara.

[D]

Traditional models of economics originated in the mid-19th century and assumed the existence of a generic non gendered economic agent called Homo economicus. Homo economicus was born in 1836 to John Stuart Mill and was later promoted by other male economists of the time. A 19th century ideal homo economicus primary pursuit in life was to minimize costs while maximizing profits or earnings in business. Its goal was to maximize satisfaction or pleasure called utility. It was ageless, colorless, genderless and identityless. To top it off, Homo economicus was something of a mathematical whiz, propelling linear algebra, calculus and real analysis to the front of the classroom, where they became the gold standard in modern economics. In the 20th century, Homo economicus grew some cojones and began to be known as Economic Man. Math became prioritized as the most efficient, least biased and fastest method for accomplishing his primary pursuit in life, minimizing consumption of items and activities he does not like or need so that he can maximize consumption of things he does. To understand this, think about your own consumption patterns. Your primary consumption goal might be to purchase the biggest, best truck you can, or maybe it is being able to afford the biggest, best home within a friend or acquaintance group so you can flex your homeowner status. It might be owning the most parent approved career, one that gives you leverage over your siblings and parents. For parents, it might be the best education or childcare for your children. For economic man, every moment is spent in the pursuit of maximizing pleasure and experiences that bring joy.

[C]

So let me just give you a Taylor Swift spin on this idea. You know, when Taylor started in her career, she was 14. She wanted to write country music songs. Four other teenage, you know, white women. And that was really what she was passionate about. And she went to the country music industry and they said, you know, we'll put you on a development contract. Which means they weren't going to let her Produce her own albums. They weren't going to let her sing her own songs. She broke from that contract. She was again 14 years old. She broke from that contract and she went off with some guy who was starting his own label which ended up being Big Machine. And she took a risk with him by joining with him, but he agreed to let her write her own country music songs about the experience of, you know, young white teenage girls and then, you know, produce those albums to sell. And when you look back at that now you have country music executives who were saying there's no consumer market of value for us in teenage girls. We don't think that country music, writing country music songs, you know, that speak to the lived experiences of teenage girls has any value. And you know, look at Taylor now and all you can say is boy were they wrong. And gee, they must be kicking themselves in the shin right now. And I feel like it's similar with economics. Like you know, we've got some folks up at the very top of this established, well oiled machine who are really convinced that their theories and their way of thinking about the world is the right way. They don't necessarily see value in women's contributions, women's economic contributions. If they did, you know, we'd be living in a different space. And I'm just waiting for the next Taylor Swift of economics to come out and like, you know, prove them wrong.

[B]

The Taylor Swift of economics. Well, you know what, I think it would be more educational to have your intro economics class taught by a 14 year old girl than most of the professors who teach it. Better that than Furman, I don't know.

[C]

Yeah, I mean I can, you know, so I, I mentioned. But I teach this class, Economics of Taylor Swift this semester I'm teaching it. It's three guys and all women. And the first day of class after class they all shuffled out. I'm packing up my bags and then enter stage right. The next class comes in, it's like five girls and the rest guys and I asked them like, oh, what class are you here for? Introduction to Microeconomics. And just like painting the visual there, I'm teaching an economics class. The next class was an economics class. But the fact that I am able to bring economics into a topic area that is of interest for women means that I get way more women in my class. And there's a lesson to be learned there in terms of how we teach economics.

[B]

And to be clear, there's a lot of economics in this book. I mean that's the part that appeals to me, obviously not attuned to pop music, but the way you use that to actually Taylor Swift and the other women you mention in the book, to actually teach what's wrong with orthodox economics in the way it's generally taught to be fair.

[C]

I'm just doing that because I'm essentially telling the story of economics from my own perspective, from the way that I see it and the way that I view it is a way in which I don't want to believe that this dominant profession that has historically either not included me or not counted a lot of the work that I do in my own household. I don't want to believe that that's the correct path forward because it doesn't represent who I am and it doesn't represent all of my identity as an economist. And that's why I wrote this book. Because if we're going to frame things differently, if we're going to have broader discussions that are more inclusive in the field of economics, we have to be willing to meet people where they are and we have to be willing to think about economics in some alternative format, whatever that may be. And for me, that is bringing in this angle of all of the economic activity that women do, that that gets excluded from national accounts, et cetera, et cetera.

[A]

Let's talk a little bit about care privilege. You know, how does the labor market being built around that assumption, change, change the outcomes of lives and labor and all of that, like who wins and who loses?

[C]

You know, I think I came up with that concept of care privilege really just to try to identify something that I had been observing in, at least in the political sphere, but pretty much kind of like everywhere. So my mother and her brothers are of the baby boom generation and my uncles have a ton of care privilege, like a ton of care privilege. And so, you know, I would go off to college when I was 18, 19, 20, and again, you know, with my parents telling me, you can be anything, you can do anything, you know, the world is your oyster. And then I would come home for Christmas break and it was like all of the women, you know, my mom and all the aunt, all my aunts in the, in the kitchen cooking the meal. And then, you know, we'd all eat. And then we have this little trick in our family where myself and all of the cousins are responsible for washing the dishes. And so this idea of care privilege is essentially you're an able bodied adult, but you have somebody else who takes care of your care needs. And I wanted a definition that wasn't pejorative And I wanted a definition that wasn't accusatory. Right. So we all have different levels of care privilege in our life, and they ebb and flow over time. You know, sometimes we're in a situation where somebody else is taking care of us because we're sick or whatever it might be, or other times we have small children. And so we end up having to do a lot of caregiving or aging adults, whatever, or aging parents, whatever it might be. But the interesting thing about care privilege is if you're a person who has lots of it, oftentimes it's more challenging or more difficult to understand the ways in which not having it holds other people back. And that's the piece that gets at the invisible labor. And so when I talk about care privilege, I do it within the context of policies, because I think the US has really, really struggled to really support and sustain policies that allow people who don't have care privilege to thrive in the labor market. And so one of the reasons why I think that is is because if you look at the Hill like it's changing over time, there's more women legislators, there's more parents who are, you know, parent legislators, parents of small kids who go up to the Hill. But I think one of the reasons why we haven't been able to successfully really create sustainable and lasting infrastructure in this country around providing care supports that families need is because the legislating is being done by a bunch of people who have lots and lots of care privilege. And so they assume since somebody is taking care of their kids at home, somebody is make cooking their meals or washing their clothes so that they can go to work every day. They just assume that that type of informal, invisible family style structure exists for anybody who wants to go to the labor market, and it just doesn't. I lived a rat race with my kids between the time they were born and the time they entered school, because, you know, it was. It's daunting taking care of a toddler and an infant while you're working full time, you know, in the federal government in D.C. with a bunch of type A style people like, you know, it's like it's a rat race. And so that for me, care privilege is just this idea of recognizing why it's really challenging for us as a society sometimes to really create supports for people who have lots of care roles and responsibilities.

[A]

A little early in the program, usually at the end we ask the magic wand question, but I had a follow up to that that I wanted to ask. So if you could wave a magic wand and build an economy that actually counts. The things your book argues we've been missing. How would it work differently? What would be different?

[C]

Yeah, so economic statistics would be more inclusive. We would really invest in time, use surveys, and we would be able to measure the amount of economic activity people do for non pay within households and across households. We would invest in social policies that really gave families the flexibility and the choice to either decide whether they wanted to care for their own children in their home or they wanted to, you know, have their children be in a high quality, affordable child care. The way that I talk about this is there's always this discussion that seem to always get tripped up on and it has to do with cost and pricing. You know, there's no money in the budget to fund, for example, universal childcare. My response to that is that is, again, this is not a white slate or blank slate, whatever. It's not a surmountable problem. And what happens is that we act as though it is. And so I say this in the book, but in my lifetime, I've lived through two auto bailouts, a banking bailout, and during the pandemic, I lived through an airline bailout.

[B]

And right now you're living through a billionaire bailout. Well, yes, we're spending all this money on billionaires.

[A]

So

[C]

it's about values and it's about priorities. And this is the piece again where I think we need to be really upfront about this, that this is the way the world works and this is the way humans act and behave. And we need to think about that first and foremost within the context of economics. So there's really no reason why we can't provide funds, prioritize early childhood education or childcare, universal childcare. And we did. We've done it before. You know, in World War II with the Lanham act, we provided universal childcare for moms so they could go in the manufacturing industries and make bongs and other weapons for the guys over over in Europe. And that universal childcare was comprehensive. Like women were 10, 12 hour shifts and their kids would be in, you know, high quality, safe childcare environments while they were working. So we've done it before. We have infrastructure in this country. So it's not rocket science. The infrastructure is. We already have universal childcare today. It's called our public school systems. And all you need to do is lower the age of public school systems to create an infrastructure for a childcare setting for younger kids. So none of this is hard, but we make it seem so Hard. And part of the reason why we do that is because we've lived so long under these assumptions that this invisible labor that women do in families will always be there, and we take it for granted. And, you know, therefore, we don't prioritize fixing this problem. And women are in a real crunch today because, you know, their educational attainment is higher than it's ever been before. Women are more likely to have careers than jobs. You look at younger generations of women, millennials and Gen Z, and they're not necessarily sure they want to have kids. They're partnering up later. All of this is because of a work life balance issue that is solvable, right?

[B]

Well, to quote one of Joan Robinson's colleagues or one of his, her co workers, anything we can do, we can afford. That's right, as Keynes told us.

[A]

So I wanted to ask you. This is, this is very speculative, but I bet you've thought about it. If, if economists did take all of this seriously, right, about participation in care, work and cultural power, how do you think that would change the way that we think about economic growth and shared prosperity? Like what, what would the outcomes be for that kind of a system?

[C]

Yeah, I mean, I think we would kind of go back to, you know, the mid 20th century style thinking about this in terms of, not necessarily in the field of economics, but just in terms of like valuing community output or valuing community investments. I think one of the biggest challenges today is we no longer value inputs and investments that we make at the community level. It's like everybody is out for themselves. You think about some of the infrastructure that was developed in between during and after the world wars, where we have our interstate system now. Anytime there's a new highway built, what happens? We've got to put the tollways on it and make people pay to, you know, keep it clean because there's no money and. Or we just don't want people to have access to something unless they're paying for it. And so without recognizing the whole purpose of a taxation system is to redistribute, you know, wealth and create a more equitable community where we can all thrive.

[B]

So I want to get back to that. I said you, I think you give the profession too much credit. You said it's what, like what, 80? In terms of professors, full professors. It's still about 80% male. But it's more than that. It's not just male. It's overwhelmingly white men. And on top of that, white men who grew up in privilege disproportionately More than any other field. These are people whose parents had graduate degrees or professional class degrees. It is unlike any other, I don't know, science, Is it a science? Whatever. It's unlike any other field and yet it has so much impact on our culture. It is the least inclusive academic profession we have. And you see that throughout economics and the impact it has on our society. So it's, you know, I really enjoyed the way you point that out in the book, even if I didn't recognize most of the lyrics that and songs that you mentioned.

[C]

I mean, I think it's really important and really valid point. And maybe I do give my profession too much credit, but I'm a glass half full type of gal. I am hopeful and I, you know, just for every potential bad actor that exists in my profession that happens to be, you know, old white male, there's another 10 or 15 or whatever of those same actors who actually do care a lot about the profession, who do care a lot about the next generation. Part of my purpose of writing this book is, you know, I consider myself a feminist, but I also consider my spouse a feminist. And, you know, I think he would also agree. And I think men and women need to work together to figure out these problems. And I think we need to be open to having these discussions. And I think if we're going to, you know, get any further along in this trajectory of thinking about equity and thinking about the role of women in the field of economics. Women for a long time have been in the, in, in the lane of feminist economics doing their own thing, you know, because they weren't accepted into the profession. And I want to be a feminist economist who is in mainstream. Like that is what I think we need. I don't want to have to live at the fringe of my discipline because I value these things. And, you know, I think it's only women that values these things, you know, that we all need to value these things. And so that's probably why I come off as rosier than maybe perhaps I should, is because I'm really focused on wanting to have these discussions in the mainstream. And I think that's how the field of economics is going to grow and improve itself is if we do it that way.

[A]

That's fantastic. Thank you. Thank you so much for being so generous with your time. Thank you for the book. I really loved the book. I especially loved the homo economicus passage, really sort of open my eyes in some ways. And Goldie loves musicals. So if, if he had to listen to one Taylor Swift song, what what would you. What would you.

[B]

I'm sure I've heard the songs. I just wouldn't know it was Taylor Swift, but he's.

[A]

He's into, like, wordplay and. And musicals and things like that. So I was wondering if you had a recommendation.

[C]

Here we go. Of course I do. The Last Great American Dynasty.

[A]

Thank you.

[C]

That is a song about Rebecca Harkness. Do you know who Rebecca Harkness is?

[B]

Yeah, well, I do now because you mentioned it in the book.

[C]

Yes, yes, so. And if you like musicals, you can watch the ERAS Tour concert, her first iteration. She does a whole set on the Great American Dynasty. So you can watch it as a musical if you like.

[A]

I love that song. That's my favorite album of hers. Not that anybody asked, but yes.

[B]

Normally Nick gets to ask this, but since he's not here, I'll let you ask it. Paul, the final question.

[A]

Oh, yeah, I'm sorry. One final question. Why do you do this work?

[C]

That's a great question. I do this work because I passionately love the discipline of economics, and I passionately love being a woman. And I feel like I should be able to be proud about both of those things simultaneously, and that that should be recognized. And I want other young women and men to enter into the profession for the same reasons.

[B]

You know, Paul, when I saw this book Come My Way, I was a little skeptical, as you might imagine. And look, there's a lot of great examples, as you mentioned at the top, about the economic impact that Taylor Swift herself has had on the economy that, you know, having a Taylor Swift tour come to your town is like having the World cup come through with all the economic activity it generates for the local economy. I mean, it's really impressive. But what impressed me about the book was not those anecdotes and certainly not the quotes from Taylor, which didn't speak to me because I'm the way it will speak to a lot of other readers. But the way Misty managed to

[A]

use

[B]

this narrative frame to actually teach economics, it is in many ways, if you read this book instead of Mankiw's Principles of Economics, I think you would get a more useful understanding of how the economy works. And for a lot of reasons. She talked about in the interview how innovation is important to economists. Okay, yeah. No, it isn't. I mean, in terms of, like, art and culture, that being innovative, and you'd think it would be important to economists. No innovation that's exogenous. There's nothing in the orthodox model about where innovation comes from. It's Kind of important, sure, but it's just a shock. And then it upsets the equilibrium. Then we reach a new equilibrium. But that there's no talk. I mean, if you actually go to the textbook, it doesn't tell you where innovation comes from. It spends very little time talking about that. Again, we had discussed at the top this idea of economic man. Like, my God, the example she uses. It just really demonstrates how much of the problem in economics is that it focuses exclusively on men. And for all the reasons that Misty talks about that, these are people who are used to being taken care of, so they don't really value the care. You know, she goes all the way back to Adam Smith, the fact that while he's writing his books, he's being taken care of by his mother. He lives at home with his mom, who cooks for him and cleans for him and makes clothes for him and sews his clothes and really takes care of him his entire life. And that is not a one off story. That is the great men throughout history, as she says in the book, actually not a woman behind them, but a woman right beside them doing all the things that allow them to get through life.

[A]

Yeah. I wonder if you did a survey of economists with families, how many of them refer to taking care of their children as babysitting.

[B]

And as you know, Paul, look, I think she's saying this half full. She's looking at economics and the progress it's made. I will say there is a generational thing that has been going on. And you know, I am a late boomer. I hate being described as a boomer. As I've said before, I think of myself as transgenerational, that I'm an Xer trapped inside the body of a boomer. But my sister, who's two years older, definitely a boomer. I just want to be clear about that. But I'm a late boomer. And I was raised by, in a pretty progressive, fairly feminist household in terms of values, in terms of what they taught us, but not in the way it was run. It was pretty traditional. My father was a doctor, my mother was a schoolteacher who throughout our childhood worked part time. And my father did, you know, except for maybe at the grill or making a sandwich now and then, did none of the cooking, certainly did none of the cleaning. You know, my mother took care of the house. And yet we were raised to respect women as equals. I mean, we were taught that. And my sisters, you know, my sister went on to become a doctor. You know, we were. And so while I didn't grow up in a. A household that really valued the work of women. I was raised to value the work of women. And, you know, as you know, I'm a girl dad, and I. I take that, you know, the rights and welfare of women very seriously because I want that for my daughter. And I was also the primary caregiver for much of her childhood. Not so great at the house cleaning part of the care economy, but I was pretty good at the cooking and the childcare side of it. So, you know, you make progress. Maybe next. No, I raised her to be a slob. Next generation, there won't be much house care, much house housework either. So there is. It takes time. There's this idea in the Old Testament about why the. Why the Israelites had to wander in the desert for 40 years after leaving Egypt, and that was to wait for the children of slavery to die. It's this generational thing. Didn't want to bring a people with a mindset of slavery back into the promised land. And so as a student of history, I see these things in generational terms. So, yes, there is progress and there will be more progress. Even if our parents didn't lead by example, they at least instilled us with the values that future generations can do a little bit better.

[A]

Oh, my gosh. Hope again. Look at that hope out of the mouth of Goldie. It's amazing. It's a miracle. It's a Taylor Swift miracle.

[B]

It couldn't have happened without Taylor Swift, too.

[A]

Exactly.

[B]

Again, though, I have to be clear. Raised. Raised a Philadelphia Eagles fan. I just can't. I can't accept the Chiefs.

[A]

Okay.

[B]

Fandom under any circumstance.

[A]

And you lost me. Yep.

[B]

Yeah, I know. I. There's two things. Like my. Well, it could be worse. She could have become a Cowboys fan. So, I mean, two things. I've always told my daughter, you know, I'll accept anything you want to be in life. Any partner you choose. I don't care. Except for two things. Can't be a Republican. Can't be a Cowboys fan. With that Paul. Again, I think if you. If you. Both of us recommend the book, and Paul makes a living recommending books, and you can. Where can you find it, Paul?

[A]

You can find [e-mail] or your neighborhood local independent bookstore.

[B]

Oh, not the big online monopolist. And of course, we will provide a link in the show notes. And again, it's Swiftenomics, how women mastermind and redefine our economy. And of course, there will be a link in the show notes.

[A]

Pitchfork Economics is produced by Civic Ventures. If you like the show, make sure to follow, rate and review us. Wherever you get your podcasts, find us on other platforms like Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and threads. Pitchfork Economics Nick's on Twitter and Facebook as well. Ickhanhauer for more content from us, you can subscribe to our weekly newsletter, the Pitch over on Subject Stack, and for links to everything we just mentioned, plus transcripts and more, visit our website, Pitchfork Economics. Com. As always from our team at Civic Ventures, thanks for listening. See you next week.