Featured Post from University of Rochester

The Great Recession: The downturn that wouldn’t end

Nov 8, 2019

3 min

The Great Recession ended 10 years ago, but University of Rochester economist Narayana Kocherlakota says it is still very much with us.

David Primo, associate professor of political science and business administration, agrees that the country continues to feel the effects of the recession, though his take differs from Kocherlakota’s.

And Lisa Kahn, a professor of economics at the University of Rochester, sees another lasting effect from the Great Recession.

“Unemployment is very low right now, leading people to think that we’ve recovered,” says Kocherlakota. “Income levels, however, are now as much as 15 percent below where they might have been, if not for the recession.”

Many economists blame the income slowdown on a natural decrease in the rate at which new ideas are discovered. But Kocherlakota, former president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, attributes it to something else. “Businesses don’t want to lock up money in physical investments because they’re nervous about another Great Recession,” he says. “That’s why there’s less innovation, and that’s why we have an income slowdown.”

The Great Recession began in December 2007 after the bottom fell out of the US housing market. That was followed by a shortage of assets in the financial markets and the collapse of the financial sector, including banks, credit card companies, and insurance companies. The recession, the worst in the US since the Great Depression of the 1930s, officially lasted through June 2009, though unemployment levels didn’t peak until October of that year.

According to Primo, the losers were homeowners, among others. The banks, which many observers say bear some responsibility for the recession, were bailed out by the government, while homeowners were not. That perceived double standard has led to the Occupy Movement, support for Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, and the election of Donald Trump, according to Primo.

“Economists may be 100 percent correct in saying it was necessary to bail out the banks,” says Primo. “But that’s a difficult political argument to hear if you lost your house, while banks were bailed out.”

Says Kahn: “Many firms take the opportunity provided by a recession to introduce technologies that reduce their reliance on workers. In the old days, we had bank tellers giving out money; now machines can do that,” she says. “In manufacturing, we’re shifting more and more to machines instead of workers. And a lot of that shift takes place during recessions.”

Kahn points out that wages and employment have been falling for the last 30 years in exactly the types of jobs that are increasingly performed by machines.

Kahn identifies an additional recession-related phenomenon, one that specifically targets college graduates. “It has always been bad to graduate during a recession,” says Kahn. “But the lost earnings from the Great Recession are much larger than they were in previous downturns, and it’s something that will stay with them long term.”

Not only are fewer jobs available, the graduates find themselves competing against experienced workers who had recently been laid off. The net result is persistently lower wages.

Connect with:

Narayana Kocherlakota

Louis and Henry Epstein Professor of Business Administration at the Simon School of Business

Professor Kocherlakota's research includes theoretical and empirical contributions to many fields in economics

Central BanksU.S. Federal ReserveDynamic Games/ContractsFinancial EconomicsEconomics of Money and Payments

Lisa Kahn

Helen F. and Fred H. Gowen Professor in the Social Sciences

Kahn's research focuses on labor economics with interests in organizations and education

Economic DownturnsContract TheoryEconomics of Organizations

David Primo

Ani and Mark Gabrellian Professor, Professor of Political Science and Business Administration

An expert in American politics; campaign finance; corporate political strategy, social responsibility & fiscal policy; & airline industry.

Corporate ValuesCorporate BoycottsAirline OperationsMoney in PoliticsGovernment shutdown

Find Experts

Mar 26, 2026

1 min

Target Can’t Seem to Escape the Crosshairs

The on-again-off-again nationwide boycott of Target has the retailer’s new chief executive, Michael Fiddelke, officer facing relentless pressure from activists on both sides of the issue. David Primo, a professor of political science and business administration at the University of Rochester, says Fiddelke can’t seem to move Target from the crosshairs despite slashing prices on thousands of products and investing in stores, workers, and technology. “Target remains a battleground for activists on the left and the right, and its new CEO hasn’t yet figured out how to extricate the company from this role,” Primo recently told USA Today. “Fiddelke already faces a huge challenge in turning around a company with significant operational issues. This certainly doesn’t help matters.” Target has reported 13 straight quarters of sluggish sales. Company officials have admitted that shopper anger has contributed. Activists in Minneapolis, where Target is based, organized a nationwide boycott last year over the company’s rollback of diversity, equity, and inclusion policies. From church pulpits to community gatherings, the policy about-face was widely viewed as a betrayal of Black Americans who had propped up the retail giant’s bottom line. Primo studies corporate political strategies, among other areas, and regularly shares his insights with business journalists and political reporters. His essays have appeared in The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal, and he’s been interviewed by many radio and television outlets, including Bloomberg and National Public Radio. Contact him by clicking on his profile.

Mar 31, 2026

2 min

Fewer Parents are Reading to Their Kids—and Why It Matters

A dramatic decline in reading for pleasure in the United States has fewer American parents reading aloud to their children — and experts warn the consequences can be dire. “It builds connections,” Carol Anne St. George, an expert in early literacy at the University of Rochester’s Warner School of Education and Human Development, recently told The74 for an article citing a 41-percent decline in parents reading to children daily. “People talk about text to text, text to world,” St. George said, “and those are the kinds of things that help children cognitively think and classify their world around them.” Many young parents grew up in an education system focused on reading as a means to testing and building skills rather than enjoyment. As a result, St. George worries, they often view reading to their young as an obligation rather than a joy and a time to bond. Experts say an increased reliance on screens and digital content and time pressures and competing demands on families have also fueled the decline. St. George notes that children benefit greatly from being read to regularly. The advantages of early literacy include: • Having a more robust vocabulary and stronger communications skills. • Being better prepared to learn in school. • Having a closer relationship with their parents. • Higher academic achievement and better health outcomes later in life. What Parents Can Do St. George advises parents to: • Let children choose books they enjoy. • Make reading part of a daily routine and that bedtime is ideal. • Focus on fun and connection. • Model good reading behavior because children mimic what they see. St. George is available for media interviews and can be reached by contacting Theresa Danylak, the director of communications at the Warner School, at tdanylak@warner.rochester.edu.

Feb 25, 2026

1 min

The truth behind federal disclosure of alien life

With the recent presidential comments on potential alien life, UFO enthusiasts have new hope that finally we’re going to get federal “disclosure” of UFOs, aliens and the great government conspiracy surrounding both. But, as a scientist who studies the search for life in the Universe, the question I have is much simpler: What would disclosure really need to disclose? What is required for actual, factual proof that aliens exist and they’ve been visiting Earth? We’ve already had three years of Congressional hearings on UFOs that have produced zero proof of anything. What we need now is simple: hard physical evidence. That is what disclosure needs to deliver. Not stories about alien spaceships being held by the government, but the actual spaceships themselves. Not stories about alien bodies but the actual icky, gooey bodies with their icky gooey tentacles. If disclosure provides physical evidence that independent laboratories and independent scientists all over the world can verify, then it will live up to its hype. That would make “Disclosure Day” truly history-making.