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

Apr 28, 2026

2 min

Get Over It: Pluto Isn't A Planet!

Put down the protest signs already. Retire the “Save Pluto” pins. Step away from the planetary outrage. Seriously. So says University of Rochester astrophysicist Adam Frank in his latest column in Forbes. Frank explains that the real story behind Pluto being stripped of its planetary status in 2006 isn’t about what Pluto lost, but what scientists found. Pluto made news recently when NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman replied to a Florida girl’s handwritten plea to restore Pluto’s designation as a planet, saying he supported such a move. Frank has one word for Isaacman: Stop! “Now Isaacman seems like a good guy and I sure don’t want to make little kids cry,” Frank writes. “Still, there’s an amazing science reason why Pluto got kicked out of the planet club.” For decades, Frank explains, we thought the solar system ended with the nine familiar planets, with Pluto being the most distant. But beyond Neptune lies the Kuiper Belt, a vast expanse filled with icy remnants from the birth of the solar system. These objects are essentially the leftover building blocks of planets. Pluto, it turns out, is one of them. That matters because this cosmic debris holds crucial clues about how planets form. Studying Pluto and its neighbors helps scientists understand the origins of Earth and the potential for life elsewhere in the universe. So, Pluto isn’t an outcast; it’s a key witness to our cosmic history. It belongs to a newly understood class of worlds that are central to modern astronomy. Rather than mourn Pluto’s status and push for restoring its former title, Frank suggests we celebrate its reclassification as the moment astronomers realized the solar system is far richer than they had ever imagined. If you’re a journalist looking for an expert to talk about Pluto — or planets and worlds formerly known as planets — Frank is your scholar. He is a frequent contributor to the likes of CNN, The New York Times, The Atlantic, and MSNBC, and can help your audience make sense of our vast universe.

Apr 14, 2026

2 min

Energy Shocks, Consumer Pullback, and the Long Road Back

As Americans scale back spending on luxuries and some necessities — from dining out and live entertainment to home and auto maintenance — the ripple effects are being felt across the broader economy. Daniel Burnside, clinical professor of finance at the Simon Business School, says the trend reflects more than just belt-tightening and signals deeper structural pressures tied to energy markets. “Higher energy prices push inflation up and growth down, putting monetary policymakers in a bind,” Burnside says, explaining the current situation as being beyond a typical price spike. “This isn’t just a price shock, it’s a capacity shock,” he says. “You can’t just flip a switch back to normal because a lot of energy infrastructure has been destroyed. That distinction matters. Because energy costs are embedded in nearly every good and service, rising prices squeeze consumers beyond the gas pump. The result is reduced discretionary spending at venues like sporting and live music events, restaurants, and leisure destinations. Looking ahead, Burnside says a rapid rebound in discretionary spending is possible but unlikely. “If, by some miracle, energy prices quickly return to prewar levels, you would see a sharp run-up in discretionary stocks,” he says. “But that’s precisely because expectations are so low.” For now, markets are signaling that a swift return to pre-crisis conditions isn’t on its way, Burnside says. Until energy supply stabilizes, the pressure on both consumers and the businesses that rely on it is likely to persist. Burnside regularly fields inquiries from journalists looking for his insight on personal money matters and investing. Contact him by clicking on his profile.

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.