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

Kocherlakota's economics expertise includes the Federal Reserve Bank and monetary policy

Federal Reserve BankFederal Reserve Monetary PoliciesThe FedCentral BanksU.S. Federal Reserve

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

Job MarketLabor EconomicsJob Market for GraduatesEconomic DownturnsContract Theory

David Primo

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

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

US National DebtCorporate PoliticsCorporate & Business StrategyCorporate ValuesCorporate Boycotts

Find Experts

Oct 29, 2026

2 min

Need Election Day Experts? We've Got 'Em!

As voters head to the polls, University of Rochester political scientists James Druckman and Gerald Gamm are available to help journalists make sense of the results — and what they could mean for American democracy, Congress, political parties, and the polarized electorate. James Druckman: Understanding partisanship and the American electorate Druckman is a leading scholar of political partisanship and its effects on American democracy. He can help reporters interpret voter behavior, identify emerging trends, and understand what election results reveal about the deepening divide between Democrats and Republicans. His 2024 book, Partisan Hostility and American Democracy: Explaining Political Divisions and When They Matter (University of Chicago Press), has been called a “stand out” among the scholarship examining political division. New York Times columnist Thomas Edsall has highlighted Druckman among the political scientists “working on getting us to hate one another less.” Druckman is available for interviews before, during, and after Election Day to discuss voting trends, partisan dynamics, and the implications for American democracy. Connect with him by clicking on his profile. Gerald Gamm: What election results mean for Congress and governing A political scientist and historian, Gamm studies American politics, political development, legislatures, political parties, and state and local government. His expertise is particularly relevant to questions about the balance of power in Congress and statehouses, how political parties respond to shifting electoral fortunes, and what election outcomes mean for governing. Gamm is a co-author of Steering the Senate (Cambridge University Press, 2025), a study of institutional leadership and capacity on Capitol Hill that has been described as “essential reading” for anyone concerned about the future of congressional leadership. He is available for interviews before, during, and after Election Day to provide context on emerging political trends, election outcomes, and their implications for Congress and the broader political landscape. Connect with Gamm by clicking on his profile.

Sep 24, 2026

2 min

When Brand Activism Meets the Bottom Line

Should companies speak out on political issues? When does taking a stand become a business risk? University of Rochester political scientist and professor of business administration David Primo studies the tension between corporate strategy, free expression, and consumer backlash. His insights have become indispensable for journalists covering the CEOs, sports owners, and brands that increasingly find themselves at the center of public controversies. Primo was recently quoted in The Boston Globe about the fallout from New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft’s intervention in Ed Sheeran’s stadium tour after rapper Macklemore was dropped as an opening act. While Kraft had the legal right to regulate speech on private property, Primo argued, the larger business question is whether companies benefit from policing the political views of performers, employees, or partners. “You’re not going to be a successful arena owner if you start checking people’s politics before you book them,” Primo told The Globe. His expertise extends beyond concerts and stadiums. Primo researches corporate political activity, regulation, governance, and the strategic decisions organizations make when navigating contentious public issues. He has been a source in news stories about boycotts involving big brands like Harley-Davidson and Target. Primo can discuss: • Brand activism and corporate political speech • When companies should — or shouldn’t — take public positions • Consumer backlash and reputational risk • CEO activism and its business consequences • Corporate governance and political decision-making • The intersection of free expression and private businesses As debates over corporate values, sponsorships, employee activism, and executive leadership continue to shape headlines, Primo offers evidence-based insight into how businesses weigh the costs — and potential benefits — of entering the political arena. Connect with him by clicking on his profile.

Aug 19, 2026

2 min

Fantasy Football Draft: Watch for 'Brain Bias'

National Football League fantasy drafts are underway in preparation for the season — and that means millions of fantasy football coaches are already overthinking their lineups. Before they blame a bad draft slot or a fluke injury for bombing from one week to the next, they might want to look in the mirror and give their head a shake. That’s because there’s good science behind those bad fantasy football decision. Renee Miller, a professor of brain and cognitive sciences at the University of Rochester, studies cognitive biases and literally wrote the book on bias in fantasy sports. She plays fantasy football, too. She warns that our brains are wired to interpret fantasy football results in ways that are suboptimal and illogical. “Biased thinking occurs in everyday life and work, and in fantasy sports,” Miller says. “Through the course of a season, you can see a full range of the ways cognitive bias affects a person’s weekly fantasy matchups.” Here’s the good news: Miller says we can untangle those wires if we know what to look for. Among the biggest culprits are what Miller calls “the endowment effect” (overvaluing and clinging to players you drafted high), “recency bias” (falling in love with last week’s star), and “confirmation bias” (cherry-picking stats that support what you already believe). But especially beware of Week One. Thanks to the “primacy effect,” those games early in the season loom larger in memory than later ones. One hot debut or a disappointing flop can warp a coach’s thinking for weeks. The result? Lineups driven more by emotion than logic — and possibly a lot of pick sixes. Biases aren’t all bad, though. Sometimes instincts pay off. First impressions and recent performances sometimes hold fast. But the best fantasy players, Miller says, know when to slow down and think systematically. They stay skeptical, challenge their gut reactions, and accept that they’ll be wrong sometimes. So before you rage-drop that underperforming wide receiver or crown your Week One sleeper a superstar, remember, the smartest move might be to take a look in the mirror and give your head a shake. Miller is available for interviews for journalists covering fantasy sports. Connect with her by clicking on her profile.