Economics Happy Hour Podcast

The World Cup has brought millions of international fans to North America, and many are discovering aspects of American life that locals take for granted. Matt and Jadrian explore why visitors are fascinated by things like massive convenience stores, endless product variety, and regional chains. They also dig into the economics behind World Cup ticket prices, player compensation, and the surprising value of hosting global sporting events. Along the way, they discuss how soccer itself is changing as leagues seek new revenue streams.In this episode, we talk about:* Why World Cup visitors are going viral while discovering everyday American experiences.* How economies of scale help explain Buc-ee’s, giant convenience stores, and product variety.* Whether hosting major sporting events creates meaningful economic benefits.* The economics of ticket prices and why they may not be as outrageous as they seem.* How hydration breaks, advertising revenue, and changing soccer rules could reshape the sport’s future.If you liked this conversation, you might also enjoyThis Week’s Drinks 🍻With a morning recording session on a workday, the drinks menu leaned heavily toward breakfast beverages. Jadrian enjoyed a “non-alcoholic mimosa” (also known as orange juice), while Matt powered through with a Diet Mountain Dew that was specifically rebranded as “American Dew 250.” Name That Stat 📊This week featured a pair of World Cup-themed statistics. The first number focused on the cheapest resale ticket price available for one of today’s matches. The other looked at the number of World Cup players who were born in a different country than the one they were representing on the field.Show NotesWith the World Cup underway, one of the most interesting stories hasn’t been happening on the field. Instead, it’s been unfolding across social media as international visitors document their experiences traveling through the United States. Fans have gone viral for their reactions to Waffle House, Taco Bell, giant soda fountains, and especially Buc-ee’s. What seems ordinary to Americans often looks extraordinary to visitors encountering it for the first time.That observation led to a broader discussion about variety, competition, and economies of scale. Jadrian wrote about this in his Monday Morning Economist newsletter, connecting their experience back to the famous stories about Soviet leader Boris Yeltsin visiting American grocery stores decades ago. While the historical circumstances were very different, both stories revolve around the same reaction: amazement at the sheer number of choices available to consumers.From there, we shifted toward the economic impact of hosting events like the World Cup. Economists are often skeptical of exaggerated claims about sports-driven economic growth, but one potential benefit is much harder to measure: positive publicity. The flood of videos showing visitors enjoying American culture may improve perceptions of the United States as a travel destination long after the tournament ends. We also took some time to explore how ticket prices fit into the broader sports marketplace. While some World Cup matches are commanding hundreds or even thousands of dollars on secondary markets, those prices still look modest when compared to recent NBA Finals tickets. The comparison raises an interesting question about scarcity, prestige, and what people are willing to pay for a once-in-a-lifetime experience.Finally, one of the most intriguing economic storylines of this summer’s games is the introduction of hydration breaks. Officially designed to give players time to cool down, these stoppages also create opportunities for additional advertising revenue. Will soccer leagues around the world eventually adopt similar breaks now that it’s happening on the game’s biggest stage? The “rules of the game” are always evolving, and the best way to see that is looking back at some of Major League Soccer’s famously strange early attempts to “Americanize” soccer, including countdown clocks, shootouts, and eliminating ties.We covered a lot of the economics behind the World Cup in this episode, but we’re curious about something a little different, and we’d love your help. If a World Cup visitor came to your hometown or country, what’s the one place, meal, or experience you’d recommend to help them understand what makes it special? Drop your answer in the comments. If we’re ever in your neck of the woods, we just might add it to our itinerary.Pop Culture Corner 🍿This week’s recommendation stayed firmly on theme. Jadrian’s recommendation was The Longest Penalty Shot in the World (El penalti más largo del mundo), a Spanish comedy built around an economist’s dream scenario. A backup goalkeeper suddenly finds himself responsible for stopping a championship-deciding penalty kick. Thanks to an unusual twist, the kick won’t happen until the next day. That delay creates endless opportunities for strategy, second-guessing, and game theory. The scene is a fun exploration of interdependence as everyone tries to predict what everyone else will do.Similarly, there is also a great scene from Ted Lasso involving Nate and AFC Richmond’s coaching staff. The coaches spiral into a chain of “he knows that we know that he knows” logic while trying to anticipate their opponent’s strategy. It’s a perfect pop culture example of common knowledge, strategic thinking, and the recursive decision-making that sits at the heart of game theory.Have a question or topic idea? Reply to this email or drop it in the comments! This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.econhappyhour.com

College is often framed as the bridge between adolescence and adulthood, but how much should professors “step in” to guide student behavior along the way? In this episode, we dig into the economics of teaching choices: attendance policies, deadlines, nudges, and classroom rules. We reflect on how these decisions affect student outcomes and engagement, and whether support in the short run may come at the cost of long-run independence. In this episode, we discuss:* What paternalism looks like in college classrooms* Should attendance be required in higher education?* How paternalistic policies affect learning and engagement* Trade-offs between student freedom and faculty expectations* Whether “hand-holding” helps or hinders student success* And a whole lot more!Catch up on some old episodes:You can also subscribe to us on Spotify, TuneIn Radio, Amazon Music, and Apple Podcasts. If one of these is your go-to podcast service, be sure to rate us and subscribe! Some show notes:It’s early December, and the semester is just about coming to an end at Virginia Tech and Susquehanna. Jadrian opted for a Prickly Pear Fruit Beer from Shiner, while Matt went with a Voodoo Ranger Juice Force Hazy Imperial IPA in a small 7.5 oz can. Matt’s was high in ABV but “efficient.” We kicked off this episode with a new game, and it might just become a regular segment. One of us brings a specific number from a recent news story, and the other has to guess what it represents. Jadrian chose a stat from a new survey on whether adults think college is worth the cost, while Matt focused on gains in the S&P 500. Let us know what you thought of the segment in the comments!We’ve touched on paternalism before, but this felt like the right moment to give it a full episode. As the semester winds down, we naturally start asking which policies should stay and which should change next term. A lot of those decisions come down to how much we should shape student behavior. Take attendance, for example. Should professors require it, track it, and tie it to grades? Or is it enough to show up, teach well, and let students make their own choices?From there, we expand into a broader design challenge. Every classroom policy (e.g., attendance, phone or laptop bans, email rules, assignment deadlines) is a lever that nudges behavior. Jadrian shares his use of Friday night deadlines as a way to protect students’ weekends and reduce procrastination. It’s a deliberate nudge that some students dislike at first but often come to value by the end of the course (he thinks!).Matt frames these choices as a kind of mechanism design problem: how do we build classes that support learning and accountability, without overwhelming students? And how do we balance short-term support with long-term independence? There’s also a practical question of whether being too hands-on now ends up leaving students unprepared for less flexible environments after graduation.We also zoom out to look at institutional choices, like Susquehanna’s common lunch hour on Tuesdays and Thursdays. That break in the schedule encourages students to eat, meet with faculty, and build community. Even small decisions like that carry a bit of paternalism baked in.We don’t land on a one-size-fits-all answer. But we agree on this: every classroom rule, even something as simple as a deadline or device policy, is an economic choice. Whether intentional or not, it shapes how students behave and what they learn about navigating structure.This week’s pop culture references:Jadrian passed on his pop culture pick this week to keep the conversation going about Susquehanna’s campus-wide lunch break. But Matt came prepared with a clip from Jadrian’s favorite show (Parks and Recreation) where Leslie Knope argues for a soda tax to reduce overconsumption in Pawnee. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.econhappyhour.com

College football is big business. While universities often talk about tradition, rivalries, and student spirit, the finances tell a story of massive contracts, enormous buyouts, and constant leadership churn. This week, Matt and Jadrian explore the economics behind college football coach buyouts and ask why schools pay millions to people who they consider bad at their job. We explore what these buyouts say about incentives, risk, and market competition in college sports.In this episode, we discuss:* Why coach buyouts are structured the way they are and what they signal.* How risk, reputation, and recruiting drive buyout decisions.* The role of agents in inflating buyouts and securing job security.* How schools balance donor pressure, fan expectations, and contract costs.* And a whole lot more!Catch up on some old episodes:You can also subscribe to us on Spotify, TuneIn Radio, Amazon Music, and Apple Podcasts. If one of these is your go-to podcast service, be sure to rate us and subscribe! Some show notes:Both our universities are in the midst of course registration, which means students are simultaneously stressed about their current classes and determining the classes they’ll take next semester. That stress has spilled over to Jadrian and Matt, which meant it was a good time to sit down, have a drink, and talk about economics. Jadrian was able to enjoy a Shiner Light from the great state of Texas (but purchased in North Carolina), while Matt opted for a non-alcoholic Bud Zero.This week’s episode looked at the structure and rationale of college football coach buyouts thanks to a recent article published in The Wall Street Journal. For those who haven’t heard, a lot of major college football programs are on the hook for multi-million dollar buyouts of their head football coaches—a payment owed if their employer fires them before their contract ends. Schools like Penn State, Louisiana State, and Florida all owe their most recent coaches more than $100 million combined in buyouts. But why?These high-profile buyouts aren’t just about poor performance. Sometimes, schools are willing to pay tens of millions to remove a coach simply because they’re not meeting expectations fast enough. Of course, they’re also there to disincentivize coaches from leaving for a better job. Buyouts, then, serve both as a penalty for early termination and a retention incentive.Schools can’t perfectly predict how a coach will perform, but large contracts and buyouts can signal confidence or act as a commitment device. It’s also worth considering the financial discipline of athletic departments and athletic directors, and whether these clauses represent a principal-agent problem or a winner’s curse.This week’s pop culture references:Neither Matt nor Jadrian had a pop culture tie-in this week, but Matt shared a classroom experiment related to the episode’s theme. In his game theory course, students bid on a jar of pennies worth $6.01. Most bids come in well below that. One student, however, bid just over $8 and won, perfectly illustrating the winner’s curse discussed earlier in the episode. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.econhappyhour.com

Let’s dive into a surprisingly tricky topic to teach: tax incidence. In this episode, we explore why this seemingly simple concept trips up so many students, how elasticity shapes “who pays,” and what strategies actually help the idea stick. It’s a candid mid-semester check-in that’s full of travel stories, fall-break frustrations, and creative teaching analogies.In this episode, we discuss:* Why tax incidence is frustrating to teach compared to other topics.* How elasticity determines the division of tax burdens between buyers and sellers.* Whether professors should “nudge” better study habits or let students learn through consequences.* And a whole lot more!Catch up on some old episodes:You can also listen to us on Google Podcasts, TuneIn Radio, and Apple Podcasts. If one of these is your go-to podcast service, be sure to rate us and subscribe! Some show notes:October marks the midpoint of the semester for each of us, which is a good enough reason to share a drink. Jadrian went with a “topless” Pride Cream Ale, which is really only possible thanks to a nifty gadget that removes the can lid. Matt stuck with a classic Brooklyn Brewery Pale Ale. Our main topic for this episode focused on challenging topics to teach, and for Jadrian, that would be the elusive concept of tax incidence. It seems like every year, students misinterpret how taxes affect buyers and sellers, even though Jadrian has tried different techniques for teaching that concept. Many assume that a 50-cent tax applied to an item costing $1 results in a new price of $1.50, which means they’re missing the concept of tax burdens affecting both sellers and buyers.This is such a great time to be teaching tax incidence because we’re seeing this play out in the news with tariffs on imports. The big question when tariffs were announced focused on who would be paying the tariffs, foreign countries or American consumers. Economists are usually quick to point on tax incidence in that consumers would likely pay a portion of the tariff through higher prices.This was also a good chance to talk about the limits of what we can do as instructors. If it takes hours of revisions to get the class 1% better on a particular topic, perhaps there are better uses of our time? That led us into a brief conversation on instructional paternalism and how much oversight professors should place on shaping student behavior around deadlines and pacing. That, however, may become a future episode.This week’s pop culture references:Jadrian jumped in quickly to block Matt from reusing one of his favorite clips. Jadrian’s contribution is from J. Cole, in which he sings about the frustration many people feel about paying taxes without having a real say in how they’re spent. Matt went with two Broadway hits from Lin-Manuel Miranda. In the Heights has a great song where characters recognize that their lottery winnings would be reduced because of taxes. And then in Hamilton, the characters talk about the resistance to British taxation. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.econhappyhour.com

Let’s dive into the unexpected legacy of Boris Yeltsin’s 1989 visit to a Houston grocery store. We explore how that moment shaped the Russian leader’s perspective on economic systems and why it's a favorite teaching example in economics classes. It’s a great introduction to consumer choice, abundance, and market economies, thanks to Yeltsin’s astonishment captured on film.In this episode, we discuss:* The story of Boris Yeltsin’s 1989 grocery store visit in Houston.* How the trip challenged his view of command economies.* How to use this story in an economics class to explain different economic systems.* The symbolism and impact of everyday abundance in American supermarkets.* And a whole lot more!Catch up on some old episodes:You can also listen to us on Google Podcasts, TuneIn Radio, and Apple Podcasts. If one of these is your go-to podcast service, be sure to rate us and subscribe! Watch this episode on YouTube:Some show notes:It’s the first week of classes, which means it’s time to introduce foundational economic ideas to a new group of students. Before diving into the main topic, we share some alcohol-free drinks. Jadrian is recording from the office, so he went with a Diet Coke. Matt is gearing up for a trivia night, which means he went with a Bud Zero.Jadrian’s favorite story to tell in principles of economics is a summary of Boris Yeltsin’s impromptu stop at a Randall’s grocery store during a diplomatic visit to Houston in 1989. What was meant to be a simple public-relations stop became a moment of genuine shock for the Russian leader, who was stunned by the variety and availability of consumer goods, particularly frozen pudding pops.His visit turned out to be more than just a funny anecdote. It became a moment that highlighted the difference between market-based and command economies. Yeltsin’s visible awe (and later disbelief) showcased how removed the Soviet Union's system was from the consumer abundance present in the U.S. During his visit, he initially believed the store was staged and later insisted on stopping at a second one just to confirm it was real.Yeltsin shared with his entourage that “there would be a revolution” if Soviet citizens saw the conditions of American supermarkets. While the entire Houston Chronicle story is a great read, the photos of Yeltsin marveling at freezers and checkout scanners are the best part.Before logging off, we also explored the broader context of American agriculture and global influence, based on a great Freakonomics podcast summarizing how the U.S. government used subsidized food exports to economically undercut the Soviet Union. Americans have been blessed with a domestic food system with an overwhelming variety, but it’s often something most Americans take for granted. Perhaps when you celebrate Boris Yeltsin Supermarket Day on September 16, you’ll stop to marvel at the variety that is available every day thanks to our market-based system.This week’s pop culture references:Alongside the Yeltsin story in class, Jadrian shares a scene from Moscow on the Hudson, a film starring Robin Williams that explores immigration and cultural adjustment. One memorable scene ties directly to this episode’s theme: Williams’s character visits a grocery store to buy coffee and is overwhelmed by the lack of lines and the sheer variety of choices. It was a moment that mirrors Yeltsin’s own experience in Houston.Matt’s contribution comes from an early scene in The Hunger Games, where Katniss is given a simple piece of bread. Her reaction of genuine excitement reflects the level of scarcity that exists in their command economy. Even basic goods aren’t always available. It's a quick but powerful illustration of economic systems in action. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.econhappyhour.com

We dive into the sudden firing of the Bureau of Labor Statistics Commissioner following large downward revisions to the most recent jobs data. Everything is still pretty new, but we get a chance to talk about the scale of the revisions, the normalcy of such adjustments, and the potential implications of politicizing economic data. It's a first reaction to a surprising move with potentially big economic and institutional stakes.In this episode, we discuss:* The scale and context of recent BLS jobs data revisions* Why revisions are a normal and expected part of labor statistics* Concerns raised by firing a data-focused civil servant over routine changes* The institutional risks of undermining trust in economic data* How policymakers and markets rely on accurate, stable data reporting* And a whole lot more!Catch up on some old episodes:You can also listen to us on Google Podcasts, TuneIn Radio, and Apple Podcasts. If one of these is your go-to podcast service, be sure to rate us and subscribe! Watch this episode on YouTube:Some show notes:Our friend Brian O’Roark made the mistake of texting us about the unexpected firing following the jobs report, which meant he got invited to chat with us. Brian kicked things off with a watermelon vodka cocktail called Brave New Swirl, inspired by the Tequila Mockingbird book. Jadrian opted for a non-alcoholic Electro Lime Circa de Cerveza, and Matt cracked open a Lift Off IPA from Daredevil Brewing Co., a gift from superfan Tim Dye.If you’ve missed the news over the past week, the BLS released its July jobs report on Friday, which included a downward revision of more than 250,000 jobs for May and June. It was one of the largest revisions outside of COVID since 1979. Hours later, President Trump dismissed the BLS Commissioner.We took some time to talk about why revisions happen in the first place. The BLS relies on surveys from over 600,000 workplaces, many of which respond late or not at all. As more data comes in, earlier estimates are adjusted, making revisions common and expected. Our surprise wasn’t based on the revision itself, but the political response. Firing someone over a data adjustment has struck many economists as dangerous, as it undermines the statistical integrity of key economic institutions.There is a lot of institutional expertise at agencies like the BLS. Even though the Commissioner was removed, much of the technical staff remains. This will likely limit the immediate risks to data quality. But the move raises concerns about future interference. Would staff feel pressure to avoid “bad news”? Could upcoming data releases be skewed or politicized?Of course, there are some historical parallels to be drawn, mainly from Eastern Europe and China, where statisticians faced pressure to produce politically favorable numbers. While the U.S. isn’t there, it’s worth noting that credibility and trust are slow to build and easy to lose. The firing also reignited longer-standing debates about how we define and report key economic indicators. Measures like unemployment and inflation rely on intentionally rigid definitions so that economists can make comparisons over time. For instance, inflation calculations don’t just track the price of a product; they adjust for changes in size, ingredients, and quality to make fair comparisons across decades. Even when updates to these definitions are made transparently, they often spark confusion or accusations of manipulation. A recent example came during the pandemic when the Fed revised the definitions of M1 and M2 to reflect modern banking habits. Although nothing new was being “printed,” the change caused spikes in the data that fueled misinterpretation online. Our friend Dr. Abdullah Al Bahrani wrote about it for his newsletter when it was happening:All of this also raises big questions about where policy goes from here. The Fed has been under pressure to cut interest rates, and weak labor market data would support that move. But if Trump is dismissing the jobs numbers as wrong while insisting the economy is booming, then the rationale for rate cuts disappears. Brian noted that Trump seems to want both a roaring economy and low interest rates, an inflationary combination if taken too far. And if last week’s events set a precedent, should the BEA Commissioner be worried if GDP slows after recent tariff moves? Let us know if there’s another angle we should have considered. Are we onto something, or way off base?This week’s pop culture references:Brian shared a scene from National Lampoon’s Christmas Vacation where Clark is shocked to learn that Cousin Eddie hasn’t bought any presents. The conversation turns to Eddie’s long-term unemployment. We learn that it isn’t because jobs are unavailable, but because he’s holding out for a management role. Brian likes to use the clip to illustrate frictional unemployment in action.Jadrian brought up one of his favorite classroom examples: drug-sniffing dogs forced into early retirement after states legalized marijuana. Since their specialized skills are no longer useful, it’s a fun case of structural unemployment.Matt discussed a scene from Game of Thrones where Tyrion finally gets access to the kingdom’s financial records and is appalled by what he finds. It’s a light way to introduce the concept of public budgeting and the value of transparency. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.econhappyhour.com

Dive into the economic concepts that have helped with the recent explosion of sports betting in the United States. Explore how sportsbooks set odds, the role of information in creating an edge, and why betting markets share some similarities with prediction markets. We briefly unpack the effects of the 2018 repeal of PASPA and discuss how technology has transformed gambling behavior. This week’s conversation highlights both the fun and complexity of modern sports betting.In this episode, we discuss:* How sports betting odds are set and why sportsbooks aim to balance bets.* Why some bettors can gain an edge and how information affects outcomes.* The economics behind parlays, money lines, and house margins.* How the 2018 Supreme Court ruling changed the legal landscape.* And a whole lot more!Catch up on some old episodes:You can also listen to us on Google Podcasts, TuneIn Radio, and Apple Podcasts. If one of these is your go-to podcast service, be sure to rate us and subscribe! Watch this episode on YouTube:Some show notes:We recorded this week’s episode right before Game 7 of the NBA Finals and right after recording our episode on Bobby Bonilla Day. We decided to stick with the sports theme, but our drinks have changed. Eric opted for a glass of water to combat the heatwave sweeping across most of the U.S. at the time, while Jadrian went with Best Day Brewing’s Sea Salt and Lime non-alcoholic cerveza. Matt snagged a Gorb Hazy IPA from Oliphant Brewing on his recent trip to Minnesota.Over the past few years, the amount of ad space dedicated to gambling sites has increased dramatically. That’s due in part to the repeal of PASPA in 2018, which made it easier for states to legalize sports gambling. We brought on our friend Eric Dunaway from Wabash College to help provide some insight into how the sports gambling industry ballooned from underground operations and Nevada-only betting to nationwide, app-based access that includes bets as small as a dollar. Sports gambling is different from traditional gambling in a variety of ways, but perhaps the most interesting to economists is that the outcome of the game is not based on probabilities like traditional casino games. Because of how often blackjack hands are played or roulette wheels are spun, it’s a lot easier to estimate the expected win probability for any given bet. That’s not possible with sports games because we only ever see one observation. As a result, sportsbooks are more interested in “setting lines” rather than trying to predict the outcome of a game. Eavesdrop on some sports gamblers, and there’s no doubt you’ll hear them reference a money line: the initial distinction between favorites and underdogs. Even one of the simplest bets is structured in a way that ensures a profit for the casinos by baking in a “vig” regardless of the outcome. While house edges are fixed in games like roulette, sports betting allows for subjective analysis and the potential for informed bettors to gain an edge.The second half of this week’s episode focused on the behavioral economics aspects of sports gambling, including how fans may bet emotionally on their teams and the ways sportsbooks use boosts and promotions to attract money. Sportsbooks rely on more than just math; they also leverage psychology. Many apps use flashy celebration graphics and real-time win tracking to create a sense of excitement, while quietly downplaying losses. These design choices can make betting feel more like a game than a financial risk. Perhaps more concerning, sportsbooks are now partnering with some universities to present gambling as a way to support college athletics. While framed as sponsorship, we’re not entirely sure it’s appropriate to normalize betting among young adults with blurred lines between supporting your school and engaging in risky financial behavior. Perhaps the one plus side of the rapid growth in sports gambling is that we have a lot of young people passionate about statistics. Let’s hope that passion extends to more responsible financial decisions.This week’s pop culture references:In Back to the Future Part II, the antagonist steals the Time Machine and delivers a sports almanac to his younger self in 1955. With decades of future game outcomes in hand, he builds a gambling empire by always betting with perfect information. The scene ties directly into this episode’s theme: if you know more than the market, even slightly, you can win big.In Casino, Robert De Niro plays a handicapper who works for the mob, helping them set accurate betting lines on sports events before eventually taking over a casino. His role shows how valuable expert analysis and insider knowledge can be when money is on the line. Matt highlights Nate Silver’s new book, On the Edge, where Silver reflects on his own attempt to become a professional NBA gambler. Despite his strong background in statistics and data, he admits he struggled to profit consistently. It’s a good reminder that even the smartest bettors often fall short against efficient markets and razor-thin margins.Matt also brings up an episode from Season 4 of The Wire, where a retired police officer becomes a teacher and uses gambling examples to teach math. By tapping into something his students care about, he gets them to engage with probability and numbers. For better or worse, sports betting is making statistics exciting for a new generation. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.econhappyhour.com