Bridging Economics and Data Science
medium.com
medium.com
It's much easier (relatively speaking) for an economist to pick up some programming than it is for a programmer to pick up some economics. Economists are already familiar with the types of questions that are important to economists, and more importantly, how to frame them. The trouble with economics is that you can't just pick it up overnight as it is a way of thinking more than it is a tool set. Programming on the other hand is something that you can "get working" overnight (economic programmers don't need to be algorithmic theorists -- they just need to be really good at getting/scraping data and organizing it so they can run analyses on it).
Over a year ago, I dropped out of my PhD program in economics because I was not at a school that was going to allow me to do the econ/cs type work I was working on. Leaving my PhD program was one the best things I ever did because it has allowed me to pursue whatever I want to do with the skills I've acquired.
The problem with academic economics is that the data most economists use is so bad and outdated -- such as data from FRED, BLS, and other publicly available sources where everyone and their uncle can download the same CSV dataset that was aggregated by some government employee. The race then is to see who can put together the most elegant econometric model to handle all the issues with the data. The rules of the game change when you create your own dataset and thus have control over while variables to include, the aggregation, the frequency, etc.
Long story short, if you are an economist wanting to do programming, learn to adapt those skills in academia (best way is to find a great advisor -- if there isn't one in your economics department, check the business school as bschool professors are often much more open to highly empirical analyses and care [marginally] less about getting the theory perfect). Or, if you want an easier lifestyle that is much more rewarding, ditch academia for the private sector. You'll find the economists in the private sector to be much more knowledgeable about cutting edge technologies and willing to listen and learn from what you have to say.
the key to success is in cleverly selecting, finding, or creating a data source that answers a particular question
It's about asking the right question and then finding or generating the right data to answer that question. That's what makes it science.
I understand the pain of seeing people using old tech and taking hours to do tasks that should take seconds, but do not underestimate the importance of specific field knowledge and the fact that many people do not have time to learn coding. If you think about it, it is an opportunity for you to build a bridge between those 2 worlds. For example, nobody has produced yet a decent tool to consolidate financials...
Excel is the best tool for 80% of what bankers and consultants do. It can middle through the next 10%. The problem is it has just no way to do the last 10%. Either it's too slow or just can't handle the size or computations required.
I can't speak for industry economists, but the reason we academics tend to spend so much time with OLS/Logit/Probit is their flexibility and scalability.
I think in industry (anti-trust at least), they stick with the older models because their value has legal precedent, and using new methods would require some more legal hand waving by the attorneys.
Source: economics degree, research of the neoclassical / neoclassical synthesis model, its origins, and various heterodoxies. I'm partial to thermoeconomics / biophysical economics.
Certainly there are people in this space who can't do much beyond spreadsheets, but there are many analyst now who use python/pandas or R to do work.
http://jaredbernsteinblog.com/economics-as-market-failure/
It's really hard to tell, especially outside the field, whether someone's computation has found signal and not noise in their data series, or even whether that data series has any significance for different times and different places ...
(You can "Monte Carlo" the past as much as you want, it won't become the future.)
Edit: I probably should have just referenced Sliver's Signal and Noise and left it at that.
That being said, I really hope computational work gains more traction... this might be a marketing issue.