I estimate welfare benefits of eliminating idiosyncratic consumption shocks unrelated to the business cycle as 47.3% of household utility and benefits of eliminating idiosyncratic shocks related to the business cycle as 3.4% of utility. Estimates of the former substantially exceed earlier ones because I distinguish between idiosyncratic shocks related/unrelated to the business cycle, estimate the negative skewness of shocks, target moments of idiosyncratic shocks from household-level CEX data, and target market moments. Benefits of eliminating aggregate shocks are 7.7% of utility. Policy should focus on insuring idiosyncratic shocks unrelated to the business cycle, such as the death of a household’s prime wage earner and job layoffs not necessarily related to recessions.

More on this topic

BFI Working Paper·Sep 18, 2025

The Impact of Language on Decision-Making: Auction Winners are Less Cursed in a Foreign Language

Fang Fu, Leigh H. Grant, Ali Hortaçsu, Boaz Keysar, Jidong Yang, and Karen J. Ye
Topics: Uncategorized
BFI Working Paper·Aug 20, 2025

Partial Language Acquisition: The Impact of Conformity

William A. Brock, Bo Chen, Steven Durlauf, and Shlomo Weber
Topics: Uncategorized
BFI Working Paper·Aug 12, 2025

Seemingly Virtuous Complexity in Return Prediction

Stefan Nagel
Topics: Uncategorized