- On Capitol Hill
- On Wall Street
- In the Press
- Policy Reform Work
Our projects are designed to empower policy makers to create positive change. With a focus on collaboration and outreach, we provide original, standards-based research on key policy issues.
SCEPA joined with the Economic Policy Institute on Capitol Hill to brief congressional staff and policy experts on tax expenditures, or incentives given through the tax code without scrutiny by Congress.
SCEPA economists are working on the prospects for a more progressive economic order to emerge from the shock of the recession. They have published papers and documents that place current events in a longer-term context as well as policy proposals to deal with short-term concerns. They are also documenting the emerging discussion of how the discipline of economics is reacting to the Great Recession and the questioning of conventional economic analysis.
Lance Taylor, a SCEPA Faculty Fellow, presents an overview of his new book, Maynard’s Revenge, in a Google Tech Talk.
The book, published this November by Harvard University Press, is a timely analysis of mainstream macroeconomics, posing the need for a more useful and realistic economic analysis that can provide a better understanding of the ongoing global financial and economic crisis.
The government spends $143 billion through tax breaks in an effort to expand pension coverage and security. Yet, over half of the American workforce does not have a pension. Retirement insecurity hurts business plans, workers’ lives and retiree well-being. Reform is needed.
SCEPA’s Guaranteeing Retirement Income Project, sponsored by the Rockefeller Foundation and in collaboration with Demos and the Economic Policy Institute, has a plan to guarantee safe and secure retirement income for all Americans.
by Rick McGahey, SCEPA Faculty Fellow
In today's New York Times, Paul Krugman confuses issues around internal population migration in the U.S. with issues of job creation and economic growth. He ends up in an unnecessary and defensive argument about whether low-wage and anti-regulation states like Texas are a superior economic model.
First, there just isn't that much net internal migration. The American Community Survey tells us that in 2012, net migration between New York State and Texas was 9,043 in favor of Texas (20,274 New Yorkers to Texas, but 11,231 Texans to New York State). That is less than one-half of one percent of the total population of New York State, hardly a big trend. In fact, researchers are trying to figure out why internal migration is declining, not rising—in 2011, Federal Reserve researchers noted that "by most measures, internal migration in the United States is at a thirty-year low."
Second, outmigration and relocation is driven by a lot of things beyond relative taxation or regulation, including baby boomer retirements (oddly not mentioned in Krugman's column). If you just want to hold down migration, make New York a more attractive retirement location. Texas has had relatively strong job growth since the Great Recession, but analysts attribute much of that to natural gas and oil production, including virtually unregulated fracking.
Krugman's column has produced a predictable set of online complaints about high taxes and repressive regulations in New York relative to the South. New York does need more housing density, although the region has many housing opportunities given our public transportation network. But Krugman's odd use of what in reality are vanishingly very small numbers on migration to Texas inadvertently contributes to a misguided narrative about how attractive Texas and other bottom-feeder states really are.
The Schwartz Center for Economic Policy Analysis (SCEPA) at the New School for Social Research is deeply saddened by the death of Irene Schwartz, best friend and wife of Bernard Schwartz. Bernard and Irene paid special attention to The New School Economics Department's commitment to economic policy and social justice. Together they named a professorship and provided scholarships and other material support to our economics students and faculty. Bernard and Irene, compassionate for the plight of vulnerable elderly and for the aspiration of all workers to retire in dignity, also support SCEPA's Retirement Equity Laboratory.
We are grateful for Irene's love for Bernard that helped he and she be expansive and proactive in solving problems of injustice facing humanity. We send our deepest sympathies to her family and friends, especially to her husband, our mentor and friend Bernard Schwartz.
The Members of the Schwartz Center for Economic Policy Analysis at The New School for Social Research
This week's Worldly Philosopher, Raphaele Chappe, writes on the policy implications of Thomas Piketty's analysis on inequality.
We are in a post-Piketty world. Since my last blog entry, Thomas Piketty has received nothing short of a rock star treatment upon his U.S. visit. What are the policy debates we face if Piketty is right?
As the ratio of capital to income (which Piketty terms "beta") increases, Piketty argues there is no natural mechanism that would lead r (the rate of return on capital) to adjust downwards so as to perfectly compensate the impact on the distribution, placing emphasis on policies that might reduce r.
Taxation is one way to reduce r and Piketty's proposal is a progressive world-wide tax on wealth although many agree that this may prove politically unfeasible, especially in the absence of international legal cooperation. Other tax possibilities for fighting inequality include increasing tax rates on capital gains and dividends (which have been getting favorable treatment in the tax code as compared with labor income1), or simply combating tax evasion for the wealthy (see The Price of Offshore Revisited).2 In my own research, I plan to run simulations to test the effectiveness of such tax proposals, and their impact on the wealth distribution.
We could also consider labor-focused policies designed to increase the share of national income going to labor, such as raising the minimum wage, or giving workers direct participation in management and profit through employee ownership or other means. (For the use of national income and product accounts (NIPA) as a framework for studying how inequality will be affected by fiscal and other initiatives such as raising the minimum wage, see SCEPA working paper 2013-1).
In order to advocate for the best policy solutions, we may wish to understand the drivers for high profit rates in recent decades.