- 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
A provocative new document on global environmental challenges says that "climate change and other global ecological challenges are not the most important immediate concerns for the majority of the world's people. Nor should they be." Is this just the latest self-regarding propaganda from international agribusiness and oil companies? No, the statement comes from the new "manifesto" just released on "eco-modernism."
The ecomodernists are associated with the Breakthrough Institute, founded by activists associated with the Apollo Alliance and other thinkers who want a more dramatic move to clean energy to spur economic growth while reducing carbon release and environmental damage. Eduardo Porter has a positive piece on the manifesto in the New York Times.
The manifesto calls explicitly for more urban development and growth, arguing that is the best way to increase the standard of living for the world's population. They see the possibility of a greener, better managed way of living in a more urban-centered world.
The manifesto explicitly rejects what they view as romantic visions of rural living and subsistence agriculture. The authors argue that "The average per-capita use of land today is vastly lower than it was 5,000 years ago, despite the fact that modern people enjoy a far richer diet. Thanks to technological improvements in agriculture, during the half-century starting in the mid-1960s, the amount of land required for growing crops and animal feed for the average person declined by one-half."
So they want more intensified, productive agriculture and aquaculture, along with nuclear power, desalinization, and other technologies. I think the manifesto is very hopeful to naive about our ability to manage some of these specific technologies (especially nuclear waste). But I'm drawn to their argument that says smarter and lower carbon technologies can help raise everyone's standard of living, shifting our economy to less polluting and carbon-intensive services.
In what seems a deliberate echo of Karl Marx, this manifesto says,
SCEPA is honored to receive a second grant from the Fritz Thyssen Foundation to continue our speaker series on the Economics of Climate Change, led by SCEPA Faculty Fellow Willi Semmler for an additional three years. The series brings distinguished scholars, policy experts and government officials to The New School to discuss how economies can transition to green energy and technology. Past speakers include Michael Oppenheimer, Geoffrey Heal, Peter Schlosser, Robert Koop, Wolfram Schlenker, Mark Jacobson, and Artur Runge-Metzger.
Given the recent series of IPCC reports, the People's Climate March in September in New York, and the historic United States-China agreement on climate change in 2014, SCEPA is grateful for this opportunity to continue to build a dialogue between academics, practitioners and the general public to facilitate global action on climate change.
SCEPA’s Retirement Equity Lab (ReLab) just released a report that is the first to quantify the real effect of the retirement crisis - poverty. The report, “Are U.S. Workers Ready for Retirement?” identifies the share of people whose projected income in retirement will be below poverty across states. This message of downward mobility is important both to individuals whose retirement institutions are failing them and policy makers who will inherit the impact of increasing poverty on both social welfare and municipal budgets.
Poverty As a Result of Little to No Retirement Savings
- 33% of current workers aged 55 to 64 are likely to be poor or near-poor (less than 200% FPL) in retirement based on their current levels of retirement savings and total assets.
- 55% of retirees will be forced to rely solely on their Social Security income.
- Some states are worse off than others. 41% of near-retirement workers in Florida may experience poverty or near-poverty in retirement, followed by North Carolina and Texas.
The Failure of Retirement Savings Vehicles
- Almost half of Americans who were working in 2011 were not offered a retirement account at work.
- 68% of the U.S. working age population (25-64) did not participate in an employer-sponsored retirement plan because their employer did not offer one, they elected not to participate or were not working.
- The amounts saved through employer-sponsored defined contribution (DC) retirement plans are only slightly better off than those without a retirement plan.
In The News:
Forbes: The Retirement Crisis: Why 68% Of Americans Aren't Saving In An Employer-Sponsored Plan
Time: 1 in 3 Older Workers Likely to Be Poor or Near Poor in Retirement
Financial Buzz: Retirement Savings Paucity in U.S. Workers
Employee Benefit News: U.S. Workers Falling Short in Healthy Retirement Savings
Plan Sponsor: Three-Legged Retirement Income Stool More Wobbly
Columbia Journalism Review: How to Bring Clarity and Urgency to Social Security Reporting