- 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.
Bloomberg View's Christopher Flavelle reports in "A Great (and Impossible) Plan to Fix Retirement" that Americans are woefully unprepared for retirement and that SCEPA Director Teresa Ghilarducci's proposed policy fix is, despite political hurdles, the only potential solution.
The problem is simple: almost half of Americans aged 55-64 have no retirement savings whatsoever, and those who have some savings do not have enough to sustain them in retirement. Ghilarducci's solution: supplement Social Security with Guaranteed Retirement Accounts (GRAs), into which workers and their employers deposit 5% of their salary annually.
According to Flavelle, "The idea deserves attention, and not just because Ghilarducci's role with the campaign suggests Clinton could push something along the same lines if she becomes president. Just as important, what she's advocating illustrates the depressing difficulty of fixing retirement policy: For all the obstacles her plan presents, it's hard to think of anything better."
In "Leisure Inequality: What the Rich-Poor Longevity Gap Will Do to Retirement," SCEPA Director Teresa Ghilarducci looks at the inequality in end-of-life experiences between the rich and the poor. She begins with a startling fact from the 20th century: between 1930-1960, while the life expectancy of rich men increased by eight years, the life expectancy of poor men was unchanged. Though Social Security and Medicare have improved the end-of-life experiences of poor and middle-class Americans, a chasm remains between the golden year experiences of the rich and poor.
One difference is how the children of wealthier Americans are more prepared to guide their parents through later-life. She tells of a friend of hers who recently wrote her about the difficulties of navigating the medical, financial, and legal challenges arising from her father's end-of-life care. She says they have taken her "nearly to the limits of my intellectual capacity" - and she is a health-care policy expert with a PhD!
Her friend's point summarizes decades of research. Gaps in class, education, and income translate into gaps in end-of-life care. Wealthy, educated Americans tend to have educated children who can help them make the best end-of-life decisions and are likely to be with them at the end of their lives. This has important implications for retirement policy. Cutting benefits by raising the retirement age will force lower-income Americans, who haven't experienced a large increase in longevity, to work longer and miss out on their golden years.
In "Raising the Retirement Age: A Sneaky Way to Reduce Social Security Benefits" SCEPA Director Teresa Ghilarducci writes about how raising the eligibility age for Social Security is bad politics and bad policy. Employers wanting to hire from a larger labor pool and Republican hard-liners who reflexively support decreases in government spending have long-supported cutting Social Security. Recently, it's been trumpeted as a prudent centrist policy. It's not.
First the policy. Make no mistake, raising the retirement age is a cut in benefits. As it stands, the full retirement age is 70. If you start collecting benefits before 70, you receive a lower monthly payment for life. Raising the age at which Americans can start collecting benefits will likely push the benefit-maximizing age up to an unattainable level. In general, we should not expect Americans to work into their seventies.
Second the politics. Americans overwhelmingly don't support benefit cuts. The Pew Research Center found that Americans are opposed to Social Security cuts by a margin of two-to-one. This preference persists among millennials, despite endless misinformation that Social Security will be gone by the time this cohort retires. Republicans have tried to re-brand a cut to Social Security as raising the retirement age. This is misleading at best. Raising the eligibility age for Social Security is a reduction in benefits.
We should be talking about strengthening and expanding Social Security, not weakening it.