- 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.
Brad DeLong, a widely-read economist and blogger, cites SCEPA economist David Howell's work investigating the causes of wage inequality and unshared productivity growth as today's "Morning Must-Read." Howell's research with the Washington Center for Equitable Growth asks, what happened to shared growth?
"Most economists continue to explain the explosion of earnings inequality with conventional supply-and-demand stories, in which worker compensation is believed to accurately reflect the contribution workers make to production. Thus, in this view, CEOs and financiers have received skyrocketing salaries, especially since the mid-1990s, because they are now contributing dramatically more to their firms and to the economy as a whole.
Similarly, the bottom 90 percent have seen stagnant and falling wages because they've fallen behind in the "race between education and technology." The computerization of the workplace requires greater cognitive skills, but workers have not kept up, as indicated by the slowdown in college graduation rates. Assuming (nearly) perfectly competitive markets, the explosion in wage inequality in this view must reflect a similarly explosive increase in skill mismatch (too many low skill workers, too few high skill ones).
Such arguments leave little or no room for labor market institutions and public policies in determining changes in the distribution of earnings up and down the income ladder. An alternative view is that institutionally-driven bargaining power is a critical piece of the story, whether it is the noncompetitive "rents" earned by top managers and financiers, or the collapsing power of hourly wage employees."
"States Move to Implement Retirement Accounts," a February 4, 2015, article by Joel Kranc of Institutional Investor, summarizes the movement of retirement reform from the federal level to the state level. "But whereas the federal level is talking, the states are taking action on their own plans," says Kranc. He cites Illinois and California as the early leaders in the effort, both having passed legislation. He summarizes, "Some of the states taking a look at these types of plans are Connecticut, Vermont and Minnesota, which have passed legislation that creates frameworks for a plan. Maryland and Oregon have started taskforces, and 15 others are considering their options as well."
Kranc takes it one step further, interviewing experts to assess the quality and content of plans under consideration. 'Illinois is the first and boldest among 37 states that have something in the works,' notes Teresa Ghilarducci, a labor economist at the New School for Social Research in New York. 'But Illinois has passed the most simple, least regulated and therefore least helpful plan. Other states are looking at ways to create exchanges or a public option that creates a low-cost option. This is certainly a state-by-state movement for add-on plans,' she says."
In 1950, the United States could claim racial equity in one important respect - both black and white American men who reached age 65 could expect to live twelve more years to age 77.
By 2010, white men at age 65 were projected to live almost 2 years longer than black men, while white women could expect to live one year longer than black women.
Given that gaps in life expectancy at age 65 exist between black and white Americans, the fact that the “average” American is living longer cannot be used to justify proposals to raise the retirement age. In fact, the data reveal that such a proposal will disproportionately impact Blacks.
Read SCEPA's full report investigating the racial disparities behind proposals to raise the retirement age.