- 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.
Older Unemployed Workers Take Longer to Find Jobs than Younger Workers
The unemployment rate is falling for workers in all age groups. For workers over 55, today’s jobs report from the Department of Labor shows an unemployment rate of 3.2% in December, a decrease of 0.5 percentage points from last month.
While this is good news overall, if an older worker is out of a job, it will take 10 weeks longer to find a new one than their younger counterparts. In 2007, the average time spent unemployed for workers 55+ was 23 weeks, compared to 20 weeks for younger workers, a gap of three weeks. In 2015, the gap increased three fold to ten weeks, with older workers spending 36 weeks looking for a job compared to 26 weeks for younger workers.
Whatever the cause, be it age discrimination or biased job training programs, older workers are less able to recover from the shock of losing a job. As their time looking for work stretches out, many turn to early retirement as an escape, paying a high price in decreased standards of living due to inadequate savings. Cutting Social Security benefits by raising the retirement age will fuel the increase in older workers’ income vulnerability. Systemic change requires a comprehensive program in the form of Guaranteed Retirement Accounts to ensure older workers have the retirement income needed to leave the labor market when they chose.
On January 1st, 2016, The New York Times published an oped by SCEPA Director Teresa Ghilarducci and Blackstone President Tony James, "A Smarter Plan to Make Retirement Savings Last." The article was mentioned in January 4th news updates by Daily Kos and Politico.
In the piece, Ghilarducci and James call for the creation of a mandatory savings plan as a necessary solution to the coming retirement crisis:
"We need a bolder plan, which we are calling the guaranteed retirement account (G.R.A.). Under our proposal, all workers and employers will have to make regular payments into a G.R.A., which builds until retirement age, then pays out a supplemental stream of income until that person and his or her beneficiary die.
The current system - a mix of 401(k)s and individual retirement accounts (I.R.A.s) - is broken."
New School Economics Professor Lance Taylor thinks most economists are missing the big picture.
In an interview with Lynn Parramore of the Institute for New Economic Thinking (INET), Taylor describes the major problem in the field of economics as the division between micro and macro - between our understanding of the economic behavior of individuals and markets and our understanding of the behavior of entire economic systems.
The first problem Taylor discusses is how the split between macro and micro makes forecasting imprecise at best. From the perspective of macroeconomics, people’s behavior in certain circumstances is unpredictable--like when housing prices fall and the financial system coagulates. It’s no surprise that the profession was caught off guard by the financial crisis of 2008. Without new theory and forecasting techniques, they’ll likely be surprised by the next one.
Another problem is the growing divide between the haves and the have-nots. Taylor is cautiously optimistic on the debate about inequality, which Thomas Piketty's book and the Occupy Movement elevated to popular discussions. There is still a major disjunction between economists who believe that inequality is driven by factors such as merit, education and opportunity, and those who believe that social relations and the legal system play an important role.
Lance has published a new report criticizing mainstream approaches to growth and inequality, and proposes a new, more realistic way of thinking about it. As he describes in the video, growing inequality is driven by conflict over profits. Over the past 40 years, he says, “the bargaining position of companies has improved relative to the bargaining position of workers.” There is no economic law that means this must be so. Rather, it’s because unions have been weakened and industry groups have consolidated their power, both of which are determined by social values and the legal system. Until workers get their bargaining power back, incremental changes in the minimum wage or the provision of employer-sponsored benefits won’t go very far toward lessening inequality.
The impetus to tackle economic problems must come from the political sphere. It could take another crisis, either a credit crunch or major climatic event, to shock the system enough. But we shouldn’t just react. We need to prepare for problems and destabilizing trends before they fully materialize. Financial crises cause recessions and impoverish workers, but climate change threatens our ability to occupy the planet in the manner to which we have become accustomed. Waiting around isn’t worth the risk.