Taxes are good, actually—especially if you care about affordability
Key takeaways:
- Recent Democratic proposals to exempt broad swaths of the middle class from federal income taxes accept a damaging frame of taxes as a pure drain on affordability.
- But taxes aren’t a drain on affordability; they fund the public services and social insurance programs that make a decent life possible for middle-class families.
- Progressive taxes on the ultrarich and corporations are essential and should be the immediate priority, but they cannot sustain the public sector alone, let alone expand it in ways needed.
- Middle-class tax rates have fallen by a third since 1979, yet economic anxiety remains high. Tax-cutting has failed because it has left the private-sector drivers of inequality untouched and starved public services.
For decades, anti-tax politicians have tried to smuggle in large tax cuts for the ultrarich and corporations by loudly offering tax cut crumbs to the middle class. Key to this effort has been framing taxes as a pure drain on typical families’ ability to afford a secure economic life. Any success in this dishonest campaign to foster anti-tax sentiment is a disaster for working people—and that’s why some recent tax policy ideas from Democrats and the rhetoric around them are so deflating.Read more
A snapshot of college athletes: Who are they and how much do they earn?
Key takeaways:
- The growing revenue of college sports and the heightened attention on the experience of college athletes suggest that college athletics is far from the amateur endeavor it might have started as decades ago.
- Recent policy changes have allowed some college athletes to receive compensation, whether in the form of name, image, and likeness (NIL) rights or revenue sharing. However, not all college athletes have the right to be compensated.
- The NCAA has backed the SCORE Act, which would jeopardize college athlete compensation by prohibiting them from being classified as employees in the first place.
- Policymakers should consider proposals that strengthen rights for college athletes, including granting them employee status under federal labor laws.
Introduction
It has long been argued that college athletes should not receive compensation to maintain the “amateurism” of college sports. However, the growing revenue generated from college sports and heightened attention on the experience of college athletes suggest that college athletics is far from an amateur endeavor.
Only recently have college athletes been granted the right to be compensated for name, image, and likeness (NIL) rights. This decision came into effect after years of antitrust lawsuits against the National Collegiate Athletic Association’s (NCAA) compensation rules. These lawsuits culminated in the Supreme Court decision in NCAA v. Alston, as well as a growing number of states enacting their own compensation laws for college athletes. The recent House v. NCAA settlement allows Division I schools—those with the largest and most economically lucrative athletic programs—to share revenue with college athletes, and further expands opportunities for college athletes to receive compensation.
As a result of these policy changes and a growing movement among college athletes to demand fair compensation for their performance, federal policymakers have put forward proposals to address college athlete compensation. In this blog post, we examine these proposals and their impacts on college athletes and their labor/employment status.
Supporting manufacturing employment: No president has tried so of course it has never worked
Quibbling with headlines is annoying, I know, but I was provoked by the title of economist Jason Furman’s New York Times piece last week: “Every President Tries It. It Never Works.” The “it” being referred to here is “reversing the loss of manufacturing jobs.”
The provocation was the “every president tries” part. If “trying” is defined as changing policy to consistently support employment growth in U.S. manufacturing, no president has tried in my lifetime to do this. Amazingly, doing nothing has indeed failed. Doing nothing was also the wrong choice.
March job gains make up for February losses – trend remains notably weak
Below, EPI senior economist Elise Gould offers her insights on the jobs report released this morning. Read the full thread here.
Unemployment has increased for U.S.-born workers in the face of mass deportations: Trump’s draconian immigration enforcement is harming all workers
During the 2024 campaign, Donald Trump and J.D. Vance promised that mass deportations and a crackdown on immigration would open up jobs for unemployed U.S. citizens. The theory was simple: remove immigrant workers, and native-born U.S. citizens would fill those open positions. Well, the results are in, and the opposite is happening.
The unemployment rate for U.S.-born workers was 4.0% in 2024 under Biden’s administration, and it has risen under Trump. With today’s jobs report, the three-month average for 2026 shows the U.S.-born unemployment rate is at 4.3% (the non-seasonally adjusted average for 2026 is 4.6%).
Claims that mass deportations have helped U.S.-born workers are simply inconsistent with the data. This is no surprise, given that economic research has repeatedly shown that increased immigration enforcement harms everyone in the labor market, including U.S.-born workers. Part of the explanation for this is that immigrants are not only workers, but also consumers, which generates demand and helps the economy grow. Another part is that immigrants and U.S.-born workers complement each other in the labor market. For example, when immigrant roofers and framers disappear, there is less work available for the native-born electricians and plumbers. And when child care workers and cleaners are detained, deported, or terrorized by the Trump administration’s reckless and indiscriminate immigration enforcement, U.S.-born mothers work fewer hours to cover increased care responsibilities at home.
U.S.-born workers are faring worse under Trump’s assault on immigrants–which has included going after not just undocumented immigrants, but also those with green cards, temporary statuses like parole and DACA, and refugees and asylum-seekers. Mass deportations, arrests, detentions, and the stripping of work permits from millions have devastated communities and failed to deliver the promised jobs boom.
Voluntary paid leave insurance is no substitute for comprehensive paid family and medical leave: Workers lose when lawmakers pass the buck to private insurers
Key takeaways:
- The U.S. is the only OECD country that does not provide a national paid family and medical leave program, leaving it to states to ensure workers are protected when they need to take time off from work to care for themselves or a family member.
- Some states—including eight across the South—have adopted voluntary private insurance models of paid leave that allow private insurance companies to sell insurance policies directly to employers and/or workers themselves.
- But this approach provides less coverage, covers fewer workers, widens already large disparities in access, and is likely to be more expensive than comprehensive state paid family and medical leave (PFML) plans.
- Other states should follow the model of proven success from 13 states and Washington, D.C. that have implemented comprehensive PFML programs.
Comprehensive, universal Paid Family and Medical Leave (PFML) programs are powerful tools to safeguard and improve the economic well-being and overall health of workers and their families. Research shows that PFML improves health for both mothers and infants, reduces poverty and economic insecurity for low-income families, and increases labor force participation rates for mothers for up to five years after the birth of their child. In states that do not have a PFML program, workers lose an estimated $34.3 billion annually in wages due to leave-related absences from work, including $18.8 billion lost by women.
PFML programs also benefit employers and the broader economy, in part by improving recruitment of talented workers, especially among small businesses, reducing turnover, and increasing worker productivity. The National Partnership for Women and Families estimates that U.S. women’s lower labor force participation—due in part to a lack of paid leave—has cost the broader U.S. economy more than $6.7 trillion in economic activity over the last decade. This is economic activity the U.S. economy would have experienced if American women’s labor force participation rates were the same as those of women in Canada. Read more
More than 350,000 Oklahoma workers will get a raise if voters approve a $15 minimum wage this summer
This June, Oklahoma voters will have the opportunity to pass a historic minimum wage ballot initiative that would boost workers’ wages at a time when many are struggling with growing affordability challenges. State Question (SQ) 832 proposes gradually increasing the minimum wage from $7.25 to $15.00 an hour by 2029 (Table 1). Our analysis finds that this policy would raise wages for 357,700 Oklahoma workers—or roughly one-fifth (20.3%) of the state’s wage-earning workforce—by more than $783 million overall. This total includes both workers who would directly and indirectly see wage increases from the policy. On average, affected workers would gain $2,322 in annual pay if they worked full time and year-round.
The benefits of raising the minimum wage
Raising the minimum wage is a research-backed policy that increases earnings for low-wage workers without causing increases in unemployment or other negative economic side effects. A strong wage floor is also a powerful tool for making a more equitable economy. Almost two-thirds of the workers who would be affected by SQ 832 are women (63.3%). The policy would also disproportionately benefit workers of color. Hispanic workers make up 18.2% of the affected workers, compared with 11.0% of the total Oklahoma workforce. Black workers would be 10.6% of affected workers, while only making up 7.1% of the workforce (see Table 3).
The policy would also provide critical support to workers experiencing significant economic insecurity. Nearly three-fifths (59.3%) of the affected workers have incomes below 200% of the poverty line. Research shows that raising the minimum wage significantly reduces poverty, even as higher wages simultaneously reduce some workers’ and families’ eligibility for, and reliance on, public assistance programs.
The gender pay gap widened slightly in 2025: How Trump’s first year in office hurt women and what states can do to fix it
Key takeaways:
- The persistent gender wage gap widened slightly in 2025; women were paid 18.6% less than men on average after controlling for race and ethnicity, education, age, marital status, and state.
- Women are paid less than men across all education levels. Women with a graduate degree earn less, on average, than men with only a college degree.
- The gender pay gap worsened following a year of Trump administration attacks on workers, including cuts to the federal workforce; attacks on diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts; ordering mass deportations; and undermining child care and home care providers.
- States can narrow the gender pay gap with policies that guarantee access to paid family and medical leave, mandate pay transparency, raise the minimum wage, and make it easier for workers to form unions.
March 26 is Equal Pay Day, a reminder that there is still a significant pay gap between men and women in our country. The date represents how far into 2026 women would have to work on top of the hours they worked in 2025 simply to match what men were paid in 2025.
On an hourly basis, women were paid 18.6% less on average than men in 2025, after controlling for race and ethnicity, education, age, marital status, and state. After narrowing to a series low of 18.0% in 2024—likely driven by a strong labor market recovery from the COVID-19 recession that lifted wages more at the lower end of the overall wage distribution—the gender wage gap widened slightly in 2025. Though far from a total reversal of the last few years’ progress, the slight worsening in 2025 reflects the slowing of low-end wage growth and the economic consequences of Trump’s first year back in office.Read more
The battle for the ballot: How Southern legislatures are trying to block economic progress by restricting access to ballot initiatives
Key takeaways:
- Ballot initiatives have enabled voters to advance worker-centered policies—like higher minimum wages—in states with hostile legislatures, particularly in the South.
- A coordinated, right-wing legislative attack on ballot initiative processes is attempting to reverse ballot initiative wins, scare advocates out of using the ballot process, and make it harder to get future measures on the ballot that improve standards for workers.
- Despite these barriers, advocates and voters are fighting back to protect pro-worker ballot access and advance new progressive ballot measures.
In recent years, state ballot initiatives have served as powerful tools to advance economic opportunity for working families. Voters directly have raised the minimum wage, secured paid sick leave, protected abortion access, enacted bail reform, expanded Medicaid, and increased funding for public education—all popular progressive economic policies that some state legislatures have failed to enact. However, some conservative state legislatures have responded by overturning or limiting recent wins. And in the few Southern states where voters can access ballot measures—Arkansas, Florida, and Oklahoma—conservative legislators are waging war against the ballot initiative process itself, attempting to obstruct the will of voters and make it permanently more difficult for the public to directly decide on policy choices.
How AI spending is impacting the U.S. economy
Earlier this year, I gave an informal briefing on the macroeconomic effect of AI-related spending. It focused largely on claims that AI spending was the only thing standing between the U.S. economy and a recession, as well as concerns that AI spending was supported by fragile financing structures that could collapse and threaten near-term growth.
AI-related spending is providing much of the growth in the U.S. economy today. Business investments in structures and equipment (capex) that are driven by AI firms have accelerated noticeably in the past year. How much of this investment consists of imports rather than U.S.-based production is an open and important question. Even more important is the wealth effect on consumption from the AI stock boom, which seems to have firmly entered bubble territory. Combined, the capex spending and the consumption spending spurred by the stock market bubble are adding over a percentage point to GDP growth.
Worse, both types of spending seem fragile as medium-term sources of growth. The stock market bubble could deflate at any time, and when it does, it will almost certainly pull down much of the capex spending as well. After all, the entire reason for the frenzied capex build-out is the expectation of future profits. If these expectations radically change, the capex spending will evaporate.
If AI spending growth slows and the economy falls into a recession, policymakers should follow the typical recession-fighting playbook and use monetary and fiscal policy to boost the demand that was erased. The Federal Reserve should cut interest rates, and Congress and the president should direct fiscal aid to struggling families.
I then point to a couple of long-run observations about AI and its effect on labor markets, mostly echoing our arguments made in this report. One key finding: Despite widespread concern that AI will be strongly capital-biased, the profit share in the non-financial corporate sector has actually declined markedly since 2022.
For those interested, the PowerPoint and notes from the briefing are below.