A broad array of experts now agree that these practices contributed to a massive loss in U.S. manufacturing jobs that harmed the American middle class. A January study released by Robert Scott, director of trade and manufacturing policy research at the labor-backed Economic Policy Institute, estimated that trade with China cost the U.S. 3.4 million jobs from 2001 to 2015, the vast majority of them in manufacturing. An academic study using more conservative assumptions concluded that Chinese trade deprived the U.S. of as many as 2.4 million jobs from 1999 to 2011. Economists who believe the trade deficit should be smaller argue that China’s accumulated surplus of foreign currencies still tilts the scales for its exports. “While it may be technically true that China is no longer acquiring dollar-denominated assets, they still hold more than $3 trillion in foreign currency reserves, and probably $1 trillion in other investments,” Scott said. “It is clear that China’s currency needs to rise in value.” The yuan would need to rise in value by 25 to 30 percent to reasonably rebalance global trade, he estimated. (Rob quoted throughout)
The Huffington Post
April 14, 2017
A financial transactions tax; a carbon tax, “but not to raise much revenue — I’d like to recycle the revenue back to people”; more tax brackets at the high end, because “it seems odd that someone making $400,000 a year pays the same as someone making $5 billion a year.” In addition, “I might get rid of the corporate tax and have more progressive individual taxes,” since the corporate tax is so susceptible to manipulation. (Josh Bivens, Economic Policy Institute)
The Washington Post
April 14, 2017
The left-leaning Economic Policy Institute, for example, last week published a blog post indicated “no one can deny the importance of attracting skilled, talented workers to the United States” but that “the reality is that the biggest beneficiaries of the H-1B program are outsourcing companies that have hijacked the system … to replace thousands of U.S. workers with much-lower-paid H-1B workers while also sending tech jobs abroad.”
U.S. News & World Report
April 13, 2017
As Larry Mishel, president of the Economic Policy Institute, puts it, “ignoring the losers was deliberate.” In 1981, the “trade adjustment assistance (TAA) program was one of the first things Reagan attacked, cutting its weekly compensation payments.” The damage continued under subsequent, Democratic administrations. In Mishel’s words, “if free-traders had actually cared about the working class, they could have supported a full range of policies to support robust wage growth: full employment, collective bargaining, high labor standards, a robust minimum wage, and so on.” And all of this could have been done “before administering ‘shocks’ by expanding trade with low-wage countries.”
Market Watch
April 13, 2017
Given the frightening statistics on retirement savings, demographically induced stress on home values is the last thing retirees need. The Economic Policy Institute relays that the median retirement savings is $5,000. The Government Accountability Office did a study in 2015 that found the median retirement savings for those aged 55 to 64 were $104,000 and for the 65-to-74 group it was $148,000. And that’s the amount for those with some retirement savings. The same study found 29 percent of those 55 and older had none.
Bloomberg
April 13, 2017
According to Elise Gould at the Economic Policy Institute, the three decades after World War II were good for most American families. “From 1947 to 1979, you saw broad-based income growth. From the lowest-fifth up to the top 5 percent of income, there was relatively strong growth across the board.” But from the late 1970s on, growth in median family income slowed down. It increased just 23 percent from 1980 to 2015, and growth wasn’t distributed very evenly… So to answer listener Skrocke’s question: Most of the increase in median family income since 1980 (84 percent, according to analysis by Gould of the Economic Policy Institute) is due not to wages rising for individual workers, but rather to more family members — especially women — going to work and working more hours to earn a paycheck
Marketplace
April 12, 2017
President Donald Trump, who opened his presidency with a promise to cut federal regulations by at least 75 percent, is engaged on an anti-regulatory crusade to benefit corporations and the wealthy at the expense of the working class, according to a fact sheet put out by the liberal Economic Policy Institute on Tuesday. “While much has been said about the value and burden of regulations, they are merely an administrative tool aimed at achieving a policy goal that was legislated by Congress — such as safe workplaces, or secure retirement,” explained Heidi Shierholz and Celine McNicholas in the Economic Policy Institute fact sheet. “Congress passes a law and, often, directs an agency to issue a regulation to implement the law.”
Salon
April 12, 2017
President Donald Trump’s deregulation agenda will sacrifice worker protections and public health for the sake of corporate profits, according to a new fact sheet out Tuesday from the Economic Policy Institute (EPI). Those findings counter the GOP’s frequent claims that regulations are “job-killers.” In fact, the EPI found that regulations tend to create jobs. More importantly, they stabilize the economy and protect peoples’ health and well-being. (
Common Dreams
April 12, 2017
Sixty days may not seem like a big deal, but according to economists at the Economic Policy Institute, just this two-month delay will cost Americans saving for their retirement a collective $3.7 billion dollars. And this is just the beginning. If President Trump succeeds in delaying this rule further or in killing this important consumer protection, the special interests and big corporations he rallied against will score a victory — a $17 billion a year victory — and the American people will be the ones left with the bill.
The Huffington Post
April 11, 2017
Parental leave — Are men and women taking advantage? The Economic Policy Institute notes that women pay a “motherhood penalty,” with pay lagging after they give birth. Ames noted that women may still feel disadvantaged for taking maternity leave if they don’t see their male counterparts taking paternity leave.
CNBC
April 11, 2017