Media clips
-
Nor have President Obama’s grand social designs been cheap for America’s middle class. ObamaCare’s cost to middle-class families without employer coverage or subsidies is over $10,000 annually in forced premiums, taxes, and other costs. That by itself is enough to offset at least part of the $18,000 annually that the Economic Policy Institute says inequality is costing middle-class households. (Read Winship for why that’s a grossly exaggerated figure, by the way.) And then there is the cost of the unparalleled expansion of the regulatory state under this president. The Heritage Foundation estimates that President Obama’s new regulations cost the economy $108 billion annually. Total regulatory costs, which are borne disproportionately by the middle class through lost jobs and higher prices, now exceed a whopping $2 trillion annually — more than is collected in income taxes each year.
The Week August 1, 2016 -
But some experts think the nationwide skills gap is overblown.Elise Gould, senior economist at the liberal-leaning Economic Policy Institute, said federal jobs data shows there are two unemployed manufacturing workers for every available job. She said employers looking for workers could be doing more to train available workers or attract more talent by offering higher wages. “Actually, there’s a lot of unemployed workers in that field that you’re trying to hire in,” she said, noting that she did not have specific data on New Hampshire’s manufacturing sector.
Associated Press July 31, 2016 -
The left-leaning Economic Policy Institute is out with a new study asserting that such a tax could raise anywhere between $110 billion and $403 billion a year. Over a decade, Josh Bivens, one of the paper’s authors, believes it potentially could raise just short of $4 trillion over a decade. “I would not bet my house on the high end. This is a big policy change that we just don’t have real world experience with,” Bivens told Morning Tax. “But I wouldn’t reject it out of hand either.” For comparison’s sake, a $4 trillion FTT would raise more than six times as much as the revenue raised by the fiscal cliff deal. The Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center projected a more modest influx from a financial tax, more like $50 billion a year. Bivens said it’s difficult to project the revenue impact of an FTT because “we really just don’t have a real world model that’s been designed with minimizing tax avoidance,” which he said made it difficult to predict just how much the tax would affect the number of trades and other factors. EPI study here: http://bit.ly/2aCb4z6… Of course, the design of the FTT plays a big role in how much it raises. The tax modeled in Baker’s paper would tax stock trades at 0.2 percent, bonds at 0.1 percent and derivatives at 0.002 percent. EPI’s tax is more robust, taxing stock trades at 0.5 percent. A leading FTT proposal on Capitol Hill, from Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.), would tax trades of stocks, bonds and derivatives at 0.03 percent.
Politico July 30, 2016 -
Many analyses of a financial transaction tax underestimate the revenue it could generate, Josh Bivens and Hunter Blair find in a new paper for the liberal Economic Policy Institute. While several recent research papers have shown that an FTT, based on the proposals introduced in Congress by Minnesota Rep. Keith Ellison and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, would produce $50 billion to $70 billion in revenue, Messrs. Bivens and Blair estimate it would produce far more: $110 billion to $403 billion. They attribute the wide range of their own numbers to difference estimates of how trading volume might respond to such a tax. In addition they argue that lower trading volume would be a net positive, or at least neutral, for the U.S. economy because it would “crowd out” dollars from financial transactions and support the rest of the economy, raising household income in the process.
The Wall Street Journal July 30, 2016 -
In some spots in this country, it costs parents well into six figures just to eke by. The amount that a two-parent, two-child family needs just to pay the bills (but not have money left over for savings) ranges from about $50,000 to more than $100,000 depending on where a family lives, according to data from the nonprofit and nonpartisan think tank the Economic Policy Institute. “This does not mean a middle-class lifestyle,” says Elise Gould, a senior economist with EPI. “This is just living, no savings.”
MarketWatch July 30, 2016 -
“I haven’t heard a coherent position from Donald Trump on the minimum wage,” said David Cooper of the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute. “But it is nice to hear both sides recognize this.” Beyond Trump, Cooper also rebutted the pro-business argument that a wage increase would cost jobs, saying studies have shown that, overall, low-wage workers come out in better shape after a minimum wage increase.
The Hill July 29, 2016 -
In 2013, an analysis by the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute found that about 18 percent of Texas’ total workforce, or about 1.9 million people, makes less than $10.10 an hour. Taking into account those indirectly affected by the rest of the payscale rising above the new minimum wage, the percentage goes up to 26 percent. Last year, Texas’ Center for Public Policy Priorities came to a similar conclusion.
Houston Chronicle July 29, 2016 -
Economist Robert Scott at the Economic Policy Institute said the increasing visibility of international trade issues in national politics is partly a result of the two-decade-plus legacy of NAFTA, which he said many voters blame for job-losses and industry displacement in their regions. “Often we find that we have growing trade deficits with our partners in these deals,” said Scott. “They are designed to encourage outsourcing of production–so we tend to see our imports increasing more than our exports. This also tends to put downward pressure on wages. So it hurts essentially all non-college-educated workers, who make up about two-thirds of the labor force.” Scott said that with a weak economic recovery and a presidential election looming, a lot of attention is now focused on jobs and wages. And he said voters are asking whether trade deals touted by mainstream leaders of both political parties have made matters worse.
Marketplace July 29, 2016 -
One estimate from the Economic Policy Institute found that China’s entrance to the World Trade Organization alone cost $37 billion in lost American wages in 2011. A different study from the same group also found that the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), signed under former President Bill Clinton, displaced almost 900,000 U.S. jobs.
Mic July 29, 2016 -
“A financial transaction tax would help ensure Wall Street works for Main Street” is the intriguing title of a paper released today by the Economic Policy Institute. A few years ago, I had designated myself as the left wing of the elderly curmudgeon division of CCR LLP, a large regional accounting firm, the result of the merger of two venerable large local firms, that has since been swallowed by a not quite Big Four national (more nimble). The other old guys would look at me with wonder as I told them about Jill Stein and the Green Party platform.
Forbes July 29, 2016