Category: Uncategorized

Marshall for The Hill: The Center-Left Needs to Step Up and Show America What It Stands For

Posted on by Alex Terr

These are tough times for center-left parties, which increasingly find themselves squeezed into a shrinking middle ground by populist insurgents on the right and left. Few are rising to the challenge of offering restive voters an inspiring alternative to populist prescriptions for sweeping economic and political change.

That leaves most of the political passion and energy churning on the political extremes. MAGA and the Democratic Socialists of America certainly don’t lack bold ideas for change. Even if they do more harm than good, like President Trump’s inflationary tariffs, or unravel under scrutiny, like progressive proposals to abolish private health insurance and pay for a wide array of so-called free public goods by taxing wealth.

But even if they’re peddling snake oil, right- and left-wing populists have sharply defined beliefs and earn points for strong convictions. The center-left, in contrast, suffers from an identity crisis: Voters have only a fuzzy idea of what it stands for. Worse, working-class voters here and across Europe tend to lump center-left and center-right parties into an out-of-touch political establishment that ignores their struggles and governs on behalf of affluent elites and entrenched interests.

What should center-left parties like the Democrats offer voters? Moderation? Compromise and bipartisanship? Political civility? There’s something to be said for each of these, but they don’t add up to a compelling governing philosophy.

Nor is this a time for policy incrementalism. Working Americans are fed up with economic arrangements they see as deeply unfair, the fracturing of our national identity and civic unity and a sclerotic federal government’s inability to get big things done. They’re looking for structural remedies for structural problems.

Democrats aren’t condemned to vapid centrism. They only need to dust off their own rich legacy of bold and modernizing reform rooted in America’s liberal tradition.

Read more in The Hill

PPI in Vox: These Democrats won over working-class voters. Here’s their advice for candidates.

Posted on by Alex Terr

A new report explains which topics they emphasize — and which they don’t.

Throughout the Trump era, Democrats have wrung their hands about how they can win over working-class voters.

Why not ask the Democrats who’ve actually done it?

That’s what Robin Johnson — a political consultant based in rural Illinois, and a part-time political science professor at Monmouth College — set out to do after Donald Trump first won the presidency, asking Democratic state legislators who won tough districts how they pulled it off.

But after Trump’s shocking second win in 2024 revived concern about Democrats’ working-class woes, the time seemed ripe to ask legislators about how they’ve managed to cope with the challenges of a new decade.

So, working with the center-left Progressive Policy Institute and co-authors Stuart Malec and Jolie Libert, Johnson interviewed 28 state legislators who won in heavily working-class areas in the seven main presidential battleground states.

Read more in Vox

Democrats Who Win Battleground Districts Run as Problem Solvers, Not Manufactured Candidates, New PPI Report Finds

Posted on by Alex Terr

WASHINGTON (September 17, 2026) — Democrats who hold competitive, heavily working-class districts make up just 10% of state senators and 13% of state house members across the seven battleground states that decide presidential elections. Among 28 such lawmakers interviewed for a new report, 15 describe themselves as moderates, and none identify as democratic socialists. Twenty of them ran ahead of Kamala Harris in 2024. A report released today by the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) argues those facts are connected, and that the Democrats actually winning working-class voters look nothing like the left-wing insurgents dominating national media coverage of the party’s direction.

The report, titled “Democrats Who Win the Working Class: Profiles From the Seven Battleground States” and authored by Robin Johnson, a political and governmental relations consultant and part-time lecturer in political science at Monmouth College, Stuart Malec, Vice President of Public Affairs at PPI, and Jolie Libert, Political Director at PPI, compiles as-told-to interviews with state legislators from Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Each won a district decided by less than 10 points where the share of adults without a bachelor’s degree exceeds the national average of 64.3%.

Five themes emerged across the interviews:

  • On what voters care about … legislators returned again and again to the cost of living. “It’s all about pocketbook, bread and butter issues; the wallet; how can I afford to take care of my family?” said Assemblymember Max Carter (D-Nev.), a former union electrician. State Rep. Bryan Cohn (D-N.C.), who beat a Republican incumbent in a rural district, put it more bluntly: “A solid economic platform will connect with them not just economically, but also emotionally. Everything else is vapor.”
  • On how the party talks … several warned that Democrats describe the economy in words their constituents never use. “The term ‘affordability,’ for example. Who talks like that?” said State Rep. Karen DeSanto (D-Wis.). “My voters say that they can’t afford gas. That’s how I speak.”
  • On cultural issues … the national brand among non-college voters is “busted,” in the words of State Sen. Jamie Wall (D-Wis.). Most of the legislators do not hide their own positions, and many ran explicitly on abortion rights, but they refuse to let culture war fights crowd out economic concerns, and several objected to litmus tests from national advocacy groups that leave swing-district lawmakers exposed.
  • On business … many cited relationships with local employers and chambers of commerce as central to their appeal, arguing there is daylight between being pro-business and being anti-worker.
  • On tactics … the lawmakers were nearly unanimous that door knocking matters most, with several stressing longer conversations over volume, and listening over pitching. “I still have a pair of bronze boots from my first race when I knocked on 6,000 doors and walked 600 miles,” said Assemblymember Carter.

The report also pushes back on the idea that winning working-class voters is a casting problem. The 28 legislators interviewed are small business owners, lawyers, veterans, ministers and one former professional clown. The authors conclude that authenticity comes from community ties rather than biography, a contrast they draw directly with Graham Platner, whose blue-collar image outpaced a résumé that included a prep school education and a famous architect grandfather.

These lawmakers ran on things voters could feel in a monthly bill. Nevada’s Assemblymember Carter spearheaded a wage theft crackdown signed by the state’s Republican governor. State Rep. Elaine Marzola (D-Nev.) cited votes to cap insulin at $35 and to force the state’s energy utility to return more than $63 million to overcharged customers. State Rep. Tangie Herring (D-Ga.) secured property tax relief for seniors. Michigan Democrats campaigned on repealing the state’s retirement tax, and the Wisconsin legislators interviewed all ran in 2024 on adopting Medicaid expansion.

PPI selected state legislators deliberately, arguing their perspective is absent from New York and Beltway-centric debates about how Democrats can win. The report contends that with smaller districts and less money for television, state lawmakers spend more time connecting with constituents face-to-face, making them the party’s best available read on what’s happening on the ground in places where its national brand is a liability.

Read and download the report here.

Founded in 1989, PPI is a catalyst for policy innovation and political reform based in Washington, D.C. Its mission is to create radically pragmatic ideas for moving America beyond ideological and partisan deadlock. Find an expert and learn more about PPI by visiting progressivepolicy.org. Follow us at @ppi.

###

Media Contact: Ian O’Keefe – iokeefe@ppionline.org

Democrats Who Win the Working Class: Profiles From the Seven Battleground States

Posted on by Alex Terr

Nick Miller is a Democrat who knows how to reach working-class voters. In 2022, he became the youngest candidate elected to Pennsylvania’s Senate in over a century by winning an Allentown-based district where more than three-quarters of adults lack a bachelor’s degree. This was no easy feat: Just two years later, the same district backed Donald Trump for president.

What was Miller’s secret?

“I ran as a pragmatic, commonsense candidate focused on results rather than ideology,” he says. “Independent voters play a critical role in our elections. And they consistently respond to leaders who are willing to work with anyone to get things done.”

If Democrats want to become competitive again outside the blue islands of major metro areas and college towns, their single most important task will be winning back the Americans without college degrees who have abandoned the party in droves during recent decades. This report brings together interviews with dozens of politicians who’ve already shown they can do just that: 28 state legislators from seven battleground states who, like Miller, have managed to prevail in competitive, heavily working-class districts. We asked them about the issues they focused on, how their voters view the national party, and what on-the-ground tactics they relied on to win.

While these lawmakers represented disparate corners of America, they were remarkably consistent in their message. Their working-class constituents, they said, are intensely focused on basic pocketbook concerns like the cost of groceries and health care, and many believe Democrats are too preoccupied by fights over cultural issues like LGBTQ rights and abortion — an assessment that dovetails with much of the polling that followed Kamala Harris’s loss in the 2024 election. To overcome the national party’s baggage, these lawmakers often campaign as practical problem solvers, rather than rigid partisans.

“Being a moderate formed the core of my strategy,” says Wisconsin State Sen. Kristin Alfheim, whose district centers the Fox Cities region. “People would ask which party I was from and my response was, ‘Should it matter?’ Getting past that first initial knee-jerk response was critical to getting into what matters for voters — kitchen table issues.”

The lawmakers who spoke with PPI could hardly be more different from the left-wing populists who’ve captivated the national media this summer. Insurgent candidates backed by the Democratic Socialists of America have won a handful of primaries in New York and Denver by knocking off more established opponents, while progressive favorite Graham Platner won Maine’s primary vote before dropping out over allegations of sexual assault. In the Midwest, left-wing favorite Abdul El-Sayed won a narrow victory in the Michigan primary.

All of these candidates style themselves as champions for the working class and promise a lavish array of free public goods and services to lower the cost of living. Ironically, however, their left-wing insurgency thus far has mainly unseated liberal and even progressive Democrats. The democratic socialists aim their messages mainly at white college liberals and professionals instead of the non-college voters Democrats need to win general elections against Republicans. In those races, they’ll likely be dogged by past calls to abolish police and prisons and return to open borders.

In most cases, their performance with actual working-class voters has been middling to poor. DSA candidates in New York fared best in higher-income tracts of their districts, for instance. El-Sayed ran up the score in college towns while losing less-educated parts of the state. Before he dropped out, polling by The New York Times showed Platner trailing incumbent Susan Collins by 20 points among Mainers without a college degree.

In contrast, the state and local lawmakers featured in this report don’t campaign as strident ideologues or radical insurgents. Most focus on working families’ everyday struggles to make ends meet and avoid elite preoccupations like anti-fossil fuel crusades and trans rights. Fifteen described themselves as “moderate,” while others identified as progressives or something else. None identified as democratic socialists. All won their seats by listening to working people and offering down-to-earth ways to help them solve their problems.

We chose to focus on state legislators for this report because their voices are often absent from the New York and Beltway-centric debates about how to win, despite their having a unique and important vantage point. Since their districts are smaller than Congress members’ and they have less money to run expensive TV ads come election season, state lawmakers often spend more time in face-to-face interactions with their constituents, making them an important ear on the ground in places where the party’s national brand can be a hindrance.

We selected politicians for interviews based on three criteria:

  • They won their most recent race.
  • Their district is competitive, defined as a margin of less than 10%.
  • The share of voters without a college degree in their district is higher than the national average of 64.3%. There are a variety of definitions of “working class,” but this one is most common and easiest to quantify.

There are not many Democrats who check these boxes, partly due to gerrymandering, but also because of the party’s general weakness with working-class voters. Democrats who win these districts comprise just 10% of State Senators in the seven battleground states and 13% of House members. Wisconsin and Nevada have the highest shares. Some of the districts are heavy on white working-class voters, while some are dominated by Black or Hispanic voters. The lessons from all of them should be relevant to Democrats, given how the party lost ground with non-college voters of all races in 2024.

These districts were also competitive in more than state legislative races. Margins in the 2024 presidential race were also less than 10% in all but one of the districts. Harris won 20 of the districts, but 20 of the featured legislators ran ahead of her.

Most of the as-told-to essays in this report were written based on live interviews with the legislators. Three of the lawmakers wrote their own essays based on questionnaires. They all offered their own unique insights, and some diverged from one another on some issues.

However, five themes emerged most strongly.

Read the full report.

Chinese ‘foreign direct investment stock’ in U.S. as of 2025: $19 billion

Posted on by Alex Terr

Chinese “foreign direct investment stock” in U.S. as of 2025: $19 billion.

THE NUMBERS: Chinese foreign direct investment stock worldwide* –

2025 $3.58 trillion
2018 $1.94 trillion
2010 $0.32 trillion

* UNCTAD World Investment Report

WHAT THEY MEAN: 

Unusual for a U.S.-China summit event: The Chinese President, set to arrive in D.C. next week, will apparently have a swarm of Chief Executive Officers tagging along behind. No delegation list as yet, but the execs reportedly make electric vehicles, manage financial firms and Internet companies, run aerospace factories, etc.. The Trump admin’s hope thus seems less for top-tier policy achievements than for a spreadsheet of purchase orders and investment promises. All a little startling after 2025’s U.S.-China tariff volleys, and the administration’s early hopes to “decouple” at least the U.S. and possibly other countries from Chinese manufacturing. A Chinese-angle status report 18 months after Mr. Trump’s later, and the reason Xi et al may feel pretty pleased with the outcome:

U.S. Imports of Chinese Goods Down, Sort Of: In the fall of 2018, the first-term Trump administration put tariffs of 25% and 7.5% on about half of most Chinese imports. These stayed on through the Biden administration, and the second-term Trump admin added others.

At the “headline” level, U.S. imports of Chinese goods have turned sharply down. A convenient Census summary says in 2018 Americans bought $539 billion worth of Chinese-made goods — about $45 billion a month — which was 23% of the U.S.’ worldwide $2.56 trillion total. By comparison so far in 2026, the monthly average is $22 billion, the Chinese share of all imports is a modest 7.5%, and China ranks only fourth as a U.S. import source behind Mexico, Canada, and Taiwan. Seems like a lot; but a close look last month by Peterson Institute scholars Mary Lovely and Christine Wan suggests this shift in the trade data rankings is more “storm on the surface” than “change in the deep currents.”

Lovely & Wan explain that Americans actually buy nearly as much “Chinese” material as before, but now more often embedded in goods assembled in developing countries than in final retail-shelf form. China exports the “components” its factories used to buy from Taiwan and Korea (specialized glass, circuit boards, lighting, speakers) to facilities abroad, mostly though not solely in Southeast Asia. These affiliates then put it all together and send the resulting phones, TVs, appliances, etc., on to American industrial and retail customers. Thus, the apparent drop in U.S. imports from China is really more “supply-chain reworking” than a basic change in trade patterns. Lovely & Wan estimate a drop from 17.7% of “value-added” of U.S. imports in 2017 to 15.4% as of 2024. Global data from the WTO, meanwhile, show China’s share of world exports trade noticeably up since 2018:

GOODS EXPORTS    2018                     2025
World total                  $17.74 trillion        $26.26 trillion
China                            $2.26 trillion          $3.77 trillion
Chinese share            12.7%                         14.4%
WTO

Foreign Investment & Outsourcing: Investment data adds some color to the trade statistics by data by showing a decade-long Chinese foreign direct investment and outsourcing binge. UNCTAD’s World Investment Report series, the standard source, finds China now behind only the U.S. and Japan as an overseas investment source, and puts Chinese FDI stock abroad — that is, the value of Chinese-owned plants, labs, sales offices, real estate holdings, etc., abroad — at $3.58 trillion in 2025. This is nearly double the $1.94 trillion UNCTAD reported in 2018.

One consequence is that fewer Chinese now go to work in factories — Geneva-based economist Richard Baldwin finds Chinese manufacturing employment down by 18 million, from a 12-million peak in 2013 to 134 million in 2022. But the “outsourcing” and falling factory job totals don’t mean Chinese output has peaked. To the contrary, the World Bank finds Chinese manufacturing “value-added” up in dollar terms from $3.87 trillion to $4.82 trillion since 2018, and its share of the world value-added total has risen modestly as well, from 27.1% to 27.4%. In effect, as the consumer-electronics and appliance assembly work of the 2000s has moved out of China, China’s own output has shifted toward capital-intensive industrial inputs, electric vehicles, robots, and medicines.

In the United States: The U.S. is a relatively small part of this; in fact, China’s U.S. stake shrank a bit last year from $32 billion to $19 billion. (Mainly divestment of financial and real estate holdings, with some contraction in manufacturing.) About half of the current stock is in manufacturing: the Commerce Department reports 360 Chinese firms employing about 113,000 Americans, with $19 billion worth of annual output. Refrigerator and washing-machine plants in Kentucky and South Carolina, the aluminum extruder in Indiana, the automated garment factory in Arkansas, the auto parts and glass production in Ohio, Georgia, and Michigan, all illustrate the pattern. Pres. Xi’s CEO entourage presumably is getting some encouragement to add more.

So: Nobody really “won” the 2025 trade war, but China — having prepared by rewiring supply chains, outsourcing assembly, and moving up the industrial ladder — at minimum doesn’t seem to have lost. President Xi et al. are presumably pretty pleased with that outcome, and probably see a few purchase orders and investment pledges as well worth it.

FURTHER READING

The WTO Agreement:

PPI’s four principles for response to tariffs and economic isolationism:

  • Defend the Constitution and oppose rule by decree;
  • Connect tariff policy to growth, work, prices and family budgets, and living standards;
  • Stand by America’s neighbors and allies;
  • Offer a positive alternative.

Analysis:

Mary Lovely and Christine Wan of the Peterson Institute for International Economics look beneath the trade-data surface to explain the “Limits of Decoupling.”

Richard Baldwin counts Chinese manufacturing workers, finds a lot fewer than before.

How does China’s industrial economy work? IMF economists Rotunna, Ruta, and Verma tabulate subsidies, using a relatively narrow definition — basically cash grants, setting aside low-interest loans and other subsidy forms — and conclude that:

(a) Chinese subsidies made up about 1.8% of value-added in goods production between 2013 and 2023, as against 1.3% for the U.S. and 0.6% for the European Union, and were at 2.5% by early 2020s; and

(b) China spends much more than the U.S. subsidizing emerging-industry fields, e.g. EVs, robotics, advanced semiconductors, and so on, while the U.S. and EU subsidy programs are relatively heavier in agriculture and mining.

… and see Gillian Tett in the Financial Times (subs. req.) for an admiring review of this paper.

Data:

UNCTAD’s World Investment Report has figures (see the Statistical Appendix) on FDI flows and stock for all countries. The report $174 billion in Chinese FDI outflows last year, about 8% of the world’s $1.86 trillion total and behind only the U.S.’ $262 billion and Japan’s $186 billion. Hong Kong adds another $95 billion.

The Commerce Department’s Bureau of Economic Analysis’ most recent “Activities of U.S. Affiliates of Foreign Multinational Enterprises” release (out last July, with data through 2024), for snapshots of Chinese and other international firms’ U.S. investments, output, employment, trade, etc.

The WTO’s “World Trade Statistics” dashboard has exports and imports of goods and services for the world and all countries through 2025, with industry detail through 2024.

The IMF’s World Economic Outlook tracks GDP growth and lots more for the world, China, the U.S., etc..

Case studies:

Appliance-maker Hai’er’s Kentucky-based GE Appliances subsidiary.

Nanshan USA’s Indiana aluminum extrusion facility.

The Wall Street Journal reports (subs. req.) on the roughly 60 Chinese auto-parts manufacturers in the United States.

And from the government, the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States regulates FDI for security.

ABOUT ED

Ed Gresser is Vice President and Director for Trade and Global Markets at PPI.

Ed returns to PPI after working for the think tank from 2001-2011. He most recently served as the Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Trade Policy and Economics at the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR). In this position, he led USTR’s economic research unit from 2015-2021, and chaired the 21-agency Trade Policy Staff Committee.

Ed began his career on Capitol Hill before serving USTR as Policy Advisor to USTR Charlene Barshefsky from 1998 to 2001. He then led PPI’s Trade and Global Markets Project from 2001 to 2011. After PPI, he co-founded and directed the independent think tank ProgressiveEconomy until rejoining USTR in 2015. In 2013, the Washington International Trade Association presented him with its Lighthouse Award, awarded annually to an individual or group for significant contributions to trade policy.

Ed is the author of Freedom from Want: American Liberalism and the Global Economy (2007). He has published in a variety of journals and newspapers, and his research has been cited by leading academics and international organizations including the WTO, World Bank, and International Monetary Fund. He is a graduate of Stanford University and holds a Master’s Degree in International Affairs from Columbia Universities and a certificate from the Averell Harriman Institute for Advanced Study of the Soviet Union.

Read the full email and sign up for the Trade Fact of the Week.

Canter in The New York Post: Blue states with strong teachers’ unions have lower student literacy levels: study shows

Posted on by Alex Terr

[…]

The assessment was conducted by the PPI’s Director of Education Policy, Rachel Canter, who spent nearly two decades in Mississippi advocating for systemic reforms, which transformed the state’s students from having among the lowest literacy rates in the nation to having some of the highest

And Canter’s study found one overwhelming and shocking throughline — the stronger the state’s teachers’ union the worse its student literacy scores were, results which did not exclusively follow party lines but strongly trended that way and often to the detriment of Democrats.

“Democrats, however, don’t often ask me how to replicate Mississippi’s success,” Canter said. “They ask if it’s possible at all, given the power of teachers’ unions in their home states.”

One reason for the disparity, Canter argued, is that states where teacher unions have a strong grip are slower to enact better programs.

She looked at 18 literacy policies recommended by ExcelinEd and found Democratic states had undertaken nine of them on average, while Republican and swing states had adopted an average of 13.5.

“States dominated by Democrats have been slower to embrace similar reforms,” Canter said. “Organized labor might explain some of this gap.”

Canter’s successes were a meteoric transformation of Mississippi’s students — in 2013 the state had some of the worst test scores for middle and elementary students in the country, but by 2024 they had climbed to seventh in literacy and 13th in math.

[…]

Read more in The New York Post

Investment Heroes 2026: Getting Big Things Done

Posted on by Alex Terr

Published annually since 2012, PPI’s Investment Heroes report spotlights the public companies making the largest capital investments in the U.S. economy. Previous reports have focused on topics such as the relationship between higher capital investment, on the one hand, and lower inflation and faster job creation, on the other.

The main theme of this year’s report is simple: getting big things done. In recent years, Americans have become increasingly concerned that the United States has become a bumbling giant, unable to execute complex, forward-thinking projects. The result is stagnant living standards and a loss of the ability to defend ourselves.

Yet this year’s Investment Heroes report shows that America can still rise to the occasion to address our biggest economic and military challenges. By analyzing corporate financial reports, we find that the country’s top 25 Investment Heroes collectively invested $520.4 billion in the U.S. in 2025. This marks a 29.2% increase from our 2024 estimates.

The $520 billion in investment in equipment and structures spans much of the American economy, from factories and fiber networks to power grids and retailers. But the clear standout of this year’s investment is computing and the infrastructure needed to power AI. The four largest investors this year — tech firms Amazon, Alphabet, Meta, and Microsoft — collectively invested more than $269 billion in the U.S. in 2025, a 61.1% increase from their 2024 spending.

This year’s sizable investments in compute capacity are building the foundation for the expansion of AI applications beyond software and back-office efficiency. The country faces major challenges, including high costs of food, healthcare, housing, and energy; archaic government systems; and cybersecurity vulnerabilities, among others. The buildout led by this year’s Investment Heroes is creating the capacity and knowledge needed to tackle these challenges head-on.

True, many Americans are apprehensive about AI displacing human labor and possibly escaping human control. There’s a need for public vigilance and comprehensive safeguards. Moreover, data centers can bring real issues, such as electricity costs, water use, and noise. However, these concerns are manageable. As PPI has written, local and state governments have access to a selection of practical tools that minimize impacts and ensure that communities reap the benefits of the investment they host. The massive buildout of data centers, chips, transmission, and connectivity is positioning the country for growth and strategic strength.

Read the full report

Mandel in The Hill: AI Buildout Propels Tech Firms to Top of US Investment Ranking: Study

Posted on by Max Sherrill

The rapid buildout of artificial intelligence is making technology firms some of the top capital investors in the U.S., according to new research shared first with The Hill.

The report, to be published by the think tank Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) Wednesday, found tech firms Amazon, Alphabet, Meta and Microsoft invested more than half — $269 billion — of the $520 billion in U.S. capital spending last year.

Amazon tops this list, with just over $93 million in estimated domestic expenditures last year. Financial and non-health insurance companies were excluded from the analysis.

This marked a 61.1 percent increase from their spending in 2024, with analysts pointing to the increased demand for compute and the infrastructure needed to power AI. Oracle also made the top 10, spending more than $15.7 million in domestic investments.

Michael Mandel, PPI’s chief economist who runs the annual “Investment Heroes” report, told The Hill his team hasn’t “seen any great growth out of the companies that are investing in the AI boom.”

Read more in The Hill

Build Back Belief: France Update

Posted on by Alyssa Brown

RESEARCH SUMMARY

  • The National Rally in France continues to be in pole position for the next Presidential election in 2027 – whether led by Le Pen or Jordan Bardella.
  • While Le Pen is most known, Bardella has built up a reputation with voters as someone who broadens the National Rally’s appeal and has less baggage. They see him as fresh compared to Le Pen.
  • Swing voters who participated in the research were leaning towards the National Rally in the absence of a strong alternative from the centre and centre-left.
  • The voters were exercised about crime and the degradation of their localities, fearing criminal gangs and disrespect on the streets. They want to see a restoration of order, and their politicians focussed on a strong France – they see this as a zero sum game.
  • They feel there is little to lose from switching to the National Rally, despite their misgivings on economic policy and community cohesion.
  • Success for the centre/ centre left depends on offering a positive and strong alternative for these working-class voters that focusses on their priorities of local safety and patriotism / national strength.

PPI has been conducting research with voters around the world as part of its Project on Centre-Left Renewal, which aims to create a strong centre-left dialogue to fight against radical right-wing populism. Our report published in 2025, ‘Build Back Belief: how governments around the world lost trust in government and how to win it back,’ showed that centre-left parties need to win back significant numbers of the ‘working middle’ of society with examples from around the world. In June, PPI conducted focus groups of women and men in towns and cities in France, who are non-graduate swing voters currently moving from left to right. City voters were screened to have voted centre or centre left in 2026 – town voters were a mix.

Read the full update here.

Measuring AI’s Impact on Workers Requires a Better-Funded BLS

Posted on by Max Sherrill

On March 5, a bipartisan coalition of senators published a statement urging the Census Bureau and the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) to improve their “collection, analysis, and dissemination of high-quality, timely data regarding artificial intelligence.” The question of whether — and how severely — AI will displace workers has become one of the most consequential and least settled questions in contemporary labor economics.  

 Accurate data is the backbone of our national response to labor displacement. To inform public policy, business decisions, and individual career choices, the BLS needs greater funding to generate accurate, AI-specific data using modern statistical methodology.  

 Over the past year, apocalyptic statements made by tech leaders have fueled widespread concern around AI’s future role in the labor force. Microsoft AI CEO Mustafa Suleyman, for instance, predicted in early 2026 that within 18 months, nearly all white-collar work would be automated. Studies from Stanford and Brookings predict significant disruption to white-collar employment. Meanwhile, reports from the Yale Budget Lab (YBL), the European Investment Bank (EIB), and Goldman Sachs assessed more moderate improvements in productivity.  

 For example, the EIB report found that firms that adopted AI increased labor productivity by 4%, with no adverse effects on their employment. The YBL report concluded that in the first 33 months since ChatGPT’s release in November 2022, there has been no major economic disruption in the labor market. By contrast, the Stanford study measured a 16% relative decline in employment among early-career workers aged 22 to 25 between 2022 and 2025. Additionally, it found that employment growth for young workers has been stagnant, with substantial declines in occupations heavily exposed to AI. In 2024, Brookings advocated for a working paper by the University of Pennsylvania and OpenAI with similar results, which estimated that roughly 19% of U.S. workers are in occupations where at least half of their tasks could be disrupted by generative AI.  

 The EIB used data from 12,000 firms across the EU and 800 firms in the United States. But in general, most of these studies rely heavily on data from the BLS, including Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS), the Current Population Survey (CPS), and the Department of Labor’s O*NET task database. Key surveys for labor force statistics, like the CPS, are jointly sponsored by the Census Bureau and the BLS. 

 The BLS publishes 10-year occupational projections annually, but the agency itself acknowledges its projection methods are “not designed to capture extremely rapid technological change.” To enable the best possible decision-making by national stakeholders, better labor projections and data are both indispensable. 

 In November 2025, the Census Bureau added AI questions to the Business Trends and Outlook Survey (BTOS), a necessary starting point for the collection of AI-specific data. The BLS states clearly that the CPS needs modernization, as a response to both declining response rates and lack of AI-specific data. In April 2026, the BLS outlined what this modernization should look like:  

 The BLS has already begun the implementation of the internet self-response (ISR) instrument, which would run in conjunction with the CPS and provide critical additional data. The adoption of the internet survey response instrument and parallel surveys, as recommended in their report, addresses lower response rates and insufficient AI data. These modernization efforts go hand in hand with existing economic literature on AI data best practices. Common practices include the use of task-based AI exposure scores and LLM-based task annotations, which better capture the changing scope of AI’s impacts. Reform proposals tend to call for expanded data collection and better frameworks to process it. This proposal would cost an additional $60 million a year in funding. Currently, however, the agencies are unable to conduct testing at the scale necessary to ensure the accuracy of the new surveys due to funding constraints. 

 The big picture: The real (inflation-adjusted) funding for the BLS has declined by 13.8% since 2016. In January 2025, the BLS almost resorted to cutting the sample size of the CPS until a last-minute revision was made to the continuing resolution that allowed the BLS to spend CPS funds at a faster rate. The gravity of these potential cuts prompted two former BLS commissioners to urgently call upon Congress for funding.  

Fiscal Year  Nominal Spending ($K)  Real Spending (FY2025 $K) 
FY2016  609,000  816,907 
FY2017  609,000  799,867 
FY2018  612,000  784,642 
FY2019  615,000  774,455 
FY2020  655,000  814,775 
FY2021  655,000  778,214 
FY2022  687,952  756,800 
FY2023  697,952  737,444 
FY2024  697,952  716,317 
FY2025  703,952  703,952 
FY2026 (request)  647,952  631,981 
Change from FY2016  Nominal  Real 
FY2025 vs. FY2016  +15.6% (+$94,952K)  −13.8% (−$112,955K) 
FY2026 request vs. FY2016  +6.4% (+$38,952K)  −22.6% (−$184,926K) 

 For FY2026, the Trump administration’s budget request would be a $56 million decrease from the FY2025 budget, citing proposed reorganization efforts that would save money and move the BLS under the Department of Commerce. This sharp drop in necessary funding would almost guarantee furloughs and a stark decrease in the quantity and quality of BLS data at the moment it is needed most. 

 The BLS funding decline makes it difficult to maintain current operations, let alone respond to potential AI-induced labor volatility. For the BLS to generate concrete employment data in the world of AI, it will take funding to hire data scientists with AI expertise, to train existing staff on new tools and methodologies, and to secure reliable data-sharing agreements with private sector partners.  

 These reforms are essential. Without them, the labor market will remain impossible to measure accurately for the foreseeable future. Timely labor statistics are an invaluable asset when fast-paced economic conditions arise, so now more than ever it is necessary for the federal government to invest in its statistical agencies.

The Physical AI State of Play

Posted on by Max Sherrill

AI has embedded itself in America’s digital industries, such as software, finance, and entertainment. But for AI to raise productivity across the broader economy, efficiency and cost gains must extend to the physical industries that build homes, manufacture goods, and produce our food. Now, so-called “physical” AI is beginning to enable robots, machinery, and self-driving cars to perceive, reason, and perform actions in the physical world.

That’s essential. Physical industries such as construction, manufacturing, and agriculture have suffered from years of lagging productivity growth, along with a deep and worsening skilled-labor shortage. The good news is that the growth of AI in these industries may be accelerated by a collapse in sensor costs and dramatic increases in the quality of AI physics simulations. Across this dispersed and uneven frontier, machines that can perceive, reason, and understand physics may soon bring AI into new markets.

As with all technology-driven productivity, small improvements often seem like individual stepping stones until a full path is revealed. No one can promise hockey-stick-style exponential growth, but should it arrive, the effects on the cost of living and our politics would be profound. This brief will explore the state of play for physical AI across three critical sectors, construction, manufacturing, and agriculture, and consider what lies ahead for each.

Construction

The construction sector in the United States has been plagued by falling productivity since its peak in the late 1960s. Over the past twenty years alone, construction output per hour has fallen by 8%, while output per hour in the overall nonfarm business sector has risen by 40%.

Not unrelated, falling productivity is a key reason why prices in the construction sector have risen far faster than the overall inflation rate. From 2005 to 2025, the construction price index rose by 117%, double the 58% price increase for the economy as a whole.

Amid a lack of R&D in construction equipment, stringent land-use regulations, and a dearth of economies of scale, the construction industry’s plight has played its part in fueling the cost-of-living crisis. In simple terms, America would’ve gotten more bang for its construction buck, meaning more homes, factories, hospitals, and infrastructure from the same spending.

As a result, the output of the construction industry today is lower than in 2005 in real terms. Had construction prices risen at the same rate as the prices of the overall economy, the same nominal spending would have corresponded to a real construction output 30% above its 2005 level.

Physical AI could increase workers’ output through autonomous machinery. Among the many pioneers in the field, Bedrock Robotics has begun retrofitting excavators and bulldozers with lidar (Light Detection and Ranging) sensors, GPS, and cameras. Their package, titled the Bedrock Operator, completed the industry’s largest supervised-autonomous excavation on a 130-acre site. The start-up is targeting fully operator-less excavators in 2026 after its $270M Series B fundraiser, with total funding above $350M. Additionally, Built Robotics’ solar panel pile driver automates utility-scale solar pile driving: repetitive, precise, dangerous work where autonomy wins on cost and safety.

Caterpillar unveiled a generation of autonomous excavators, dozers, haul trucks, and compactors at CES 2026. This next generation of heavy equipment can work faster, longer, and more safely than human-operated equipment. WLTR, Wall Laying Terra-Based Robot, the brick-laying bot from GreenBuild, lays 108 square feet of brick per hour, roughly the output of five bricklayers, and requires the supervision of a worker from a safe distance. The robot uses glue instead of the carbon-intensive cement, which accounts for 7-8% of the world’s carbon emissions. Fastbrick Robotics (FBR) is pioneering similar bricklaying robotics, with successful Wall as a Service (WaaS) projects completed in Florida via their advanced construction robot, Hadrian. Hadrian is capable of building the load-bearing walls of a house, both external and internal, up to 360 blocks per hour, in less than a day.

By adopting these technologies, the construction industry can improve safety and output. To operate these novel technologies, workers must be upskilled and shifted towards higher-productivity, safer supervisory roles. Construction workers could become the managers of an AI-enhanced fleet of heavy equipment, shielded from environmental hazards and chronic injuries.

Manufacturing

U.S. manufacturing productivity, as measured by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, has been basically flat for the past 15 years. The issues in manufacturing are multifaceted, including geographic disparities, wage stagnation, competitive threats from China, and tariffs. Physical AI offers a chance to rapidly expand U.S. manufacturing capacity, develop more competitive products, and create stable, high-paying jobs.

First Solar, a solar manufacturer, has embraced physical AI across its production process. By utilizing AI computer vision in its newest Louisiana factory, deep learning tools spot defects and guide technicians to make real-time adjustments. The factory has a fully integrated production process and directly employs over 825 people. Average compensation sits at around $90,000, close to triple the area’s per capita income. First Solar is expected to produce more than 14 GW of solar capacity in 2026, with more than 17 GW of capacity when all five of its facilities are operational.

ABB Robotics and NVIDIA recently launched the integrated NVIDIA Omniverse simulation into RobotStudio (“HyperReality”), a physics simulation model for robotics, claiming to reduce costs by up to 40% while also accelerating time-to-market by 50%. Foxconn plans to pilot this in electronics assembly; the release to ABB’s 60,000 customers is scheduled for the second half of 2026.

Automaker giant Stellantis, NVIDIA, and Accenture are deploying AI digital twins across global plants. Digital twins pair physical production with an AI physics simulation of production to create a “predictive and autonomous” model driven by real-time data. In June 2026, LG and NVIDIA announced an AI-factory partnership that embeds NVIDIA’s robotics and physics models (Isaac, Cosmos, and GR00T) into LG’s “PhysicalWorks” robotics platform to connect procurement through delivery in real time. These NVIDIA models connect real-world information and visual data, robotics platforms for inference, and physics simulations to drive efficiency and increase safety. AI-powered robotics manufacturer MiR shipped the MiR1200 Pallet Jack, an AI pallet handler trained on 1.2M images that autonomously identifies, lifts, and delivers pallets in live warehouses. As with construction, physical AI’s integration with American manufacturing has been plant-by-plant rather than sector-wide, but the tools for widespread adoption are now commercial.

Agriculture

U.S. agricultural total factor productivity rose by only 1% from 2013 to 2023, according to the latest data available from the Economic Research Service at the Department of Agriculture. By contrast, agricultural TFP rose by 17% in the preceding 10 years (TFP measures output relative to all major inputs, whereas labor productivity measures output only relative to labor input).

Within the sector, impediments to further productivity growth remain, particularly for soft-flesh fruits such as berries, avocados, and tomatoes, which require hand-picking. Immigrant fruit pickers have been the backbone of this workforce. Recent policies from the Trump administration regarding ICE raids have raised questions about the labor supply of agricultural workers. Agricultural Secretary Brooke Rollins announced changes to the H2A visa program, effectively cutting the wages of workers between $1 and $7 per hour, depending on the state. The net effect of these policy changes remains to be seen. Still, the effective wage cuts create disincentives to innovation and automation, while questions remain about whether the labor demand will be met.

Either way, physical AI presents an opportunity to increase productivity and lower costs, which can translate into lower grocery bills for Americans. Monarch Tractor sells an autonomous, driver-optional electric tractor for specialty crops. Agtonomy and Kubota unveiled their line of autonomous tractors at CES 2025. The Agrobot E-Series is an electric, autonomous strawberry harvester that uses up to 24 decentralized robotic arms, each equipped with real-time AI, advanced vision sensors, and onboard graphics processing units, to assess and gently pick fruit without damaging it. The Agrobot E-Series illustrates how integrating sensor-based safety systems and automated labor solutions can bolster domestic agricultural supply chains, mitigate chronic farm labor shortages, and enhance worker safety.

Additionally, Carbon Robotics’ LaserWeeder uses computer vision to kill weeds without chemicals. John Deere has also developed its own line of autonomous tractors, equipped with 16 cameras, advanced computer vision, and remote-control capabilities for farmers via a smartphone app. The company has also developed a retrofitting kit that converts the 8R and 9R series into fully autonomous machinery. Although current use cases are primarily tilling, the company has also expanded into autonomous orchard tractors and commercial landscaping.

Policy Framework

To boost adoption, physical AI needs a policy framework that expands access to technology and establishes regulatory clarity for producers and users. Key initiatives could include a refundable adoption credit for small- and medium-sized enterprises, specifically targeting robotics-as-a-service in housing and specialty-crop production, so adoption isn’t tied exclusively to ownership. Regulatory clarity should also be built into an autonomous-vehicle framework for job sites; for example, by building on the BUILD America 250 Act and directing OSHA and NIST to develop rigorous safety and interoperability standards. Finally, restoring federal R&D funding to pre-2025 levels and indexing it for inflation would help sustain innovation.

Physical AI has yet to show clear effects on productivity or labor markets. No one can be sure when, or if, we are headed for a hockey-stick moment. Similar quiet progress occurred in generative AI during the years prior to the ChatGPT moment. Across construction sites, factory floors, and farm fields, the pieces are already in play. If the stepping stones connect, physical AI could raise output and lower costs across America’s physical industries, passing savings along to Americans through more affordable food, housing, and manufactured goods. Policymakers would be wise to adopt a proactive framework that allows physical AI to flourish, rather than a reactive one.

Mandel and Pearson on Radically Pragmatic: At Least AI Isn’t Killing Jobs — Yet

Posted on by Alyssa Brown

AI has the potential to disrupt the labor market, but we haven’t seen any evidence of that yet.

Before the public began to worry in recent weeks that AI would destroy humanity altogether, we mostly worried it would take our jobs. For the past several years, we’ve heard a stream of corporate executives and economists warning about the looming AI employment apocalypse. The media seized on tech layoffs and a spike in the youth unemployment rate in 2025 as the first signs of the great job disappearance.

But in reality, economists are seeing few signs of AI disruption in the labor market. Youth unemployment fell to 7.1% in August 2026, down from an average of 8.3% in 2025. Employment in computer and mathematical occupations such as software developers and information security specialists reached an all-time high in August, according to government surveys. And overall private employment keeps climbing month after month, buoyed in part by data center spending, which is pushing up demand and wages for occupations such as electricians.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) recently released its assessment of which occupations had “very high,” “high,” “moderate,” and “low” exposure to AI. The BLS warns that “[a]n exposure category is not a forecast of employment growth or decline.”

Indeed, many occupations that have “very high” or “high” exposure to AI grew over the past year, while other occupations with “low” exposure to AI are shrinking. For example, in the first eight months of 2026 compared to the first eight months of 2025, employment is up by 1.3% in computer and mathematical occupations (which include computer programmers, software developers, data scientists, and mathematicians), all of which uniformly have “very high” exposure to AI. Similarly, employment is up by 1.7% in architectural and engineering occupations, all with high or very high exposure to AI. Employment is up by 1.8% in life, physical, and social science occupations (which include biologists, physicists, historians, and economists), almost all of which have high or very high exposure to AI.

Continue reading on Substack.

Change Britain Build Back Belief: UK Update

Posted on by Alyssa Brown

INTRODUCTION

Across developed democracies, many feel an increasingly powerful sense of injustice that the economy and society no longer work for people like them, and that government is not on their side. This sentiment is fuelling support for right-wing national populists who promise easy solutions, yet, once in power, increase societal division and chaos.

PPI’s project on centre-left renewal began in 2023 to exchange ideas, strategies, and tactics for making centre-left parties more competitive and improve their governing performance. Successful strategies have all had a sharp focus on a change agenda for working-class voters — what we termed the “working middle” in our original research published in July 2025 as people who felt they were working harder and harder yet felt that ‘business as usual’ politics and economics wasn’t working for them, personified by strong candidates who displayed their conviction and ability to deliver for them.

Our research with working-class voters in the US, UK, Australia, Germany and France shows that they are crying out for change and for strong politicians who are willing to do what it takes to make that change happen. This report updates our original research with a deep dive into the UK, with polling and focus groups conducted in July 2026, just before Andy Burnham became Prime Minister to understand the hopes and fears of the voters who have been moving away from Labour since it was elected just two years ago.

We found that the frustration voters felt deeply before electing Labour had intensified, after PPI’s project on centre-left renewal began in 2023 to exchange ideas, strategies, and tactics for making centre-left parties more competitive and improve their governing performance. Successful strategies have all had a sharp focus on a change agenda for working-class voters — what we termed the “working middle” in our original research published in July 2025 as people who felt they were working harder and harder yet felt that ‘business as usual’ politics and economics wasn’t working for them, personified by strong candidates who displayed their conviction and ability to deliver for them. what they deemed a disappointing tenure by Keir Starmer’s new government. Many working-class voters who had given Labour their support in 2024 were planning to vote for other parties, from Reform UK, to the Greens. In this UK update, we outline what this means for the centre-left in the UK, and the lessons others around the world can draw as they seek to represent the change these voters are looking for.

Read the full report.

PPI Brief Urges Court to Strike Down Trump’s Forced-Labor Tariffs

Posted on by Alex Terr

WASHINGTON (September 14, 2026) — The Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) filed a friend-of-the-court brief Friday urging the U.S. Court of International Trade to strike down the Trump administration’s Section 301 tariffs on goods from 60 countries, arguing that the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) never showed that the countries actually import forced-labor goods, or that such imports burden American commerce.

The brief, filed in In Re Section 301 Forced Labor Cases (Court No. 26-cv-3555-3JP) by Nithya Nagarajan of Husch Blackwell on behalf of PPI and Ed Gresser, Vice President and Director for Trade and Global Markets at PPI, supports two groups of small businesses and a coalition of 25 Democratic state attorneys general who separately sued to challenge the tariffs. The Court of International Trade, which ruled last year that the administration’s separate emergency-powers tariffs exceeded presidential authority, is scheduled to hear oral arguments in the forced-labor imports case September 30.

On July 23, USTR imposed tariffs of 10% to 12.5% on goods from the 60 economies, which together supply 99% of U.S. imports, asserting that these countries either lack laws banning forced-labor imports comparable to America’s or else fail to sufficiently enforce the laws they do have.

In order to impose tariffs under Section 301, an administration must demonstrate that a foreign government’s “unreasonable” policies impose a “burden” on U.S. commerce. PPI’s brief points out that the Trump administration’s tariff order entirely fails to do this, since it neither presents evidence that any of the 60 targeted countries actually import forced-labor goods, nor proves that such imports would “burden” U.S. commerce. PPI estimates the tariff, if upheld, will cost Americans roughly $100 billion a year, nearly 100 times the $1.3 billion in goods Customs and Border Protection has blocked annually, on average, over the last five years on suspicion of forced-labor content.

“Section 301 does not authorize any general tariff increase of this sort,” said Gresser, “and any administration hoping to use it to impose tariffs on goods from specific countries must show clear evidence of actual policies imposing a ‘burden’ on U.S. commerce and demonstrate these policies’ real-world economic harm. Since, as our Amicus brief shows, the Trump administration has done neither of these things, it has no right to impose these tariffs.”

PPI’s Amicus brief concludes by affirming that “forced labor is an egregious abuse of human rights, and U.S. policy has an important role to play in eliminating it at home and worldwide,” and urging the U.S. government, once the Burlap and Barrel case has closed, to “return to vigorous support for forced-labor remediation and eradication abroad and at home, and cooperation with governments seeking to improve their laws and implementation.”

Read the amicus brief here.

Founded in 1989, PPI is a catalyst for policy innovation and political reform based in Washington, D.C. Its mission is to create radically pragmatic ideas for moving America beyond ideological and partisan deadlock. Find an expert and learn more about PPI by visiting progressivepolicy.org. Follow us at @ppi.

###

Media Contact: Ian O’Keefe – iokeefe@ppionline.org

Manno for DatiaK12: What Happens When You Ask Students About AI And They Tell You the Truth?

Posted on by Max Sherrill

The devices are winning. Grades are covering for it.

Three-quarters of high school students say they misuse technology during class every day. A quarter say they’ve used AI to help them during a quiz or a test, an activity that’s supposed to measure what a student actually knows.

Those numbers come from a new Thomas B. Fordham Institute survey of just over 2,000 current and recent high schoolers.

The report is worth more than passing attention because the findings aren’t coming from watchdog researchers or worried parents. They’re coming from students, describing their own classrooms.

The picture the survey builds isn’t really about phones, or even about AI on its own. It’s about how those two things interact with school-issued devices and with grading policy to erase whatever used to keep them in check.

Two-thirds of students say YouTube is freely accessible on their school laptop. Nearly half say they’ve used AI to solve math problems outright, more than a third to summarize a book so they don’t have to read it, and a quarter to help during an exam.

Sixty-two percent of students spend the majority of their class time on a school-issued device. The more time students spend on those devices, the more likely they are to believe missing class won’t hurt their grade.

Meanwhile, the guardrails that might offset all of this are thin. Twenty-nine percent of students say they get partial credit for assignments they never turned in. Most say they can retake a test at least once if they don’t like their score.

All this taken together makes this more than just another AI story. It becomes a story about trust in the K-12 public education system.

Read more in Datia K12

 

PPI Urges Senators to Reject CLARITY Act Over Lack of Money-Laundering and Ethics Safeguards

Posted on by Alex Terr

WASHINGTON (September 14, 2026) — Today, Paul Weinstein Jr., Senior Fellow at the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI), released the following statement regarding the upcoming Senate vote on the CLARITY Act, scheduled for September 15:

“PPI would welcome considerably more clarity with regards to the crypto industry. Unfortunately, the so-called CLARITY Act fails to provide it. Despite some last minute concessions by Republicans, the bill still falls short of providing robust money-laundering and ethics safeguards needed to crack down on illicit activities and corruption. Just as concerning, the bill fails to permanently close the deposit interest loophole that would drain deposits from community banks that serve as the primary source of credit for Main Street America.

“PPI encourages senators to vote against the CLARITY Act as currently constructed, and work to develop legislation that would actually provide the safeguards needed to create a robust stablecoin sector.”

Founded in 1989, PPI is a catalyst for policy innovation and political reform based in Washington, D.C. Its mission is to create radically pragmatic ideas for moving America beyond ideological and partisan deadlock. Find an expert and learn more about PPI by visiting progressivepolicy.org. Follow us at @ppi.

###

Media Contact: Ian O’Keefe – iokeefe@ppionline.org