Data is, logically enough, one of the pillars supporting the modern digital economy. It is, however, not terribly useful on its own. Only once it has been collected, analyzed, combined, and deployed in novel ways does data obtain its highest utility. This is to say, a large part of the value of data is its ability to flow throughout the global connected economy in real time, permitting individuals and firms to develop novel insights that would not otherwise be possible, and to operate at a higher level of efficiency and safety.
Although the global transmission of data is critical to every industry and scientific endeavor, those data flows increasingly run into barriers of various sorts when they seek to cross national borders. Most typically, these barriers take the form of data-localization requirements.
Data localization is an umbrella term that refers to a variety of requirements that nations set to govern how data is created, stored, and transmitted within their jurisdiction. The aim of data-localization policies is to restrict the flow of data across a nation’s borders, often justified on grounds of protecting national security interests and/or sensitive information about citizens.
Data-localization requirements have in recent years been at the center of a series of legal disputes between the United States and the European Union (EU) that potentially threaten the future of transatlantic data flows. In October 2015, in a decision known as Schrems I, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) overturned the International Safe Harbor Privacy Principles, which had for the prior 15 years governed customer data transmitted between the United States and the EU. The principles were replaced in February 2016 by a new framework agreement known as the EU–US Privacy Shield, until the CJEU declared that, too, to be invalid in a July 2020 decision known as Schrems II. (Both complaints were brought by Austrian privacy advocate Max Schrems).
The current threatened disruption to transatlantic data flows highlights the size of the problem caused by data-localization policies. According to one estimate, transatlantic trade generates upward of $5.6 trillion in annual commercial sales, of which at least $333 billion is related to digitally enabled services. Some estimates suggest that moderate increases in data-localization requirements would result in a €116 billion reduction in exports from the EU.
One difficulty in precisely quantifying the full impact of strict data-localization practices is that the list of industries engaged in digitally enabled trade extends well beyond those that explicitly trade in data. This is because “it is increasingly difficult to separate services and goods with the rise of the ‘Internet of Things’ and the greater bundling of goods and services. At the same time, goods are being substituted by services … further shifting the regulatory boundaries between what is treated as goods and services.” Thus, there is reason to believe that the true value of digitally enabled trade to the global economy is underestimated.
Moreover, as we discuss infra, there is reason to suspect that data flows and digitally enabled trade have contributed a good deal of unmeasured economic activity that partially offsets the lower-than- expected measured productivity growth seen in the both the European Union and the United States over the last decade and a half. In particular, heavy investment in research and development by firms globally has facilitated substituting the relatively more efficient work of employees at firms for unpaid labor by individuals. And global data flows have facilitated the creation of larger, more efficient worldwide networks that optimize time use by firms and individuals, and the development of resilient networks that can withstand shocks to the system like the COVID-19 pandemic.
Recently, the Progressive Policy Institute’s Center for Funding America’s Future released a focused blueprint for delivering on President Biden’s promise to Build Back Better while addressing the concerns of moderates who cannot support $3.5 trillion of new spending. The report is titled, “Reconciling with Reality: The top priorities for building back better,” and is authored by Ben Ritz, Director of the Center for Funding America’s Future. Ben Ritz joined the Radically Pragmatic podcast to give listeners a walk through of the current state of play in Congress, top priorities for building back better, and how PPI’s must-read blueprint offers a bold and pragmatic solution to the current stalemate. Jeremiah Johnson, Policy Director for the Center for New Liberalism, also joined the conversation and offered his insight into the fast-changing situation.
Some background on what’s going on: The bipartisan infrastructure bill passed by the U.S. Senate in August remains snagged by internal disagreements among Congressional Democrats about the size and cost of the follow-on social investment package party leaders hope to pass with reconciliation riles that are not subject to a Republican filibuster. Democrats will likely need to reach a compromise on the reconciliation package by October 31st so they can pass the infrastructure bill before funding for the nation’s highway program expires.
Even as Congressional Democrats on both the left and center continue to bargain over the scope of President Biden’s “Build Back Better” economic, climate, and social funding plans, North Carolina’s Democratic Governor Roy Cooper has forged an agreement on a major climate change bill with Republicans in the state legislature. The legislation will likely be considered by both the North Carolina Senate and House later this week.
Gov. Cooper was able to achieve significant climate improvements in the legislation supported by Republicans through tough negotiations, including increasing the greenhouse gas emissions reductions under the bill from 64% to a remarkable 70% by the end of this decade. The legislation will shut down five high-polluting major coal-fired power plants, grow renewable energy substantially by least 4,700 megawatts over the next decade (enough to power millions of homes), and fund planning for a possible new advanced nuclear power plant within the state.
Importantly, Gov. Cooper was able to retain the regulatory authority of the North Carolina Public Utilities Commission while also guaranteeing that they follow least cost guidelines in setting consumer rates. In particular, the governor insisted on stripping out mandates limiting the Commission’s options regarding what kind of generation would replace the retired coal plants, allowing the Commission to determine which new sources of power can best keep costs down, cut emissions, and ensure consumer electricity reliability. The legislation is expected to create thousands of new jobs over the next decade, while also including assistance for low-income households.
It is worth remembering that President Biden also gained bipartisan support in the U.S. Senate for his major infrastructure bill, that contains a series of major climate change measures. And it is notable that many of the 19 Senate Republicans who voted for the infrastructure bill have lobbied their House Republican colleagues to support the measure over the objections of the House Republican leadership. Congressional negotiations now hinge on getting agreement among moderates and liberals on the scope of the climate, economic, and social legislation using the budget reconciliation process.
President Biden has indicated that the scope of the reconciliation legislation may include between $1.9 and $2.3 trillion in overall funding. The Progressive Policy Institute has issued a detailed budget proposal which includes $600 billion in climate change funding as well as other key economic and social priorities for a total about $2 trillion, written by PPI budget expert Ben Ritz and PPI President Will Marshall. It is a principled compromise emphasizing inclusion of key programs that will be most helpful to the American people, and one that Congressional Democrats on both left and center should consult closely as they attempt to rapidly conclude their own negotiations. And they should also take inspiration from the important and ambitious climate change work of Governor Cooper and his colleagues in North Carolina.
Rather than cutting corners and using gimmicks to cram the entire progressive wish list into a smaller bill, PPI believes the party’s goal should be a more focused and disciplined reconciliation bill that sets clear priorities and accomplishes a few big objectives well. Specifically, this report outlines a bold plan to deliver on three urgent priorities of the Democratic party within the confines of a roughly $2 trillion bill: supporting working families, combating climate change, and expanding access to affordable health care for those in need.
“Despite the drama last week, President Biden and Democrats in Congress can still deliver the historic economic and social investments they promised during the campaign — but they need to spend smarter, not just bigger. Our blueprint is a reality-based approach to crafting the reconciliation bill, which will allow for an enormous advance of progressive government. Now is the time for the party to come together and show America they can govern,” said Ben Ritz, Director of the Center for Funding America’s Future.
“We urge Democrats to compromise around a set of urgent priorities the American people can understand, develop a consensus plan to fully pay for it, and work in a radically pragmatic spirit to get this big progressive win across the finish line. That’s the best way to help President Biden and their party deliver for the American people,” said Will Marshall, President of the Progressive Policy Institute.
The bipartisan infrastructure bill passed by the U.S. Senate in August remains snagged by internal disagreements among Congressional Democrats about the size and cost of the follow-on social investment package party leaders hope to pass with reconciliation rules that are not subject to a Republican filibuster. Democrats will likely need to reach a compromise on the reconciliation package by October 31st so they can pass the infrastructure bill before funding for the nation’s highway program expires.
The Progressive Policy Institute (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. Learn more about PPI by visiting progressivepolicy.org.
Launched in 2018, PPI’s Center for Funding America’s Futureworks to promote a fiscally responsible public investment agenda that fosters robust and inclusive economic growth. We tackle issues of public finance in the United States and offer innovative proposals to strengthen the foundation of our economy and build shared prosperity.
The White House and Congressional Democrats are at a pivotal moment in their long-running effort to turn President Biden’s ambitious “Build Back Better” vision into law. The bipartisan infrastructure bill passed by the U.S. Senate in August remains snagged by internal disagreements among Congressional Democrats about the size and cost of the follow-on social investment package party leaders hope to pass with reconciliation rules that are not subject to a Republican filibuster. Democrats will likely need to reach a compromise on the reconciliation package by October 31st so they can pass the infrastructure bill before funding for the nation’s highway program expires.
Though cast as a power struggle between the progressive left and the pragmatic center, what’s happening on Capitol Hill is actually a reconciliation with legislative reality. Democrats can only afford to lose three votes in the House of Representatives and have no margin of error in the Senate, where at least two Members, Sens. Joe Manchin, D-W. Va., and Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., already have made it clear they won’t support a $3.5 trillion bill. Many Democrats in the House have concerns as well. Accordingly, President Biden says negotiators are now aiming for a final package that will likely cost between $1.9 trillion and $2.3 trillion.
Some progressives are trying to make their whole wish list fit within this budget constraint by setting arbitrary dates for programs to expire, as Republicans did to disguise the true cost of their 2001, 2003, and 2017 tax cut bills. For example, rather than spend $225 billion every year in the 10-year window, the package envisioned by the left might spend $450 billion each year for five years before abruptly expiring.
But this approach would be deeply problematic. As Rep. Ron Kind, D-Wisc., noted in a recent op-ed, “funding programs for two to three years at a time only creates uncertainty and unnecessary fiscal cliffs.” In the worst-case scenario, a Republican Congress could allow programs to expire, which would upend the Biden legacy while pulling the rug out from people who planned their lives around new benefits.
Rep. Suzan DelBene, D-Wa., chair of the moderate New Democrat Coalition in the House, further explained why such a package wouldn’t alleviate the fiscal concerns of many pragmatic Democrats: “If you assume that you’re going to do something short term just to make it look like it’s going to fit in a particular budget window, for a particular piece of legislation, but you assume it’s going to be renewed later, then you aren’t really being honest about what your long-term budget goals are.”
Fortunately, Democrats can still deliver historic economic and social investments that the country needs by spending smarter, not just bigger. The goal should be a more focused and disciplined reconciliation bill that sets clear priorities and accomplishes a few big objectives well instead of haphazardly trying to do everything at once. Specifically, PPI believes that lawmakers should focus on delivering three urgent priorities effectively: supporting working families, combating climate change, and expanding access to affordable health care for those in need. As President Biden has promised, the package should also be fully paid-for with credible offsets.
There can be no doubt that a bill along these lines would constitute an enormous advance for progressive government. When combined with the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan and the $550 billion bipartisan infrastructure bill, this package would represent the third pillar of the largest and most progressive public investment since the Great Society over 50 years ago. These landmark legislative accomplishments would constitute a clear and indisputable victory for President Biden’s vision and a win for Democrats of all stripes.
Here’s what a roughly $2 trillion package should include:
Supporting Working Families ($975 billion)
The American Rescue Plan increased the value of the Child Tax Credit and made the full value of the credit available to low-income families for the first time ever. This policy change has helped cut child poverty in half for 2021 and directly empowered parents to support their children without having to rely on siloed and difficult-to-access welfare bureaucracies. PPI has previously proposed a framework for making the full expansion permanent that would cost just over $800 billion. However, Congress could adopt a smaller expansion of the CTC and redirect the funds for other programs that support working families. This approach is sensible because making the CTC fully available to low-income families both does more to reduce poverty and costs less than increasing the CTC’s total value.
In addition to permanently expanding the CTC, Democrats should invest in our children’s education by making preschool, which is shown to dramatically increase a child’s lifetime earnings, universally available to three- and four-year olds. The cost of universal preschool should be reduced by either means-testing it or requiring high-income school districts to help cover the cost of this program.
PPI also believes Washington should stop underinvesting in non-college workers by creating multiple pathways to middle-class jobs, including new investments in apprenticeships and “last mile” job training initiatives. Finally, lawmakers could offer new parents a flat paid parental leave benefit that future Congresses could expand into a full paid family and medical leave program if they are willing to consider a broader menu of offsets to pay for it.
Combating the Climate Crisis ($600 billion)
The bipartisan infrastructure bill that passed the Senate in August offered a strong down payment on tackling the climate crisis, including funding for public transit, energy grid modernization, and carbon capture demonstration projects, but far more needs to be done. The follow-up bill should include a package of well-designed tax credits similar to the one produced by the Senate Finance Committee that would encourage the adoption of affordable electric vehicles and other green technologies. It should also fund meaningful climate resilience projects and additional investments in breakthrough technologies such as carbon capture, hydrogen energy, geothermal energy, and advanced nuclear power.
Another top priority is the Clean Energy Payment Program (CEPP) that would provide subsidies for electric utilities that increase the share of clean energy they produce by 4% each year while charging smaller penalties for those that do not. These provisions could be responsible for almost two-thirds of the emissions reductions sought by President Biden. However, the CEPP has run into concerns from Sen. Manchin and it may run afoul of the Byrd rule that governs what policies can be passed through the reconciliation process that allows Democrats to circumvent a Republican filibuster.
Climate change poses a large and growing threat to our economy, so even if the CEPP cannot be included in the package, it must be replaced by another policy to accomplish the same objective. PPI has long advocated for a carbon tax, possibly paired with rebates to mitigate the burden on low- and middle-income families. Some portion of the revenue could also be earmarked for funding additional investments in research and development to promote innovation and technology growth.
Strengthening the Affordable Care Act ($425 billion)
Some progressives in Congress, led by Sen. Sanders (I-Vt.), insist that America’s top health care priority should be expanding Medicare to cover dental, hearing, and vision benefits, which would cost more than $800 billion in the 10-year period after being fully phased-in. But it hardly seems “progressive” to provide more generous coverage for Medicare beneficiaries when millions of Americans have no health coverage at all — especially considering that the majority of seniors already have coverage for these services through Medicare Advantage or supplemental Medigap plans.
Instead, PPI believes Democrats should back Speaker Pelosi’s call for building on the Affordable Care Act by making some share of the American Rescue Plan’s expansion of insurance subsidies for middle-income households permanent and by providing coverage to the more than 2.2 million uninsured people who should be eligible for Medicaid in the 12 states that have yet to expand the program. These provisions to expand coverage should also be paired with policies to address the out-of-control growth of health care costs, such as price caps or a national public option, to both reduce the net cost of these provisions and make health care more affordable for all Americans. Any expansion of Medicare should be fully financed by income-based premiums or dropped altogether so it does not draw critical resources away from the other priorities in this package.
Conclusion
In addition to the Sanders Medicare expansion, PPI’s reconciliation framework omits some major elements of Biden’s original Build Back Better blueprint, including more public support for child and elder care, community colleges, and more. Their absence here doesn’t necessarily mean these priorities are unworthy of Democrats’ support, but rather reflects the political imperative of fashioning a compromise package that can unite the party’s diverse coalition. It is also critical that lawmakers avoid the temptation to waste limited funds on other parochial priorities, such as cutting taxes for their rich constituents by weakening or repealing the SALT cap, when so many more-worthy priorities are left unfulfilled.
Passing both the infrastructure and social investment bills has become a critical test of Democrats’ ability to govern. We urge Democrats to compromise around a set of urgent priorities the American people can understand, develop a consensus plan to pay for it, and work in a radically pragmatic spirit to get this big progressive win across the finish line. That’s the best way to help President Biden and their party deliver for the American people.
Ben Ritz is the Director of PPI’s Center for Funding America’s Future. He previously staffed the Bipartisan Policy Center’s Economic Policy Project and served as Legislative Outreach Director for The Concord Coalition. Ben earned his Master’s of Public Policy Analysis and a Graduate Certificate of Public Finance from American University, where he also previously completed his undergraduate education. Follow him on Twitter: @BudgetBen
About the PPI Center for Funding America’s Future:
The PPI Center for Funding America’s Future works to promote a fiscally responsible public investment agenda that fosters robust and inclusive economic growth. We tackle issues of public finance in the United States and offer innovative proposals to strengthen the foundation of our economy and build shared prosperity.
On this segment of Talk Policy, Director of Social Policy Veronica Goodman sits down with Stephanie Malia-Krauss, educator, social worker, researcher and writer, to discuss her new book, “Making It: What Today’s Kids Need for Tomorrow’s World,” and what young people need in the first quarter of life to succeed. Stephanie also talks about how her early educational experiences led her to an unexpected field of study and expertise.
Learn more about the Progressive Policy Institute here.
Today, the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) announced that Edward “Ed” Gresser will join PPI as the Vice President of Trade and Global Markets policy. 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.
“PPI is thrilled to welcome our erstwhile colleague Ed Gresser back after his years of distinguished service with the United States Trade Representative,” said Will Marshall, President of PPI. “Ed is one of America’s most trenchant analysts and writers on trade and global markets. Ed’s expertise and understanding of the vital role trade plays in ensuring a dynamic and competitive U.S. economy can help President Biden and pragmatic progressives in the administration undo the damage done by his predecessor’s detour into protectionism.”
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: The Global Economy and American Liberalism (2007), and has been published in a variety of publications including the Wall Street Journal, Foreign Affairs, and U.S. News and World Report. 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.
The Progressive Policy Institute (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. Learn more about PPI by visiting progressivepolicy.org.
The COVID-19 virus is endemic — meaning it’s here to stay. Getting to a 70% or 80% vaccination rate will not stop breakthrough cases, hot spots, and vulnerable people from getting ill. As such, the United States needs to pivot its COVID-19 response strategy to focus on harm reduction to prevent unnecessary deaths without forcing people to live another year in lockdown limbo.
To do that, the U.S. can learn from other countries with fewer cases and deaths.
We need to vaccinate as many people as possible.
The United States needs to continue to vaccinate as many people as possible, including eligible children, hard to reach and underserved populations, and the vaccine hesitant. The federal worker vaccine mandate should push more people to get vaccinated, but rollout efforts should not stop there. Music venues, sporting arenas, and schools can all encourage more people to get vaccinated by requiring proof of vaccination for entry. Having vaccines available during large events could also help reach some people.
We need more testing.
The United States has roughly the same vaccination rate as Germany and France and yet they have far fewer cases. A big reason is because they have prolific, and subsidized, COVID-19 testing — though Germany just recently stopped offering free COVID-19 tests to unvaccinated adults. In the U.S., rapid tests should be readily available for people with cold symptoms, people in schools, people who work in congregant settings, and people who want to travel. In the U.K., France, and Germany, rapid testing is widely available and inexpensive. People should get tested before gathering and traveling, which helps keep transmission down.
In general, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has been slow to approve rapid, at-home tests because they are less accurate than PCR tests. Because it has only approved a handful of rapid tests, they are expensive and often sold out at local pharmacies. If getting a PCR test requires an appointment and has a 2-5 day turn around, people aren’t going to use them as a mitigation strategy. The government should approve more rapid tests — even if they aren’t as effective as PCR tests — so that widespread use is easy and affordable.
Kids need to be in school as much as possible.
After a year and a half of closures and remote learning of uneven quality for many children, it is paramount that they stay in school. Children who are exposed to infected people should not be forced to stay home if they are vaccinated. Exposed unvaccinated children should be tested and stay in school unless they test positive. As vaccines become available for school-aged children, they should get vaccinated against COVID-19 as they are against other diseases. Local policymakers should work on appropriate vaccine mandates for school and school-related activities.
We need early access to treatments.
When someone tests positive, they should know where they can get treatments as quickly as possible to reduce the likelihood of hospitalization, particularly if they are more vulnerable. Research from Baylor University Medical Center found that monoclonal antibodies reduced hospitalizations among high-risk COVID-19 patients if they received the therapy early in the course of their illness. This means that doctors need to be aware of and prescribe the treatment and patients need access to infusion facilities since the drugs are delivered intravenously within the first 10 days of symptoms. But many primary care providers don’t know where to direct people to receive treatment. The federal government has announced that it will work on more equitably distributing the limited supply of monoclonal antibody treatments. But they should work with local governments and state medical boards to better reach vulnerable patients who test positive.
Everyone needs insurance coverage.
While the uninsured rate largely remained unchanged during the pandemic, where people were getting their coverage from changed. As people lost their jobs, more people enrolled in Medicaid. This prevented a huge loss of coverage. But in Republican-dominated states that haven’t yet expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), the rate of uninsured remains much higher than the national average. The data shows that access to health insurance coverage improves health outcomes, because covered people are more likely to get preventive care and earlier interventions when they need acute care. One study found that COVID cases and deaths are higher in non-expansion states, suggesting that Medicaid improves access to health care system and limits both the rates of transmission and death.
In the reconciliation negotiations, lawmakers should prioritize covering the roughly 2.2 million Americans would be eligible for Medicaid save for the fact that they live in one of the 12 states that have elected to forgo Medicaid expansion under the ACA. Congress should work to plug that hole in a cost-effective manner that does not disadvantage the states that elected to expand Medicaid. Medicaid expansion has been linked to fewer bankruptcies and better health outcomes.
We need good paid leave policies.
To limit the spread of infection, the expectation is that people stay home from work when they test positive. This means that people shouldn’t fear losing their job or being unable to pay the bills if they get COVID. To protect workers, we need better sick leave policies. In the U.S., 95% of the highest earning 10% of private employees have paid sick leave, while only 33% of the lowest earning 10% of private employees had paid sick time leave. Given that the virus disproportionately affects low-income people, the U.S. needs to standardize sick leave policies to protect all Americans.
We need to reduce poverty.
Compared to other high-income countries, the U.S. has the worst health outcomes. And while there are many problems with the health care system that make it expensive, difficult to navigate, and otherwise dissuade people from getting needed care, the main reason the U.S. has poor outcomes is because we underinvest in other social determinants of health. If the U.S. invested more in social services for children and working-age adults, it is likely it could close the gap between the U.S. and other high-income countries. More equitable access to good nutrition, education, child care, housing, transportation, and worker benefits helps people live healthier lives that can mitigate the impacts of COVID-19. Poverty rates fell during the early stages of the pandemic because of generous unemployment benefits and stimulus payments. The U.S. should continue efforts to reduce poverty and improve social determinants of health.
With vaccinations, naturally acquired immunity, and other mitigation efforts, COVID-19 is morphing from an acute pandemic to an endemic condition like seasonal flu. But the U.S. can do a much better job reducing infection and death rates. These commonsense steps will protect vulnerable Americans without the need for lockdowns, school closures, and extensive social distancing which made life so difficult over the last 1.5 years.
“In this post-COVID world, those students who were treading water before are in jeopardy of drowning without the right interventions. ” said Curtis Valentine, RAS Co-Director and moderator for the event. “Empowering teachers means equipping them with what they need — to meet students where they are and address critical gaps in learning and academic achievement. With the right guidance, policymakers can craft literacy programs that are available, accessible, and equitable for all learners.”
The webinar’s panelists included Dr. Kymyona Burk of ExcelinEd, Mary Clayman of the DC Reading Clinic, Cassandra Gentry of DC Pave, Dr. Michael Durant of the Academy of Hope Adult Charter School, Representative Allister Chang of the DC State Board of Education, and Washington DC State Superintendent Christina Grant.
The Reinventing America’s Schools Project inspires a 21st century model of public education geared to the knowledge economy. Two models, public charter schools and public innovation schools, are showing the way by providing autonomy for schools, accountability for results, and parental choice among schools tailored to the diverse learning styles of children. The project is co-led by Curtis Valentine and Tressa Pankovits.
The Progressive Policy Institute (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. Learn more about PPI by visiting progressivepolicy.org.
A new poll from the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) on technology, competition, and the economy finds most voters in battleground congressional districts and states take pride in U.S. technology companies, which they see as providing good jobs, leading the world in innovation and e-commerce, and making major contributions to American dynamism.
At the same time, voters have significant concerns about how big tech firms handle data privacy and security, as well as whether they pay their fair share in taxes. They express lower levels of concern about competition in the tech/e-commerce sector, and seem torn over whether the large size of big tech firms is a sign of their success or of undue market power that demands public action.
“In taking the pulse of battleground voters, we found no public groundswell for breaking up or drastically regulating big tech,” said PPI President Will Marshall. “Instead, the pressure to eviscerate America’s most innovative and competitive firms seems to be coming mainly from left- and right-wing ideologues.”
Commissioned by the Progressive Policy Institute and conducted by Expedition Strategies, the poll gauges voter attitudes in 44 battleground House Districts and eight states likely to have competitive Senate races in next year’s midterm elections. This portion of the poll also oversampled in California. Sections of the poll examining the Biden Administration’s Build Back Better plan and voters views on the economy were released earlier this month. Here are a few key takeaways:
A few key takeaways include:
Changing the way tech companies do business is a low economic priority for battleground voters. Asked which economic issues worry them most, only 3% chose “the actions of tech companies.”
When asked which industries provide “good American jobs,” 27% of battleground voters chose manufacturing, followed by 24% who named technology.
When asked to rank their concerns about big tech companies such as Apple, Facebook, Google, and Amazon, voters put privacy and data security first. Among battleground voters, 42% say they are very worried about their “ability to know how companies use your personal data and if they are protecting your privacy” (85% total worried) and 38% say they are very worried about “the security of your data stored in computers, such as financial transactions” (82% total worried).
While they aren’t as concerned about competition and market concentration, many voters do see the big tech companies as monopolies that have too much power.
Two-thirds (66%) of battleground voters say the size of technology companies like Apple, Amazon, Google, and Facebook is a good thing for U.S. workers and the U.S. economy, while 34% say it is a bad thing.
By a 52-48 margin, more battleground voters say Americans can be proud that U.S. companies lead the world in digital innovation and e-commerce than say they are worried that U.S. tech companies have become too powerful and need to be reined in by Washington.
Voters are more interested in making sure technology companies can compete with China and Europe (65% of battleground voters say this should be a bigger priority) than they are in making sure small American companies can compete (35%).
Battleground voters are evenly divided on concerns about breaking up large American technology companies. Half (50%) say they are more concerned that if we do not break up large technology companies, it will be harmful to American consumers and the economy, while an equal number say they are more concerned that if we do break them up, it might cause them to fail, which would harm American workers and consumers.
Changing the way tech companies do business is a low economic priority for battleground voters. Asked which economic issues worry them most, only 3% choose “the actions of big tech companies.”
When we asked about concrete proposals that Congress or the President could consider regarding large technology companies (proposals that would affect consumers’ everyday relationship with such companies), support for change is much lower. Battleground voters oppose ideas like banning Amazon Prime from offering free shipping (63% strongly oppose, 85% total oppose) or requiring Google to shut down YouTube, Google Maps, and other apps it offers (42% strongly oppose, 73% total oppose).
The Progressive Policy Institute (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. Learn more about PPI by visiting progressivepolicy.org.
When teachers unions forced public schools to close indefinitely in spring 2020, the void they created showed how ill-suited traditional public schools are to the 21st century. Though the pandemic stressed most public institutions, public charter schools proved remarkably resilient.
According to a new report from the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools (NAPCS), during the pandemic, public charter school enrollment increased in 39 of the 42 states with charter schools, adding 237,311 students from the 2019–20 school year to 2020–21. During the same period, traditional public schools lost 1.4 million students. While some of the traditional public schools’ losses can be attributed to homeschooling, learning pods, and other alternatives, the Center for Reinventing Public Education learned that flight to virtual schools only accounted for roughly 40 percent of traditional districts’ enrollment declines.
That tracks with the NAPCS findings. Though enrollment in virtual public charters spiked in a few states—Oklahoma, Utah, and Pennsylvania—in other states like Texas, which had an enrollment surge of almost 30,000 students, those new charter school students are not attending virtual schools. Over the last decade, brick-and-mortar charter schools did very well, and would have likely done even better were enrollment not arbitrarily capped by law in many blue states like New York and Washington. Even in places where public charters are not legislatively capped, union contracts have scotched their growth.
The House of Representatives is set to vote next week on President Biden’s bipartisan infrastructure bill. At stake is not just a stronger U.S. economy, but whether we still have a functioning democracy.
In normal times, this bill wouldn’t be controversial. Almost no one disputes the need for a major infusion of public investment in modernizing America’s transportation, water and other common goods that undergird U.S. economic innovation and competitiveness. That’s why the bill breezed through an otherwise polarized Senate on a 60-30 vote in August.
In the House, however, progressives are threatening to torpedo the bill unless they get a simultaneous vote on a “reconciliation” bill that would spend trillions more on social and climate programs. Critics have assailed this tactic as political hostage-taking, but it’s more like a murder-suicide pact, since progressives want a big infrastructure bill too.
But they’re apparently willing to sacrifice the infrastructure upgrade to gain political leverage over the growing ranks of moderate Democrats who, although they support many elements of the massive reconciliation bill, are balking at its $3.5 trillion price tag.
Talk Policy with PPI is a podcast series of discussions with leading policy experts and policymakers on relevant topics in the news. For this latest episode of Talk Policy, PPI’s Director of Social Policy Veronica Goodman sat down with Dr. Chandra Childers, Study Director at the Institute for Women’s Policy Research. Their discussion focuses on the concept of apprenticeships, it’s benefits for workers, and the historical context on the racial and gender makeup of these job training programs.
The full podcast is available hereand below as a transcript. Be sure to check out “Here to Stay: Black, Latina, and Afro-Latina Women in Construction Trades Apprenticeships and Employment,” a paper focusing on how the COVID crisis has put a spotlight on skilled construction trades, and the opportunities it has presented for Black, Latina, and Afro Latina women here. Other episodes of Talk Policy can be found here.
Radically Pragmatic, a PPI Podcast
TALK POLICY: Apprenticeships with Dr. Chandra Childers
Progressive Policy Institute (0:10)
You’re listening to Radically Pragmatic, a podcast from the Progressive Policy Institute. We talk with lawmakers, policy experts and thought leaders about the issues driving the news nationally and internationally. The Progressive Policy Institute is a catalyst for policy innovation and political reform with offices in Washington, D.C. and Brussels. Its mission is to create radically pragmatic ideas for moving America beyond ideological and partisan deadlock. We encourage analytical conversations, not your typical partisan talking points.
Veronica Goodman (0:43)
Hi there, and welcome to Radically Pragmatic, a PPI podcast. My name is Veronica Goodman, and I’m PPI’s Director of Social Policy. For this segment of Talk Policy, I sat down and spoke with Dr. Chandra Childers, Study Director at the Institute for Women’s Policy Research. She’s an expert on social stratification and social and economic inequality by race and sex. Chandra examines issues related to women and girls of color and job quality. Be sure to subscribe wherever you listen and enjoy the episode. Hi, Chandra thank you so much for joining me today to talk about equity and inclusiveness and apprenticeships and job training programs. I’m really looking forward to this discussion.
Dr. Chandra Childers (1:24)
Thank you! Thank you for having me. I’m looking forward to it as well.
Veronica Goodman (1:28)
My pleasure. So, just to start to give listeners a little bit of background, what is an apprenticeship when we’re talking about it?
Dr. Chandra Childers (1:37)
Okay, so I would like to focus specifically on registered apprenticeships because they provide a structured experience for trainees or workers. They are focused on mastering, or ensuring that the worker or the trainee, however we want to refer to them…that they actually master a specific set of skills that the employer is actually needing in his workforce. And they are, these apprenticeships, they’re paid from day one, so you’re being paid to learn the skills that you need. These are…they get regular pay raises as they master the work as they move forward. They receive mentoring, so, these are an excellent opportunity to prepare workers for moving into jobs that are hard to fill. It allows them to earn a living wage so that they’re not going into student debt trying to get a college degree. Yet, they put out some really high quality workers. And I think that apprenticeships are really valuable for those reasons. Also, because they tend to earn…workers who go through apprenticeships tend to earn more. So, according to apprenticeships.gov, over 90% of graduates of apprenticeships have earnings…have average earnings of $70,000 annually, which is, you know, that’s a pretty good living to make. That’s after they’ve graduated. But during their program, they’re paid from the very beginning. And they cover a wide range of industries. So, while most apprenticeships are, for example, in the skilled construction trades, we do find that we have them in everywhere from hospitality, transportation, manufacturing, health care and business. So, there are a range of areas, although the vast majority are in skilled construction trades.
Veronica Goodman (3:33)
That’s really helpful. Thank you. And I think you sort of highlighted that they’re usually in the trades, but they actually exist in a lot of industries. Could you please share a little bit about some of the historical context on the racial and gender makeup of apprenticeships and these programs just to frame the conversation and, you know, maybe what percentages are female and from communities of color? And I know from reading your papers that that’s changing in certain programs and regions, too, which is good.
Dr. Chandra Childers (4:03)
Sure! So, we know that women make up almost half of the workforce. Women are, you know, like 47% of all workers. Yet, it has only been in the last few years that women have actually made up more than 10% of all apprenticeships. So, when we look between 2014 and 2020, I believe the number of women in apprenticeships, again, only reaching now to about 14%…but that’s a 200% increase over just 2014. So, we are seeing a lot of growth. We also see that Black and Latina women in particular are also really underrepresented. But, again, we are also beginning to see improvements in those numbers. So, for Hispanic women…the number of Hispanic women between 2016 and 2019 increased by, again, almost 100%. Their numbers almost doubled. And for Black women, the increase was about almost 50%. So, we are seeing growth. We are beginning to see some changes, yet, these groups are still really underrepresented in the trades. And I think it’s really important to think about the inclusion of members of these groups because it has a number of impacts. One, by excluding…whether it’s women, whether it’s, you know, Black, Hispanic workers, men or women…one of the things that you’re continuing to do is you’re denying these large segments of the population access to earning a living wage or being able to provide for their families. But, you’re also depriving employers, or [they’re] depriving themselves of access to really large pools of talent. So, they’re actually losing out. And one of the things we know is that a lot of the…in the skilled construction trades in particular…a lot of these workers are older. We did a study looking in New Orleans in particular, and there we found that over a quarter of construction workers were 50 or older. These are people who are going to retire, and they’re already struggling to find an adequate number of workers. So, you know, that history of bias and exclusion for women and for workers of color…that is beginning to change, but we do need to see that change at a much faster rate.
Veronica Goodman (6:30)
That’s interesting. I mean, those are huge increases percentage-wise, but still, it’s disappointing to see how low the participation is. So, I guess building off of that, how do you think we can best address these inequities, you know, to sort of strengthen access for these workers?
Dr. Chandra Childers (6:51)
To be able to be more inclusive and to ensure that we get more workers into these apprenticeships, there’s a number of things that can be done. You know, some of them are as simple as going ahead and enforcing, you know, EEO regulations around making sure that things aren’t biased and that people get equal access. But I think that there are other factors, too. For example, we could start apprenticeships in high school. You know, we have lost a lot of the like shop classes and so forth in high school, but by beginning to have schools begin to work with businesses, you can begin to go ahead and get those apprenticeship processes started. But, I think another important piece of that is helping employers to understand how they benefit from taking on apprenticeships. I think apprenticeships can be seen as costly for employers. I think some employers worry about training workers and then having them leave to go work for some other company. But, I think that one of the things we know is that for a good apprenticeship that is preparing workers…it’s preparing them with exactly the skills that that employer needs…and those apprenticeships can definitely pay for themselves throughout the time of the apprenticeship.
So, I think that’s one way to begin to increase the access for some of these communities. But, I mean, I think we could also make other investments, and I’ll probably talk about this a little later, but we know that there are a lot of…well not a lot…but there are some women-only pre-apprenticeship programs that are beginning to bring women into and preparing them to go into apprenticeships. Those are an other areas where we can really invest that could increase access to apprenticeships.
Veronica Goodman (8:51)
That’s great! And I guess, as a follow up question, since you alluded to it, are there any programs out there that you think are getting particularly good results, or that you’re interested in researching further?
Dr. Chandra Childers (9:03)
There’s a few programs…and, of course, I can’t…there’s a couple that I will highlight here. I think one that is really doing…that’s having a really great amount of success…is Morehouse, which is located in Mississippi. They’re not only providing that training for women to prepare them, but they’re also providing women with one of the most important supports that they’ll need, and that’s childcare. And so, we’re seeing, not a lot, but a few of these apprenticeship and pre-apprenticeship programs…they are either providing access to child care for women, or they’re matching women up with resources…because that’s a major barrier for women who are moms, especially with small children, whether it’s in the apprenticeship itself or once they finished working in the trades. The hours, and I’m focused on construction trades – that’s where a lot of the apprenticeships are, where a majority of them are, and that’s also the work that we’ve been doing – but, because of the hours that they work, because of the demands…I mean, going through an apprenticeship, that is a full time job…it’s combining classroom training with on the job training – but you are doing a lot of intensive work. And so, those programs that provide access to childcare and other supports, including transportation – because, again, you’re on job sites that are not necessarily close to your home…they may be constantly moving. So, I think those are important. But, in some of the research that we did with women, some of the programs that women were really the most excited about…they couldn’t talk enough about these programs that introduced them…like they had no idea about their trade. So like Chicago women in the trades, non-traditional employment for women in New York…you’ve got these types of women pre-apprenticeship programs, that are really providing women with information, with training, preparing them for moving into those apprenticeships. And so, those I think are a really great opportunity to, again, increase the representation of women and women of color in particular.
Veronica Goodman (11:28)
I’m glad that you mentioned this information barrier and how these groups are working to address those because I’ve seen a lot of surveys and polling around how a lot of workers are interested in these opportunities, but don’t know exactly how to access them or tap into them in their communities, so that seems like a really key piece. And so President Biden in the White House included proposals in the American Jobs Plan to increase gender and racial equity in workforce development programs. What do you think some of the top priorities should be in achieving that? And how can we make sure that there’s accountability measures in place to make sure we’re getting the outcomes that we’re shooting for?
Dr. Chandra Childers(12:10)
Accountability, that right there…is, I think, enforcing, again, you know, EEO. Having companies set goals and annually reset those goals, not only for hiring and bringing women – Black, Latina women – on, not only hiring, but also, retention. So, once that, you know, really focusing on, have reporting around that, holding them accountable on those numbers…And that retention piece is a really big piece, because when you can retain the women that you’ve hired, then that points to having addressed a lot of the other issues that come up as barriers that women face, especially in the in the trades, when they’re working…you know, sexual harassment, issues like that, that make it difficult for women, when they…especially, because, quite often, they are the only, or one of two women who may be on a job site. So, there are already a lot of issues that they’re dealing with. So, I think that is a really, really important piece of that. It is, you know, setting those goals. It is, you know, have that reporting in place and making sure that there are realistic, you know, we know that we’re not going to have 50/50 women…and that’s not the goal…but to make sure that women are included, that there is no bias, that they are not facing discrimination, that they are not being excluded from those positions.
Veronica Goodman (13:49)
I think that’s exactly right. I think looking through some of your publications, one of the things I especially appreciated was that there were research interviews done with women who were actually in these positions and on these work sites. And it seems like from the ones that were in roles that were surrounded with other women, there was sort of a support structure, sort of a virtuous cycle as there were more women included, then it became a better work environment for everybody. So, I think that this can only build on its success as we got more women and workers of color included.
Dr. Chandra Childers (14:24)
I really, on that point, I don’t think that that can be over-emphasized. That was, you know, again, the sense of isolation…and we, you know, we highlight a number of consequences of that. And being the only woman on a job site, you know, it means that quite often, they don’t have equipment that’s designed for them, that safety equipment may not fit. They may not have a bathroom on site if they’re the only woman. So, there were those issues. But also just that sense of isolation in the interviews. The way they talked about when they went to the first Women Build Nations Conference, where they saw other women and they heard other people who had had their same experience, and they would form groups, too. So, even if they couldn’t have it on their job site, just so that they could only other women who, you know, work in that field to really understand that experience…so I think that cannot be over-emphasized.
Veronica Goodman (15:27)
I agree. And I don’t know if you can hear it on the audio, but there’s a house being built in the neighbor’s yard and the construction noises are just for ambiance. It’s actually funny because there are two women on that crew. And I’ve noticed them and so it’s just all coming full circle here in my office. But I think one of the points that you made earlier…I wanted to dig into that a little bit more…about how women in trades and apprenticeships tend to earn more than in many fields that are that are dominated by female labor. So, if you could please take a moment to discuss like some of the wage differences and what might account for those?
Dr. Chandra Childers (16:10)
So that’s another…again, over all apprenticeships, as I said, they report that over 90% of them are working after they complete their apprentice and they’re earning an average of $70,000 a year. However, the vast majority of those apprenticeships are in the skilled trades. And so that’s kind of the comparison I usually make is, you know, you can take, for example, and I will give you two examples. One, you can think of jobs that don’t require anything beyond the high school education. So, here, I think about a waitress, you know, you make…waiters, waitresses, compared with construction laborers. Now, neither of these jobs require any advanced training, yet, what we see is that the average earnings for waiters and waitresses is $11.42 per hour. And we compare that with construction laborers who earn $18.22 per hour. So, we’re looking at, a serious, you know, what is that, a pretty large wage increase just for being in what is a male-dominated field. And then if we look at, for example, positions that require greater levels of skill. So, for example, here, we can compare librarians with plumbers. So for the librarian position…and I looked at librarians and media collection specialists…that’s a position that requires a master’s degree. Well, if we look at plumbers, pipe fitters, and steamfitters….love these these job titles…if you look at those occupations, they also require about a five year apprenticeship. So, we’re talking about similar levels of training that’s required. However, for the library and media specialists, you’re paying large amounts of money to get the master’s degree to go into that field. And they have earnings of $29.24 per hour whereas plumbers, pipe fitters, and steamfitters are paid $27 per hour. Now, that’s, you know, it’s about $2 less an hour, however, for the plumber and pipe fitter, they are being paid in their apprenticeship from day one on the job and they’re not going into student loan debt, and they have the potential for earnings to increase over the course of their career. So, those are two examples where we can say that apprenticeships…they really do provide…and this is one of the reasons we really are pushing to increase access for women and women, you know, Black and Latina women in particular, is because these are occupations where you’re not going into so much student debt. Yet, the pay is really good. You have really great benefits. And it’s something that you don’t find in a lot of, you know, a lot of the jobs where women are concentrated. You know, I picked out librarians and media collection that requires a master’s degree, but for a lot of female dominated occupations, you know, they’re not requiring that much education, but the pay is terrible, and they don’t have a lot of benefits.
Veronica Goodman (19:43)
I know that child care and early education workers have really been in the news, and I mean, some of those positions actually do require a higher level of education and it doesn’t really quite match up with them where the wages are after getting those degrees or credentials.
Dr. Chandra Childers (19:59)
I think like elementary school teachers and even middle school teachers, they’re paid, you know…the hourly wage is lower than what a plumber makes, yet they are required to have at least a bachelor’s degree. So, you do see that with…you know, there’s a number of occupations you can pull out. And that was something else also that we saw in our interviews, is that several of the women we spoke with, they had bachelor’s degrees that they thought they needed in order to be successful, but then they learned about the trades, and they prefer the trades over their professional jobs, so they left what they were doing to move into the trades, and had better pay and benefits.
Veronica Goodman (20:40)
That’s great. I’d be interested to hear about what sort of next for you and your research and some of these areas.
Dr. Chandra Childers (20:48)
Yes, so, we’ve done the reports looking at women coming out of apprenticeship programs. We’ve done some work in New Orleans, in particular, looking at opportunities to, you know, ways that we can help increase women’s access to the trades. And so that’s some ongoing work…we’re still there, you know…we put out the report, but we’re still there building on that, trying to make connections and build up opportunities with training institutions, with employers, to be able to do some of that work. And the next step in this, again, that will continue, but we also will start looking into manufacturing and, you know, looking to increase women’s access and representation in manufacturing occupations. So, you know, there are a number of book paying jobs, again, in New Orleans jobs at the port, transportation, where, women are really underrepresented, but they’re jobs that pay well. And so we really just want to keep building on trying to increase opportunities for women to move into these well-paying jobs. And also, you know, a big part of that is it will reduce the occupational sex segregation, and that is the largest contributor to the gender wage gap. Closing that gender wage gap, getting women into some of these occupations, can really help to reduce poverty rates for not just women, but children, raise GDP, so it’s got good benefits all around. So, those are kind of some of the next steps that we’re looking at here.
Veronica Goodman (22:34)
That’s wonderful. Well, thank you so much for taking the time to speak with me today and talk more about your research. I’m looking forward to seeing how it evolves. And we’ll be sure to link to some of your publications at the end of this for readers that want to take a closer look, but thank you so much.
Dr. Chandra Childers (22:51)
Thank you for having me. I really appreciate it.
Veronica Goodman (22:54)
My pleasure.
Progressive Policy Institute (22:57)
Thanks for listening. Want to learn more about the progressive Policy Institute? Follow us on Twitter, at @PPI and on Facebook at Progressive Policy Institute, or go to our website at progressivepolicy.org. Be sure to subscribe wherever you listen and check back for new episodes. We’ll talk with you soon.
On the latest segment of Talk Policy, Director of Social Policy Veronica Goodman sits down with Dr. Chandra Childers, Study Director at the Institute for Women’s Policy Research. Their discussion focuses on the concept of apprenticeships, it’s benefits for workers, and the historical context on the racial and gender makeup of these job training programs.
Also, check out “Here to Stay: Black, Latina, and Afro-Latina Women in Construction Trades Apprenticeships and Employment,” a paper focusing on how the COVID crisis has put a spotlight on skilled construction trades, and the opportunities it has presented for Black, Latina, and Afro Latina women here.
Learn more about the Progressive Policy Institute here.
While there are promising signs for the overall trajectory of the economic recovery, the latest data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics points to some slowing and the overall picture shows the recovery remains uneven for many workers. Amidst ongoing negotiations in Congress concerning their reconciliation package and news about worker concerns and labor shortages, the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) has released a new report detailing evidence-based approaches to achieving a more equitable recovery. These policy changes and priorities will ensure all Americans in — and out of — the workforce are empowered to succeed.
“As we recover from the pandemic, Congress, policymakers, and business leaders must prioritize policies that ensure an inclusive economic recovery,” said Veronica Goodman, Director of Social Policy at PPI. “To prevent further economic scarring and to better help those currently out of work quickly pivot to new opportunities, we will need to wield every tool to ensure that the recovery brings all workers along.”
The paper proposes a comprehensive slate of policies for addressing historic and worsening inequities in the workforce, including:
Better preparing and supporting students in their transition to work by expanding access to career and technical education, apprenticeships, and training programs.
Equipping adult learners and workers with tools like wraparound services, flexibility in curriculums, building social capital, and training in digital skills, to complete degree and training programs and find jobs in the post-pandemic recovery.
Providing greater transparency about the credit transfer process for all students, including those with nonlinear paths to degree completion.
Prioritizing skills-based hiring and addressing degree discrimination, changing hiring technologies that leave qualified workers out, and aligning workforce development programs with in-demand jobs and opportunities.
Increasing apprenticeship and job training programs across industries, including in early education and child care, that lead to jobs with good wages and benefits for more workers.
Building on the proven success of Great Recession-era subsidized employment programs, so that disadvantaged workers can transition more quickly and seamlessly to the labor force.
Increasing the minimum wage, implementing a Living Wage Credit, and making the pandemic EITC expansion permanent.
Support working parents by investing in supports like child care, universal pre-kindergarten, paid family leave and increasing wages for early education teachers — helping many women and workers of color, while helping parents stay in the labor force.
Strengthening worker protections and rights to ensure a competitive labor market, including modernizing Unemployment Insurance (UI) to be an “automatic stabilizer” that kicks in when certain economic conditions are met.
The Progressive Policy Institute (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. Learn more about PPI by visiting progressivepolicy.org.
The Biden administration’s efforts to control the spread of the virus and bolster the economy are working. In fact, job growth has been historically high since President Biden took office, as the economy has recovered 4.5 million jobs. Economists expect that as the delta variant surge wanes, vaccination rates increase, and schools and daycares can reliably stay open, labor markets will further tighten.
However, as the August 2021 jobs report from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics shows, our nascent labor market recovery is still vulnerable to setbacks from surges of the virus. The roaring pace of new jobs early in the summer is not a guarantee that all workers will find employment after historic job losses.
What’s more, new research shows that time and a booming labor market do not a guarantee a fully inclusive recovery. For a multitude of reasons, the non-college educated, workers of color, women, and less experienced workers suffered disproportionate job losses early in the pandemic, and they have historically been last in line for job gains. Policymakers will need to wield every tool to ensure that as the recovery progresses, that we work toward an inclusive and equitable labor market that brings all workers along.
The reconciliation package working its way through Congress with elements of the American Families and Jobs Plans would certainly help working families and individuals affected by the pandemic. In addition, our pandemic strategy should also include new investments in training workers with sought after skills in the marketplace and new steps to empower workers after decades of wage stagnation and growing economic inequality. We cannot be satisfied with a partial recovery that leaves whole communities behind. This paper offers policymakers at all levels of government evidence-based approaches for creating a more inclusive labor market after the pandemic.
Recommendations:
Our education system needs to better prepare traditional and non-traditional students to transition to work and provide better supports. Policymakers should expand access to career and technical education, early college high schools, and flexible models tailored to students and workers that face unique challenges and barriers.
Adult learners and workers need more wraparound services, flexible curriculums, social capital and networking, and training in digital skills to complete degree and training programs and find jobs in the post-pandemic recovery.
Many students will not have a linear path to degree completion. States should require more colleges and universities to be transparent about what coursework will transfer, and then ensure that students get these credits transferred between institutions.
Business leaders and policymakers can work together to ensure our workforce development programs are aligned with in-demand jobs and opportunities in their communities and give employers more skin in the game. Additionally, current systems for hiring and recruitment are leaving out a wide swath of workers due to degree discrimination. Companies should reform their hiring process to switch to skills-based hiring that will help them find the talent to fill openings.
Some industries, such as health care and education, are having difficulty finding workers. Our workforce programs should increase apprenticeship and job training programs, such as in early education and child care, to build a pipeline of high-quality jobs with good wages. A focus on equity and inclusiveness will help women and workers of color succeed in these industries.
Policymakers should build on the proven success of subsidized employment programs used during the Great Recession to help disadvantaged workers transition more quickly and seamlessly to the labor force.
Wages for millions of workers are far too low. Congress should work to increase the minimum wage, implement a Living Wage Credit, and make the pandemic expansion of the EITC permanent going forward.
The child care industry has been in crisis during the pandemic and is facing a severe labor shortage. Yet this critical support is necessary for working families and parents. We should support working parents by investing in child care and increasing wages for early education teachers to attract and retain workers. This will not only help many women and workers of color, but will help parents stay in the labor force. Other programs like paid family leave and universal pre-kindergarten will also boost labor market participation and family economic security.
Lastly, beyond wages, policymakers should strengthen protections and rights for workers to ensure a competitive labor market after the pandemic. To support workers during future economic downturns, Congress should modernize Unemployment Insurance (UI) to be an “automatic stabilizer” that kicks in when certain economic conditions are met that signal a recession.
THE CURRENT LABOR MARKET RECOVERY
The latest data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics for this past August shows a labor market recovery slowing under the strain of the coronavirus delta variant wave. As case rates increase across the states, and especially in counties with lower vaccination rates, businesses and individuals have had to grapple with mask mandates, canceled events, delayed returns to in-office work, school and daycare quarantines, and other disruptions that have cumulatively led to decreased economic activity.
While the unemployment rate is down significantly from 14.8% in April 2020, the labor market recovery remains uneven, and the experience of past recessions shows that some workers will need extra support to land good jobs. The unemployment rate for Black workers ticked up to 8.8% in August 2021 compared to 4.5% for white workers. The percentage of long-term unemployed workers (LTU) — those out of work for 27 weeks or more and actively looking — is very high at 37.4%. That figure is trending downward as the labor market tightens, but data from previous recessions suggests that workers with a high school degree or less will struggle to find jobs. And women, hampered by child care and school closures and quarantines, made up only 28,000 new jobs or 11.9% in August 2021, compared with gains of 207,000 for men.
There are also signs of a realignment in our workforce. Employee preferences on how and where to work are changing, while companies are shifting their hiring, technologies, and supply chains to reflect the new pandemic economy. As recent analysis from The Washington Post points out, there is a “massive reallocation” of labor that is leading to a surge in job openings, quit rates, retirements, and redistribution of employment opportunities. Certain sectors, such as education and health care, are having a hard time filling job openings. Opportunities might also shift regionally due to the rise of telework and these differences will have profound policy implications for workers of different races, ethnicities, and backgrounds.
Employers report that workers seem to be pickier about the types of jobs they are willing to accept. One reason may be that they are sitting on increased personal savings, which reflect both government payments during the pandemic and reduced opportunities for consumption in a locked down economy. Some labor analysts have suggested that unreliable access to child care and health concerns may still be holding back some workers. In addition, nearly five million workers seem to have dropped out of the labor market during the pandemic recession. The good news for workers is that wages have been on the rise in certain industries desperate to fill openings and that trend is expected to continue.
However, for a percentage of unemployed workers, their career trajectories might be hampered in the same way as some did during the Great Recession and they will not reap the benefits of a tight labor market. Additionally, analysts predict that not all jobs will come back and that some industries might be permanently changed by the pandemic. The difficulties for those who struggled to find jobs after the last recession serve as a lesson for how to help unemployed workers recover faster during this downturn. As the economy improves during the pandemic, policymakers have several options for building an inclusive recovery. To prevent further economic scarring and to help job seekers quickly pivot to new employment, we need to draw upon the active labor market strategies and workforce development policies that have worked in the past and other promising ideas.
