Rep. Ami Bera, M.D. (CA-7) joins PPI’s Podcast for National Public Health Week

Bera: It doesn’t do us any good if you give someone health insurance coverage, but you can’t afford to use it.

On this week’s PPI Podcast, Arielle Kane, PPI’s Director of Health Care sits down with Rep. Ami Bera, M.D. (CA-7), a leader of the New Democrat Coalition. They discuss National Public Health Week, the critical funding within the American Rescue Plan Act, and the state of health care after the COVID-19 pandemic.

“We’ve got to do a better job providing services and managing the health of those 20 percent [of Americans] with chronic conditions to both better manage their disease but also prevent some of those conditions. I think if we’re able to do some of that – and that’s something the New Democrat Coalition has worked on through various venues – we can start to bend the cost curve down,” said Rep. Ami Bera on the podcast.

Representative Bera also discussed the intersection of health care and infrastructure, and the work Congress and the Biden Administration is doing to improve access to care for all Americans:

“We’ve seen with the pandemic things like telehealth, telemedicine, have really been impactful in helping care for patients who may not have wanted to leave their home – and rightfully so – in the middle of a pandemic. That’s something that we should keep in place. But you can’t do telemedicine or telehealth if you don’t have broadband access – or it’s very hard to do. So let’s get that access out to those communities. That will help us solve some of the issues of lack of specialty care if you’re in a small rural community…” said Rep. Bera.

Listen here, and subscribe:

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.

Follow the Progressive Policy Institute.

###

Media Contact: Aaron White – awhite@ppionline.org

Podcast: Congressman Ami Bera Talks Health Policy with PPI’s Director of Health Care Arielle Kane

 

On this week’s PPI Podcast, Arielle Kane, PPI’s Director of Health Care sits down with Rep. Ami Bera (CA-7), a leader of the New Democrat Coalition. They discuss National Public Health Week, the critical funding within the American Rescue Plan Act, and the state of health care after the COVID-19 pandemic. Representative Bera also discussed the intersection of health care and infrastructure, and the work Congress and the Biden Administration is doing to improve access to care for all Americans.

Unleashing UI’s Potential to Counter Recessions

Prospects for economic recovery are brightening as nearly 3 million Americans per day get their Covid shots. But 18 million Americans still rely on unemployment insurance (UI) benefits, and many will continue to do so until the job market fully recovers and they can return to work. Fortunately, President Biden’s American Rescue Plan (ARP) Act, signed March 11, extended the benefits of 11.4 million jobless Americans until September 6.

Having averted an immediate crisis, the White House and Congressional leaders should now work to transform UI benefits so that they automatically deliver vital aid throughout this downturn and those in the future.

Unfortunately, it appears they cannot count on bipartisan support. As they did in 2020, Senate Republicans fought to cut the pandemic extension’s generosity, claiming it discourages people from taking jobs. To keep GOP obstructionism from causing yet another harmful lapse in September, Senator Ron Wyden is pushing to automatically extend the expansion until the unemployment rate falls below a predetermined threshold.

This makes sense from both a humanitarian and an economic perspective. Lawmakers should not only tie the generosity of benefits to the unemployment rate during this recession, they should do so permanently to insulate all future UI expansions from partisan wrangling in tough economic times.

In addition to preventing premature interruptions in benefits, this change would make future economic slumps less severe. Federal programs like UI that spend more in weak economies and less in strong ones are “automatic stabilizers” because they moderate swings in the business cycle without requiring Congressional action.

Replacing unemployed workers’ lost income through UI enables them to keep paying their bills, which helps to sustain demand across the
entire economy.

U.S. policymakers also should work to modernize other elements of the UI system. As we saw last spring when unemployment surged, outdated computer systems hampered states’ ability to get benefits to idled workers quickly. Congress wisely included $2 billion in ARP for updating UI systems. States should seize this opportunity to modernize their computer systems, and federal lawmakers should offer more resources if necessary.

In addition, Congress should develop a more equitable financing system for UI that fully pays for these expansions over the business cycle. The federal government and the states currently only apply their respective UI payroll taxes to workers’ earnings below a maximum level, which is typically very low. As a result, many low earners pay exactly as much in UI taxes as welloff workers do despite receiving smaller benefits when they become unemployed. The federal government should fully pay for these expanded benefits across the business cycle by raising more revenue from incomes that UI does not tax today.

More specifically, this policy paper proposes that the Biden administration and Congress embrace the following changes in unemployment insurance: 

  • Permanently tie the share of lost wages replaced by UI benefits to the unemployment rate.

  • Offer Extended Benefits for more weeks during severe recessions.

  • Fund state IT modernization efforts and avoid duplication of efforts by developing UI administration technology for states at the federal level.

  • Cover more jobseekers who are not currently eligible for UI by helping self-employed people save for gaps in work and expanding work-sharing programs.

  • Pay for these reforms across the business cycle by taxing higher incomes than the program currently does.

Adopting these complementary sets of reforms – pegging UI benefits to the unemployment rate and modernizing the way benefits are delivered and financed – would create a stronger safety net for laid-off workers and help temper economic contractions.

Read the full report here.

 

Why Users Aren’t Locked into Their Smartphone Brand

The arrival of the first mass market smartphone in 2007 was one of the most important technological improvements of the past quartercentury. By effectively building a high-powered computer, radio, and sensors such as cameras and gyroscopes into a compact form factor, smartphone manufacturers were able to connect individuals in a way that was not possible before.

Following the introduction of the first iPhone in 2007 and the iPhone 3G in 2008, Samsung introduced several touchscreen-enabled phones in 2008 and its first Android-powered device in 2009 before releasing its first modern smartphone, the Samsung Galaxy S, in 2010. In the decade since, smartphones have become ubiquitous, with smartphone ownership rising from 35 percent of U.S. adults in 2011 to 81 percent by 2019. What is possible with a smartphone has evolved too, as more apps have become available and devices have been upgraded with better processors and graphics, larger memory capacity, longer battery lives, higher-powered cameras, and now have the ability to interact with remote objects. In addition to Apple and Samsung, smartphone brands today include Huawei, Xiaomi, Oppo, Motorola, Mobicel, Sony, Nokia, HTC, Vivo, and LG.

Today, the best-selling brand in the U.S. is Apple, with 61 percent of the market as of January 2021. In Europe and globally, the best-selling brand is Samsung, with 33 percent and 29 percent of the market as of January 2021 respectively. The average price of Apple phones is $873 in the United States, while other phones sell for much less. For example, the Motorola G Power 32GB smartphone retails for $200. 

An important economic question is why consumers do not switch ecosystems more often when cheaper substitutes are available. The simplest explanation is that consumers view the top-end phones as offering enough value to justify their price, including faster processors, better cameras, higher quality screens, more memory, or any one of a number of other characteristics.

The other possibility, offered up by some policymakers in the U.S. and Europe, is that consumers feel locked into their current models by a high “cost of switching.”

“Switching costs include learning a new operating system, which can discourage users from leaving Google or Apple due to familiarity with their distinct operating systems, as well as the inability to easily port all of their data, such as messages, call history, and photos,” the House Judiciary antitrust sub-committee wrote in an October report on competition in digital markets.

On the face of it, the switching cost explanation for smartphone prices looks less and less likely over time. For example, learning a new operating system is hardly a barrier to today’s smartphone customers, who have been long inured to switching between multiple operating systems and devices at work, school, and at home.

The question, though, is whether there are any artificial structural barriers that make it more difficult than it needs to be to switch devices. In this paper, we explore the feasibility and cost of switching between iPhone and Samsung devices and vice versa. We note that while we outline how users can switch between these specific brands, the methods can be used to switch from iPhone to brands other than Samsung and vice versa. We begin by comparing brand loyalty in the smartphone market with other industries. We then identify the overlap of the top 200 free apps available on both ecosystems in the U.S. and E.U. as of March 2021, apps that copy data from an old device and transfer it to a new device at no charge to the consumer, and how users can manually port their data using the same or similar apps available on both platforms. Finally, we estimate how much time and money it takes to switch between devices, including the opportunity cost of time spent changing, relative to certain annual consumer expenditures in the U.S. and E.U. 

Read the full report here.

PODCAST: Congressman Ami Bera Talks the Future of Health Care

Arielle Kane, PPI’s Director of Health Care sits down with Rep. Ami Bera (CA-7), a leader of the New Democrat Coalition. They discuss National Public Health Week, the critical funding within the American Rescue Plan Act, and the state of health care after the COVID-19 pandemic. Representative Bera also discussed the intersection of health care and infrastructure, and the work Congress and the Biden Administration is doing to improve access to care for all Americans.

Listen on Anchor.

Listen on Spotify.

Listen on Apple Podcasts.

 

How to Catch China in the EV Race

You can also read this blog on PPI’s Medium.

Preventing Failure to Launch: Creating More School-to-Work Pathways for Young Adults

Today’s high school students and young adults face a difficult job market. The Covid pandemic has been particularly hard on less educated workers without a college degree. The 10 million jobs lost by Americans at the pandemic’s onset disproportionally impacted young adults between the ages of 16 and 24, and especially Black and Hispanic workers. Some estimate that as many as 25 percent of our youth will neither be in school nor working when the pandemic ends. 

Research shows that employers are less likely to hire workers with little to no experience for the “first jobs” that many younger workers rely on to build their skills and credentials. Without those first jobs, many will face fewer paths to enter the workforce. To help the non-college-bound, our education system needs to create alternative pathways to careers.

The Biden administration and Congress have the opportunity to create a revamped system that addresses inequality by building continuous pathways between high school and work. As part of his Build Back Better plan, President Biden has called for grants to states to accelerate students’ attainment of quality credentials, degrees, and opportunities in job training programs. As we discuss in this paper, there are promising existing models to draw on in thinking about how to provide more job opportunities to young adults.

This paper reviews several case studies to provide evidence-based examples of how to better connect students to careers. We first address the need for broad-based pathways to careers and then focus on four key themes across school−to−career models, including: (1) the importance of work-based learning that connects students to employers; (2) curriculums that emphasize soft skills and social capital to prepare young adults for their first jobs; (3) the need for supportive or wraparound services to help students get across the finish line; and, (4) high schools that help students earn credits toward postsecondary education along the way to graduation.

Read the full report here

 

New Report from PPI Shows Tech-Ecommerce Ecosystem is the Top Job Creator in the U.S. Economy

new report released today by the Progressive Policy Institute shows how the tech-ecommerce ecosystem is creating jobs at a pace comparable to post-war manufacturing. The report also analyzes the geographic job gains from the tech-ecommerce ecosystem, and the ecosystem’s ability to cushion the employment blow from the pandemic.

“People don’t think of tech as being a big source of jobs. But today’s tech-ecommerce leaders employ almost as many workers as did manufacturing giants such as GM, GE and IBM,” said Michael Mandel, Chief Economic Strategist at PPI.

This report comes at a turning point in the economic crisis caused by the pandemic. The U.S. Department of Labor announced today that the labor market had the largest rebound in jobs since August, with 916,000 jobs added in March, and unemployment falling to 6 percent.

Key findings from the report include:

  • The tech-ecommerce ecosystem – including both large and small employers – has arisen to become the top job creator in the U.S. economy.

  • Based on data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the industries in the tech-ecommerce ecosystem generated more than 1.2 million net new jobs from 2016 to 2020, including the pandemic.

  • Average pay in the tech-ecommerce ecosystem is 44% higher than average pay in the private sector, and 21% higher than average pay in manufacturing nationally.

  • The growth of tech-ecommerce jobs has also expanded beyond the coasts and regions known as tech innovation hot-spots, including growth during the pandemic in Arizona, Ohio, Texas, Indiana, and Florida.

Read the full report here.

 

Media Contact: Aaron White – awhite@ppionline.org

###

Innovative Job Growth in the 21st Century: Has the Tech-Ecommerce Ecosystem Become the New Manufacturing?

For most of the 20th century, manufacturing was the paradigmatic industry for generating jobs through innovation. Industrial giants such as General Motors, General Electric, Eastman Kodak, IBM, and DuPont were renowned global technology leaders, blazing new trails in areas ranging from lighting and X-ray machines, to photographic film and computers, to synthetic materials such as nylon and Teflon and commercial jet engines.

Technological innovation, in turn, enabled these pioneering companies to become potent sources of good-paying jobs for U.S. workers. Collectively they employed millions of Americans, collaborating with smaller suppliers to form overlapping industrial ecosystems that supported communities in rural and urban areas across the country. Kodak was the classic example, of course, with the company’s powerhouse position in photography fueling the rise of its headquarters and main manufacturing center in Rochester (NY).

Manufacturing employment in the United States peaked in 1979. Since then, the sector has been a drag on job growth. Big companies have shrunk, consolidated, or disappeared. The once vibrant web of manufacturing suppliers has atrophied, with much of the supply chain now outside the country. And states where manufacturing once ruled have seen factory jobs dwindle, in some cases to almost nothing. In 1979, factory jobs accounted for more than one-third of the private workforce in 21 states, topped by South Carolina and North Carolina with fully 43% and 42% of their private employment in manufacturing. By 2019, those states were down to 15% and 13% of jobs, respectively, in manufacturing. 

Instead, the mantle of global innovation leadership has shifted to America’s tech-ecommerce ecosystem. And perhaps surprisingly, so has the role of job creator. As we see in the next section, the top five tech-ecommerce firms—Apple, Alphabet, Microsoft, Facebook, and Amazon—employed 1.8 million workers globally as of early 2021. By comparison, the top 5 industrial firms by stock market value in the peak manufacturing employment year of 1979—GM, GE, IBM, Kodak, and Dupont—had a total global employment of 1.9 million, just slightly more.

By our calculations, the tech-ecommerce ecosystem—including both large and small employers—has arisen to become the top job creator in the U.S. economy. Based on data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the industries in the tech-ecommerce ecosystem (described
below) generated more than 1.2 million net new jobs from 2016 to 2020, including the pandemic. The next biggest growth sector was healthcare and social assistance, with 700,000 net new jobs created.

Moreover, average pay in the tech-ecommerce ecosystem, even omitting the headquarter states of California and Washington, is 44% higher than average pay in the rest of the private sector, and 21% higher than average pay in manufacturing nationally. This calculation is based on looking across all roles and positions in the tech-ecommerce ecosystem, from fulfillment center and delivery workers to software developers and AI experts.

In this paper, we analyze the historical role of manufacturing in job creation in the twentieth century, going back to the founding of General
Motors in 1909. Based on the metrics we calculate, we find that the tech-ecommerce ecosystem is as economically important to overall job growth today as manufacturing was during the postwar period.

Delving deeper into today’s tech-ecommerce workforce, we find that the distribution of pay in the tech-ecommerce ecosystem is spread out far more evenly than in the manufacturing sector. Manufacturing jobs are heavily concentrated in occupational groups with average hourly pay of $20 or less, based on data from the BLS Occupational Employment Statistics program. By contrast, the techecommerce sector has a relatively even distribution of low, middle, and high-paying jobs.

One concern is that tech-ecommerce jobs are excessively concentrated geographically in a few states, while manufacturing has historically been an important source of jobs over a wider area. In order to examine this issue, we developed three new tools to analyze the geographic impact of the tech-ecommerce ecosystem.

                • First, the PPI Tech-Ecommerce Manufacturing (TEM) Index compares tech-ecommerce and manufacturing jobs and pay for each state. The TEM Index gives states such as Colorado, Florida, and Georgia high marks because their tech-ecommerce ecosystem is sizable compared to state manufacturing, and those tech-ecommerce workers are paid more on average than manufacturing workers in those states.
  • Second, the PPI Tech-Ecommerce Change (TEC) Index measures the pre-pandemic contribution of the growth of tech-ecommerce jobs by state. We compare net new jobs generated by the tech-ecommerce ecosystem in the 2007-2019 and 2016-2019 periods with total net new private sector jobs to calculate the index. States such as Mississippi, Illinois and Ohio ranked high on the TEC Index because tech-ecommerce job growth helped compensate for slow job growth in other parts of the state economy.
  • Third, the PPI Tech-Ecommerce Resilience (TER) Index measures the ability of the tech-ecommerce ecosystem to cushion the economic blow from the pandemic. In virtually every state, private sector jobs fell from June 2019 to June 2020 while tech-ecommerce jobs rose. The index is calculated as the absolute value of net new tech-ecommerce jobs over this period, divided by the decline in private sector jobs. For example, Arizona was ranked number 2 by the index because of its large growth in tech-ecommerce jobs relative to the overall economy. Also high on the list were states such as Idaho, Utah, and Ohio.


We conclude with a brief consideration of the future of tech-ecommerce ecosystem jobs. Note that this paper draws on earlier PPI research, namely our 2017 papers, “An Analysis of Job and Wage Growth in the Tech/Telecom Sector,” and “How Ecommerce Creates Jobs and Reduces Income Inequality.” 

Read the full paper here.

 

PPI Letter to Speaker Pelosi and Leader Schumer 4/1/21

The Honorable Nancy Pelosi 

Speaker 

United States House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

The Honorable Charles E. Schumer 

Majority Leader 

United States Senate 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Schumer, 

The Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) commends President Biden’s push to fund long-neglected public investments like transportation, research and development, clean energy infrastructure, and a highly skilled workforce in the next phase of his “Build Back Better” agenda. We also applaud the president and his team for acknowledging the need for raising revenue to offset most of the costs of his American Jobs  Plan and offering concrete proposals to do so. 

The federal budget deficit will top $3 trillion for the second consecutive year in 2021, leaving the federal government owing more money than the economy produces annually for the first time since World War II. Although borrowing whatever sums were necessary to combat the covid recession was justified,  structural deficits will persist and continue growing larger after the economy has recovered. Moreover,  our recovery has thus far been “K-shaped”: those who entered this crisis flush with wealth in stocks and real estate are emerging wealthier than ever before, while lower-income workers and the unemployed are  falling farther behind. Americans deserve a recovery package that is substantially funded by progressive adjustments to our tax code.  

We understand that the administration’s ambitious blueprint has controversial features and will trigger robust debate in Congress. Our view is that Congress should consider a wider array of tax changes to offset the costs of whatever it eventually passes. Building off of discussions with moderate lawmakers  who have expressed similar desires, PPI has developed a menu of radically pragmatic options for strengthening the government’s fiscal infrastructure and sustainably financing strategic investments in  America’s future growth. 

We respectfully encourage you to consider the following tax reforms, which would largely tax wealth  instead of work and make federal taxes more progressive: 

  • Raise the tax on inherited fortunes. Less than 0.1 percent of inheritances are subject to the federal estate tax, which allows heirs to inherit up to $23.4 million tax-free from the estate of a couple. There is simply no good reason that a wealthy heir should pay less in taxes than a middle-class  schoolteacher or an entrepreneur who earns their wealth through hard work. Replacing the estate tax with a progressive inheritance tax (one that taxes inherited income at the recipient’s ordinary tax rate plus a 15 or 20 percent surtax) would raise an enormous amount of revenue while deconcentrating wealth in America. Every dollar raised from taxing the unearned income of the super-wealthy is a  dollar the government does not need to raise by taxing work or productive investment.
  • Reduce Tax Preferences for Capital Gains. Capital gains are currently taxed up to 23.8 percent and while ordinary income is taxed up to 37 percent. Capital accounts for roughly 40 percent of income for households in the top 1 percent of the income distribution, compared to less than 2 percent of income for households in the bottom half, so reducing the disparity in tax treatment is an essential component of a progressive tax system. To ensure this change raises significant revenue, lawmakers should also repeal the “step-up basis” provision that allows recipients of inherited assets to permanently avoid paying taxes on untaxed capital gains that accrued during the original owner’s  lifetime – otherwise, many wealthy Americans will simply choose to hold assets until death to avoid higher capital gains tax rates.  
  • Institute a Value-Added Tax (VAT). Many developed countries, including Canada and all of those  in the European Union, fund their generous social safety nets through a consumption tax collected incrementally at each step in a product’s supply chain. Economists prefer these consumption taxes over income taxes because they are harder to evade and reward people for saving and investing in  growing the economy. Pairing a value-added tax with subsidies to hold harmless lower-income  Americans could raise significant revenue in a progressive way without harming economic growth. 
  • Put a price on carbon pollution. Congress should use our tax code to harness the power of market mechanisms to limit the damage of climate change. Placing a fee equal to the social cost of carbon on producers puts those social costs on the emitter and ensures that carbon is only emitted when the benefits outweigh the true costs. Carbon-intensive businesses would pay higher taxes for producing more carbon and businesses that invest in reducing their emissions would gain a competitive advantage. A carbon price would especially help frontline communities most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change by reducing emissions, and these benefits could be further enhanced by earmarking some of the revenue raised to be invested in targeted climate mitigation efforts. 
  • Transition to mileage-based fees. Revenue raised by federal taxes on motor fuels have failed to keep up with transportation funding needs, both because Congress never indexed the rates to inflation and because improvements in vehicle fuel efficiency are reducing the amount of gasoline that the average driver needs to buy. That shortfall will only grow worse as our country makes the transition to electric  cars and trucks. A mileage-based fee would be neutral as to fuel type while ensuring that what you pay to use the roads is related directly to how much you use them. Although a national vehicle-miles traveled (VMT) fee for all vehicles may not be not practical now, adopting a VMT for commercial trucks and launching pilot programs for passenger vehicles would put our transportation infrastructure on the road to sustainable funding for the future. 
  • Raise the corporate income tax rate. Real corporate tax reform would have lowered the corporate income rate and paid for it by broadening the tax base. But while the GOP tax law’s corporate tax changes did curtail some deductions, it did not do nearly enough and gave away hundreds of billions of dollars more in revenue than it raised. The net revenue loss was an unaffordable tax giveaway to the wealthy that should be recouped by raising the tax rate.  
  • Cap itemized deductions. Itemized deductions are worth more to taxpayers in higher tax brackets because they would have owed more on each dollar deducted if it had been taxed. Capping itemized deductions at 24 or 32 percent ensure that people in higher tax brackets receive no greater benefit per dollar deducted than people in the tax bracket at which the cap is linked. 
  • Increase resources for IRS enforcement. The IRS estimated 10 years ago that taxpayers failed to pay over $400 billion in tax obligations annually. But instead of trying to reclaim that money by spending more on tax law enforcement, Congress has cut the IRS’ budget in inflation-adjusted dollars by nearly 20 percent since then. As a result, the IRS is now 80 percent less likely to audit people earning over $1 million than it was in 2011. Spending more money on tax enforcement will help the  IRS crackdown on tax evasion by the wealthy and reduce federal budget deficits. 

Now is the time to pass a big, bold recovery package that funds America’s future. With your leadership,  we can set our country on the path to sustainable and equitable growth. 

Sincerely, 

Will Marshall 

President, Progressive Policy Institute 

Ben Ritz, 

Director, PPI Center for Funding America’s Future

Letter to Congressional Leadership

The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
Speaker
United States House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515

The Honorable Charles E. Schumer
Majority Leader
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Schumer,

The Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) commends President Biden’s push to fund long-neglected public investments like transportation, research and development, clean energy infrastructure, and a highly skilled workforce in the next phase of his “Build Back Better” agenda. We also applaud the president and his team for acknowledging the need for raising revenue to offset most of the costs of his American Jobs  Plan and offering concrete proposals to do so.

The federal budget deficit will top $3 trillion for the second consecutive year in 2021, leaving the federal government owing more money than the economy produces annually for the first time since World War II. Although borrowing whatever sums were necessary to combat the covid recession was justified,  structural deficits will persist and continue growing larger after the economy has recovered. Moreover,  our recovery has thus far been “K-shaped”: those who entered this crisis flush with wealth in stocks and real estate are emerging wealthier than ever before, while lower-income workers and the unemployed are  falling farther behind. Americans deserve a recovery package that is substantially funded by progressive adjustments to our tax code.

We understand that the administration’s ambitious blueprint has controversial features and will trigger robust debate in Congress. Our view is that Congress should consider a wider array of tax changes to offset the costs of whatever it eventually passes. Building off of discussions with moderate lawmakers  who have expressed similar desires, PPI has developed a menu of radically pragmatic options for strengthening the government’s fiscal infrastructure and sustainably financing strategic investments in  America’s future growth.

We respectfully encourage you to consider the following tax reforms, which would largely tax wealth  instead of work and make federal taxes more progressive:

  • Raise the tax on inherited fortunes. Less than 0.1 percent of inheritances are subject to the federal estate tax, which allows heirs to inherit up to $23.4 million tax-free from the estate of a couple. There is simply no good reason that a wealthy heir should pay less in taxes than a middle-class  schoolteacher or an entrepreneur who earns their wealth through hard work. Replacing the estate tax with a progressive inheritance tax (one that taxes inherited income at the recipient’s ordinary tax rate plus a 15 or 20 percent surtax) would raise an enormous amount of revenue while deconcentrating wealth in America. Every dollar raised from taxing the unearned income of the super-wealthy is a  dollar the government does not need to raise by taxing work or productive investment.
  • Reduce Tax Preferences for Capital Gains. Capital gains are currently taxed up to 23.8 percent and while ordinary income is taxed up to 37 percent. Capital accounts for roughly 40 percent of income for households in the top 1 percent of the income distribution, compared to less than 2 percent of income for households in the bottom half, so reducing the disparity in tax treatment is an essential component of a progressive tax system. To ensure this change raises significant revenue, lawmakers should also repeal the “step-up basis” provision that allows recipients of inherited assets to permanently avoid paying taxes on untaxed capital gains that accrued during the original owner’s  lifetime – otherwise, many wealthy Americans will simply choose to hold assets until death to avoid higher capital gains tax rates.
  • Institute a Value-Added Tax (VAT). Many developed countries, including Canada and all of those  in the European Union, fund their generous social safety nets through a consumption tax collected incrementally at each step in a product’s supply chain. Economists prefer these consumption taxes over income taxes because they are harder to evade and reward people for saving and investing in  growing the economy. Pairing a value-added tax with subsidies to hold harmless lower-income  Americans could raise significant revenue in a progressive way without harming economic growth.
  • Put a price on carbon pollution. Congress should use our tax code to harness the power of market mechanisms to limit the damage of climate change. Placing a fee equal to the social cost of carbon on producers puts those social costs on the emitter and ensures that carbon is only emitted when the benefits outweigh the true costs. Carbon-intensive businesses would pay higher taxes for producing more carbon and businesses that invest in reducing their emissions would gain a competitive advantage. A carbon price would especially help frontline communities most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change by reducing emissions, and these benefits could be further enhanced by earmarking some of the revenue raised to be invested in targeted climate mitigation efforts.
  • Transition to mileage-based fees. Revenue raised by federal taxes on motor fuels have failed to keep up with transportation funding needs, both because Congress never indexed the rates to inflation and because improvements in vehicle fuel efficiency are reducing the amount of gasoline that the average driver needs to buy. That shortfall will only grow worse as our country makes the transition to electric  cars and trucks. A mileage-based fee would be neutral as to fuel type while ensuring that what you pay to use the roads is related directly to how much you use them. Although a national vehicle-miles traveled (VMT) fee for all vehicles may not be not practical now, adopting a VMT for commercial trucks and launching pilot programs for passenger vehicles would put our transportation infrastructure on the road to sustainable funding for the future.
  • Raise the corporate income tax rate. Real corporate tax reform would have lowered the corporate income rate and paid for it by broadening the tax base. But while the GOP tax law’s corporate tax changes did curtail some deductions, it did not do nearly enough and gave away hundreds of billions of dollars more in revenue than it raised. The net revenue loss was an unaffordable tax giveaway to the wealthy that should be recouped by raising the tax rate.
  • Cap itemized deductions. Itemized deductions are worth more to taxpayers in higher tax brackets because they would have owed more on each dollar deducted if it had been taxed. Capping itemized deductions at 24 or 32 percent ensure that people in higher tax brackets receive no greater benefit per dollar deducted than people in the tax bracket at which the cap is linked.
  • Increase resources for IRS enforcement. The IRS estimated 10 years ago that taxpayers failed to pay over $400 billion in tax obligations annually. But instead of trying to reclaim that money by spending more on tax law enforcement, Congress has cut the IRS’ budget in inflation-adjusted dollars by nearly 20 percent since then. As a result, the IRS is now 80 percent less likely to audit people earning over $1 million than it was in 2011. Spending more money on tax enforcement will help the  IRS crackdown on tax evasion by the wealthy and reduce federal budget deficits.

Now is the time to pass a big, bold recovery package that funds America’s future. With your leadership,  we can set our country on the path to sustainable and equitable growth.

Sincerely,

Will Marshall

President, Progressive Policy Institute

Ben Ritz,

Director, PPI Center for Funding America’s Future

Five Ways the Americans Jobs Plan Gets Workforce Development Right

The Biden administration released its American Jobs Plan yesterday – a bold package with critical investments in infrastructure and America’s workers. Among its more ambitious aims is $100 billion set aside for workforce development. This includes a long overdue investment to diversify career pathways, through approaches such as apprenticeship programs, a focus on sector partnerships, and a new and robust program for dislocated workers. There is a lot to cheer for in the AJP—here are five ways it gets it right in pairing job creation with next-generation training programs.

  1. Investing in Workforce Development and Worker Protection. For decades, the United States has lagged other high-income countries in workforce development. The AJP calls for a $48 billion investment in workforce development and worker protection, which includes funding for registered apprenticeships and pre-apprenticeship programs. In total, this would create one to two million new registered apprenticeships. PPI has long-called for the U.S. to increase apprenticeships 10-fold and provide workers with career pathways that do not require a four-year degree. We’ve also advocated for two specific ways to modernize apprenticeships: Congress should formalize and incentivize intermediaries (public or private) by subsidizing them to create “outsourced” apprenticeships, and government at all levels should create public service apprenticeship opportunities and programs, including in industries such as information technology, accounting, and health care.
  2. Expanding Career and Technical Education. The plan recognizes the need for investments to expand career and technical education (CTE) and workforce-readiness programs for middle- and high-school students. The 10 million jobs lost by Americans at the pandemic’s onset disproportionally impacted young adults between the ages of 16 and 24, and some estimate that as many as 25 percent of our youth will neither be in school nor working when the pandemic ends. According to the U.S. Department of Education, high school students enrolled in programs with a CTE concentration are more likely to both graduate and earn higher median annual salaries than those who did not participate. These investments will set up students to be better prepared to enter the labor force upon graduation and gain their economic footing as they transition to adulthood.
  3. Addressing Inequities. Women and minorities have been disproportionately impacted by job losses during the pandemic and have historically been excluded from infrastructure jobs. Acknowledging these inequities, the plan calls for “strengthening the pipeline for more women and people of color to access apprenticeship opportunities,” such as through the Women in Apprenticeships in Non-Traditional Occupations program. Another option would be to increase training programs and increase apprenticeship slots in industries dominated by women that face worker shortages, such as early childhood education and care, and pair these jobs with competitive wages.
  4. Supporting Job Training with Smart, Evidence-Based Policies. The AJP acknowledges that we need forward-looking, evidence-based approaches to train the next generation of American workers and help those who might need to reskill or upskill, including laid off workers during the pandemic. The White House calls for a “a $40 billion investment in a new Dislocated Workers Program and sector-based training.” These funds would be allocated to help train workers get trained with skills in high-demand industries, such as clean energy, manufacturing, and caregiving. To ensure the success of such programs, the White House draws on evidence that completion rates are highest when workers are provided with wrap-around services, income supports, counseling, and case management to overcome the barriers to finishing their training.
  5. Empowering Workers and Unions. Lastly, the AJP emphasizes the important role of union jobs as the backbone of the American middle class. The proposed legislation includes important provisions for strengthening the rights of workers to organize and for making sure that employers who benefit from the plan adhere to appropriate labor standards and do not interfere with workers’ exercise of their rights. Enhancing the power of workers in our economy is critical to supporting good jobs and a strong middle class.

The Covid recession has left over 10 million Americans out of a job and millions of workers might not have a job to return to when the pandemic is over. For them, the AJP would create a diverse set of pathways to connect them with quality jobs offering livable wages. We hope that when Congress takes up this package in the coming months, they will pursue equity not just for underrepresented groups in workforce development, but also for those who lack a college degree yet make up a majority of the labor market. For them, access to pathways that do not require a four-year degree will be critical to help them regain their economic footing. Overall, the AJP meets the moment to address historic job losses and infrastructure in need of significant public investment.

New Report from PPI Calls for EU to Support AI Innovation

new report released today by the Progressive Policy Institute calls on the European Union to support artificial intelligence (AI) industry growth and innovation by enacting targeted reforms to help small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in Europe succeed. The report also calls on the EU to consider policies to facilitate the emergence of a highly-skilled technical workforce, and strike a balance between consumer protections and overly burdensome regulations.

Report authors Caleb Watney and Dirk Auer outline the existing regulations that hamper the development of AI systems in the EU, as well as the unique promise AI holds for SMEs. Unlike the United States and China, the EU has largely failed to foster global players in the digital platform industry. Of the 30 largest internet companies in the world, only one is European. Those in the EU’s tech industry are smaller players who often rely on foreign AI platforms – mostly American – to boost AI adoption. The EU’s protectionist tax and trade measures hamstring these platforms, stifle innovation and limit job creation in Europe.

“There’s a real opportunity here for the EU to bootstrap the AI adoption process for their SMEs and become a global player in the tech industry. But it won’t happen without smart investment in public datasets, increased regulatory certainty, and an openness to working with rather than against US firms,” said Caleb Watney, Director of Innovation Policy at PPI.

Artificial intelligence is already being used across a wide range of domains to decrease power costs, improve logistics and sourcing systems, predict cash flows, streamline legal analysis, aid in drug discovery, improve factory safety conditions, and identify logistics efficiencies. This is in addition to opening up entirely new fields like autonomous vehicles, drone delivery systems, and instantaneous language translation. While many of AI’s most eye-catching use cases will likely remain the preserve of large platforms, the technology also holds tremendous promise for SMEs.

Key policy recommendations in the brief include:

Data investment as a public good:

  • Where appropriate, align incentives for the private sector to contribute industry-level SME data to public and private data trusts that could be used by everyone.
  • Invest in making more government datasets open to the public.
  • Fund Focused Research Organizations or similar groups with the explicit goal of creating new scientific and commercial public datasets.

Provide regulatory certainty:

  • Clarify existing regulations and the obligations that SMEs must meet when utilizing a new AI tool.
  • Consider the creation of a new SME regulatory website that provides informational resources to SMEs about the benefits of AI adoption for their business and the potential roadblocks that they need to be aware of.
  • Before promulgating new regulations or regulatory bodies, closely scrutinize the ecosystem to see if the same goal could be better achieved through existing industry specific regulations or fine adjustments to liability laws.

 Encourage an ecosystem of AI platforms:

  • Avoid protectionist tax and trade policies that make it difficult for international AI platform companies to serve EU SMEs.
  • Invest in the creation of open-source AI platforms that could be utilized by SMEs and create a forum for receiving feedback on the types of tools that would be most useful for SMEs.
  • Articulate best practices on the member state level for encouraging AI adoption so that the best ideas can be identified and quickly adopted elsewhere.

Expand the AI talent pool

  • Encourage upskilling of the EU population by offering to cover a portion of the costs of specialized AI training courses.
  • Reevaluate EU immigration pathways to make them more attractive for international technical talent.
  • Facilitate global knowledge spillovers by removing potential obstacles to cross-border M&A.

Media Contact: Aaron White – awhite@ppionline.org

-30-

 

Mexico’s App Economy in 2020

The COVID-19 pandemic undoubtedly disrupted peoples’ way of life, both in terms of health and the economy. For Mexico, more than 2 million cases have been confirmed as of this writing, with economic output declining by 8.5 percent in 2020 – the country’s biggest annual contraction since the 1930s. 

As people have engaged in social distancing and work from home to mitigate the virus, wireless connectivity has never been more critical. Smartphones and apps are increasingly becoming a part of daily life, allowing consumers and businesses to interact and be productive from a distance.

In this paper, we focus on Mexico’s App Economy: those app developers and other workers who create, maintain, and support an ever-expanding range of apps for health, communications, ecommerce, education, transportation, banking, and smart homes. The size of an App Economy workforce in a country is indicative of the rate at which that country is embracing the digital transformation and how well it will be positioned as the global economy recovers from the pandemic.

Read the full report in English here.

Read the full report in Spanish here

 

Report Shows Mexico’s App Economy Grew by Double Digits, Despite the Pandemic

new report released today by the Progressive Policy Institute shows Mexico’s App Economy – app developers and other workers who create, maintain, and support mobile phone applications – grew by 11 percent from 2019 to 2020, and by 7 percent from 2018 to 2019. The report also estimates Mexico has 178,000 App Economy jobs as of 2020. This growth is consistent with App Economy growth across the world during the pandemic.

“As people have engaged in social distancing and work from home to mitigate the virus, wireless connectivity has never been more critical. Smartphones and apps are increasingly becoming a part of daily life, and Mexico’s strong and growing app economy is indicative of the country’s embrace of digital transformation and shows how Mexico will be positioned as the global economy recovers from this pandemic,” said Michael Mandel and Elliott Long, report authors and economists at the Progressive Policy Institute.

This growth is helping cushion the economic and human damage wrought by the COVID-19 pandemic in Mexico.

Read the full report here.

-30-

Encouraging AI adoption by EU SMEs

For the firms that adopt them, artificial intelligence (AI) systems can offer revolutionary new products, increase productivity, raise wages, and expand consumer convenience. But there are open questions about how well the ecosystem of small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) across Europe is prepared to adopt these new technologies. While AI systems offer some hope of narrowing the recent productivity gap between small and large firms, that can only happen if the technologies actually diffuse throughout the economy.

Policymakers have naturally been attracted to this topic as SMEs represent the backbone of the European economy, making up 99% of all businesses. And an AI-enabled productivity boost would be particularly timely as SMEs are recovering from the effects of the ongoing Covid-19 crisis.

At the same time, the EU has articulated a desire to be on the forefront of developing novel AI regulations. The EU is contemplating new regulations on the development and deployment of AI that seek to address dual priorities2: How can the EU simultaneously increase the uptake of AI by European firms while shaping the regulatory environment to protect European consumers from harm?

And while the EU’s ambition is laudable, the Commission’s pronouncements have so far failed to grapple meaningfully with the significant tradeoffs that the regulation of new technologies entails. As is the case with all new technologies, the adoption of AI systems — i.e., the broad suite of technologies that are designed to automate or augment aspects of human decision making — involves a tradeoff between risk-mitigation and rapid adoption. Unless carefully managed, the effort to protect consumers from potential risks places additional burdens on firms, which can chill investment and adoption, especially among SMEs. Policymakers thus need to achieve a balance between these two objectives.

With this in mind, our report outlines various policy considerations that should enable policymakers to achieve this balance between the two goals and embody the principle of Thinking Small First3 — the idea that public policy should consider the potential impacts on SMEs from the ground up. The report discusses the promise for AI systems to increase productivity among EU SMEs, the current barriers to AI uptake, and policy tools that may be useful in managing the risks of AI while maximizing the benefits.

Read the report here.