Poll Shows Americans View Tech Companies Favorably, Oppose Breaking Them Up

Our economy almost certainly has a problem with rising market power. A slew of studies shows that concentration in many sectors of the economy has increased over the past 20 to 30 years. A new PPI study, however, shows that critics of the supposedly overweening power of U.S. tech companies are barking up the wrong tree.

The study, by PPI Chief Economic Strategist Michael Mandel, finds that the digital sector – encompassing tech, telecoms and ecommerce – significantly outperforms the rest of the non-health private sector on every important economic measure, benefitting both workers and consumers. For example, productivity in the digital sector rose by almost 60 percent between 2007 and 2017, prices fell by 15 percent, real annual pay per worker rose by 15.4 percent, and employment grew by 14 percent. Such dynamism is hardly consistent with the critics’ portrait of tech giants throttling competition, suppressing innovation and using their market power to impose higher prices on consumers.

Meanwhile, in the rest of the non-health private sector, productivity grew only 5 percent, prices increased by 21 percent, real annual pay increased by 7 percent, and employment grew by 3.3 percent. If you are looking for evidence that market concentration is weakening our economy and making inequality worse, here’s where you should start.

And for all the glib journalistic talk of “techlash,” Americans don’t see Big Tech companies in a particularly sinister light. In fact, a recent PPI poll found that most voters view the tech giants as testaments to American ingenuity and oppose breaking them up.

The poll, conducted by Expedition Strategies survey on the eve of the midterm election, found that 67 percent of likely voters view the tech companies positively, as shown in Figure 1, and 55 percent oppose breaking them up. While 60 percent of voters acknowledge they are concerned about tech companies’ handling of privacy and data protection, 71 percent of voters view tech companies as “a sign that the American economy is working.” In contrast, just 32 percent view Big Tech as “too powerful.”

That being said, voters do worry about privacy and data protection – in fact, 60 percent of voters say that the industry that concerns them most when it comes to these issues is Big Tech. Voters by a margin of 58 percent to 42 percent also say they’d like to see a national legislative response to privacy regulation rather than a piecemeal state-by-state approach.

Figure 1. Please rate how you feel about the following industries:

Given the general trends toward consolidation, a comprehensive look at market power, competition and innovation across the U.S. economy is certainly in order. But rather than succumb to the reductive nostrum that “big is bad,” progressives ought to engage in a careful, sector-by-sector analysis before they start calling for break-ups and more regulation. As Mandel shows, the evidence suggests that the digital sector does not pose a special problem, and in fact is outperforming the rest of the private sector.

Progressives ought to be vigilant about market power and monopoly, but it makes little sense to draw targets on our most successful companies.

Bellwether Education Partners’ Eight Cities: Exploring Urban America’s Most Successful Education Reform Efforts

As a strong proponent of 21st century school systems, Reinventing America’s Schools would like to highlight Bellwether Education Partners’ Eight Cities, a project that attempts to answer the question: “How do you build a continuously improving system of schools?”

The Eight Cities website, https://www.eightcities.org, profiles urban districts that have managed to get “more students into better schools, faster,” by implementing some combination of school-level autonomy, partnerships with charter schools, replacement of chronically failing schools, systemwide school performance frameworks, public-school choice, and strategies to recruit and develop talented teachers and principals.

Local context matters, and each of the eight cities profiled (Oakland, Chicago, Newark, Camden, New York City, Denver, Washington, D.C., and New Orleans) followed a unique path. And sadly, politics occasionally stopped progress in its tracks. But these cities not only grew the number of high performing schools at a faster pace than other areas, they also created education systems that continuously improved.

Their leaders shared some central beliefs, according to Bellwether:

  • Schools are the unit of change
  • Families should be able to choose what’s best for their children among a diverse array of high-performing schools
  • Systems should be responsive to the needs and desire of the communities they serve
  • Those overseeing schools should ensure that they don’t fall below a minimum quality bar

The big takeaway from Bellwether’s project is that systemic change that benefits all students is possible, even in the largest and most politically charged environments. We encourage you to explore Eight Cities and learn more about the nation’s most successful urban education reforms.

Ritz for Forbes, “Trump Once Again Shows Contempt For Young Americans”

A new report published by the Daily Beast earlier this week revealed how little President Trump cares about America’s future. When senior administration officials warned Trump about the nation’s growing and unsustainable national debt, the president reportedly expressed little interest in tackling the issue because it wouldn’t create a full-blown crisis until after he is gone from office.

Granted, anyone who paid attention to the first two years of the Trump administration could tell that it doesn’t prioritize fiscal responsibility. Trump’s signature achievement thus far is package of partisan tax cuts that the Congressional Budget Office estimates will add more than $2 trillion to the national debt over the next decade. And its 2018 budget proposal showed that enacting all the administration’s preferred policies would leave the debt significantly larger than it would have been if President Obama’s final budget had been enacted.

Continue reading at Forbes.

 

Welcome to Washington D.C., Dr. Ferebee!

This week, Mayor Muriel Bowser named Dr. Lewis Ferebee as the next chancellor of District of Columbia Public Schools.

We at the Progressive Policy Institute have had the privilege and pleasure of working with Dr. Ferebee on several occasions. When working on his book, Reinventing America’s Schools Project Director David Osborne interviewed Dr. Ferebee, and Dr. Ferebee recently joined us as a panelist for our 21st century school system workshops in Baton Rouge and Memphis.

For the last five years, Dr. Ferebee’s work as superintendent of Indianapolis Public Schools has served as an inspiration for those dedicated to empowering educators, expanding options for families and students, and closing the achievement gap. Throughout his tenure as superintendent, Dr. Ferebee pushed decision-making authority down to the schools and championed innovation. He ended the acrimony between the district and the city’s charter schools; created 20 “innovation network schools,” with full autonomy and accountability; expanded decision-making authority for all other district schools; created exciting new choices for families; and supported the implementation of a unified enrollment system for most district, innovation, and charter schools, to give all families an equal shot at quality schools. This fall voters rewarded his leadership by passing a $272 million tax package, the first in a decade.

Welcome to Washington D.C., Dr. Ferebee! We at the Progressive Policy Institute are excited to see what you and your staff can do to increase the number of quality public schools in D.C., particularly in the city’s poorest wards, where they are so desperately needed.

Yarrow for RealClearPolicy, “Welcome to Post-Thrift America”

How did we arrive at a new normal of indifference to living on borrowed money? Federal budget deficits are poised to eclipse $1 trillion in 2020 and may never fall below that level again. There was hardly a word about this once-hot issue among Democrats or Republicans running in the midterm elections. Similar problems of matching spending with revenues exist at the state level, where unfunded pension liabilities grow while taxes are cut.

At the individual household level, following an uptick in savings after the Great Recession, most Americans can’t or don’t care about saving or balancing spending and income. About 80 percent of the population carries debt, totaling about $13 trillion, and one in five households have zero or negative assets.

The transition to this new normal has been as much a cultural story as a political or economic one. Whether one speaks of “thrift,” “living within one’s means,” or “pay as you go,” these were long the dominant values and standard practices of both governments and families. Throughout U.S. history, Americans and their government generally spent no more than their income or revenues and, ideally, would save some money. Of course, there were exceptions — such as wars and emergencies, and for individuals, poverty and other hardships — that necessitated borrowing. Economically, saving and investment were underpinnings of successful capitalism, and, morally, profligacy was a sin. Those who spent extravagantly were shady characters, while responsible budgeting was a sign of moral rectitude.

Continue Reading at RealClearPolicy.

The Price of Food vs the Price of Internet Access

Here’s what you need to know. Between 2000 and 2017, the price of food went up by 41%, according to the BEA. The price of Internet access fell by 21%. Which change is more harmful to consumers?

Oh, yes, and food at home accounts for 6% of household spending, while Internet access accounts for 0.6%.

It’s worth noting that while the tech/telecom/ecommerce sector has been cutting prices since 2000, a wide variety of sectors have boosted prices sharply. Since 2000, the price of private sector higher education has gone up by 148%; the price of consumer financial services has gone up by 69%; the price of motor vehicle insurance has gone up by 67%; housing rents have gone up by 65%; the price of eating out has gone up by 60%; and so forth.

https://www.progressivepolicy.org/publications/competition-and-concentration-how-the-tech-telecom-ecommerce-sector-is-outperforming-the-rest-of-the-private-sector/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelmandel1/2018/11/29/why-digitizing-food-manufacturing-can-boost-living-standards/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Osborne on The Report Card, “More Charters, or More Chartering?”

Reinventing America’s Schools Project Director David Osborne appeared on the  The Report Card, American Enterprise Institute’s education podcast hosted by Nat Malkus.

On this episode, Malkus and Osborne discuss the history of charter schools and the future of chartering. They also highlight some of the lessons learned and challenges faced by charter proponents over the last two decades.
Listen to the episode on The Report Card’s website.

Bledsoe for The Hill, “Climate studies say warming may cost US $500 billion a year – it will cost much more”

Three stunningly dire climate change reports have emerged in the last month, including the UN “Emissions Gap” report released this week and the U.S. National Climate Assessment released last Friday. Together, they ring an alarm bell of historic proportions, and must serve as an unprecedented wake-up call to the U.S. and global leaders meeting in Poland next week for key UN climate negotiations.

Yet, even as exigent as they are, these studies still underestimate the risks of runaway, catastrophic climate change, which other reports have found. Simply put, the sum of the science finds that achieving near-term and deep emissions reductions has become manifestly urgent for the safety of nations around the world.

The United Nation’s “Emissions Gap” report out this week finds that the current emissions reduction pledges from all countries within the Paris Agreement, including the U.S., are far too weak to keep temperatures from increasing less than 2 degrees Celsius pre-industrial levels and provide even a modicum of climate protection. The report notes that the “original [global] level of ambition needs to be roughly tripled for the 2°C scenario and increased around fivefold for the 1.5°C scenario.”

Continue reading at The Hill.

PPI Statement on Democratic House Leadership Election

WASHINGTON—Will Marshall, President of the Progressive Policy Institute, today released the following statement regarding the Democratic House leadership election:

“The Progressive Policy Institute does not endorse candidates in elections for Congressional leadership. Who should be the next House Speaker and occupy other top leadership posts is for the new Democratic majority to decide.

“Whatever the outcome, we believe Democrats will need new leaders with fresh ideas to preserve their fragile House majority and build a big tent coalition that can send Trump Republicans packing in 2020.

“Therefore, we want to commend those rising Democratic leaders who have stood up to call for a new direction for the party. Win or lose, leaders like Reps. Kathleen Rice, Seth Moulton, Tim Ryan, Kurt Schrader and others have done their party a service by sparking a vital debate that centers less on personalities than a choice between the status quo and radically pragmatic change.”

Competition and Concentration: How the Tech/Telecom/Ecommerce Sector is Outperforming the Rest of the Private Sector

The U.S. economy almost certainly has a problem with rising market power. A bevy of recent economic studies show that concentration in many sectors of the economy has increased over the past 20-30 years. These increases in concentration have been convincingly linked to such economic ills as rising prices, weak productivity growth, stagnant real wages, slower job growth, weak investment, and falling labor share.

Indeed, there is little doubt that strong and consistent competition policy plays an important role in a market economy. Longstanding incumbents in a wide range of industries can exercise market power to choke off innovation and growth, protecting the status quo and driving up prices rather than benefiting workers and consumers.

 

New Jersey Democrats Propose Legislation to Strengthen Small Business Borrower Safeguards

Online finance providers have supplied an innovative source of capital for small businesses after a credit gap opened up in the wake of the Great Recession. However, while disclosures such as annual percentage rate (APR) are required by federal law for consumer loans, they are not for small business loans and credit products. The result has been costly for small business owners, with some providers charging exorbitant but undisclosed rates. Research by Opportunity Fund found the average monthly payment for some small businesses was about double what they could afford to pay.

New Jersey has an opportunity to be a leader in extending commonsense consumer protections to the small business credit market. Proposed legislation currently being debated calls for standardized terms such as APR, the payment schedule, and the minimum payment to be applied to small business loans or credit products up to $100,000.

Access to financing is often one of the biggest hurdles small business owners face, particularly for the smaller loan amounts many new or very small businesses seek: 86 percent of minority-owned businesses and 88 percent of woman-owned business bring in less than $100,000 per year.[i] Supporting the financial health of these businesses is often critical to supporting the financial health of the communities they serve as well.

That’s why the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) commends State Senator Troy Singleton and Representative Clinton Calabrese for introducing this important legislation requiring greater transparency in the small business lending market. California was recently the first state in the nation to enact a similar law. The New Jersey bill closely tracks a proposal detailed in a recent PPI policy report, “Shining a Light on Small Business Credit: Promoting a Transparent Marketplace” by Jessica Milano, the former Deputy Assistant Secretary for Small Business, Community Development, and Housing Policy at the Treasury Department under the Obama Administration.

Milano calls for legislation to extend the Truth in Lending Act disclosure requirements to small business loans or credit products under $100,000. While no one likes reading fine print and filling out loan documentation, a recent poll by Small Business Majority found that 74 percent of small business owners support regulating online lending to ensure small businesses are protected from predatory practices. Simple disclosures including a few key metrics—especially APR—would allow a small business owner to “comparison shop” and easily analyze loan prices and terms across multiple credit providers, whether they are a bank, a payment processor, or an online lender.

According to the research by Opportunity Fund, some online lenders charge businesses average APRs of 94 percent, without ever disclosing those rates to the borrower. These companies argue that disclosing APR will discourage customers from taking their loans, causing the small business credit gap to widen further. That’s like arguing that if your doctor told you smoking was dangerous you might not do it, which in turn would hurt tobacco companies, so better not to know. If your doctor kept information that was vital to your health from you, he could be accused of malpractice, so why doesn’t the same principle apply to financial health as well?

As Singleton and Calabrese recognize, disclosing APR at the time of offering and acceptance of a loan would equip small business owners with a transparent metric to make an apples-to-apples comparison between products and choose the best option for them.

[i] Kate Bahn, Regina Willensky Benjamin, and Annie McGrew, “A Progressive Agenda for Inclusive and Diverse Entrepreneurship,” Center for American Progress, October 2016. https://cdn.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/13000159/ProgressiveAgenda.pdf

Marshall & Kim for The Hill, “Midterms show moderates are far from being politically extinct”

For years, partisans and ideologues have assured us that the political center is dead, so don’t bother making persuasive arguments to swing voters. Just get your base out, and may the most “energized” team win. The 2018 midterm elections, however, showed that the center’s demise has been greatly exaggerated.

The big story was the revolt of suburban voters, led by white, college-educated women, against President Trump’s polarizing populism. Their defection helped Democrats win the popular vote (again), score their biggest gains in the House of Representatives since 1974 and add a slew of new governors.

A national poll by the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) and Expedition Strategies taken on the eve of the midterm provides further evidence that America’s pragmatic center is resilient and bouncing back after two years of Trump’s bizarre presidency.

It suggests that our democracy’s firewalls against demagoguery and extremism are still intact and that Trump’s 2016 win may be an aberration, a detour rather than a fundamental realignment of U.S. politics.

In fact, our survey illuminates a new political landscape that is favorable to Democrats heading into the 2020 presidential election cycle.

Continue reading at The Hill.

Poll shows Americans want greater government involvement in health care

Health care costs continue to be top of mind for a plurality of voters, according to a recent poll by PPI and Expedition Strategies. Our poll surveyed 1,090 likely voters on to gather data to apply context and to for what kind of agenda progressives should craft as the 2020 election cycle dawns. Health care handily outweighed other issues overall and was the one issue where there was agreement across party lines in its importance.

In the midterms, this was most clear in states like Arizona where Senator-elect Kyrsten Sinema essentially ran a one issue campaign – protecting those with preexisting conditions – and beat out Republican Martha McSally. Her messaging resonated with voters who were afraid of losing affordable coverage because of preexisting conditions.

Among respondents of our poll, 45 percent ranked health care as one of their top three concerns, including 55 percent of Democrats, 42 percent of Independents and 38 percent of Republicans. The results showed that there is anxiety around health care costs. When asked about the best way to reduce the gap between the wealthy and poor in the United States, 19 percent of respondents cited reducing health care costs as a possible policy lever.

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) was a market-based solution that focused on getting more Americans covered. And in that regard, it did succeed. The uninsured rate among the non-elderly population has dropped from 18.2 percent in 2010, to 10.3 percent in 2018.

That being said, costs are still a driving factor for why so many remain uninsured or why even those with coverage struggle to afford their co-pays and co-insurance. In 2016, of those who said they were uninsured, 45 percent cited cost as the driving reason. Additionally, one in four Americans taking prescription drugs reports difficulty affording their medications. Though overall drug spending only accounts for roughly 10-13 percent of total health care spending, it is the fastest growing sector. This may explain why drug companies find themselves out of favor with voters. When asked how they would rate industries, drug companies came in lower than oil companies.

It’s clear that the uncertainty stemming from GOP sabotage of the ACA contributes to voter anxiety over pre-existing conditions, drug costs, and out of pocket costs. The concern over cost could explain why there is significant public interest in nationalized health care and Medicare-for-all. By a margin of 54 percent to 46 percent, voters said they favor a system in which “everyone gets health care through Medicare instead of through people’s place of work or instead of buying it directly,” with even 47 percent of Republicans favoring such a universal program, according to the poll.

Health care is a top concern among women in particular. Women reported being very worried that drug companies are charging too much and were twice as worried as men about their ability to pay health care bills.

The big question for Dems is, having won the 2018 midterm in significant part on defending ACA, what should Dems do next on health care? Our poll suggests voters want action to stabilize markets, protect people with preexisting conditions and keep premiums down. Though many reported supporting Medicare-for-all, our poll also shows that people don’t want big tax increases. Additionally, Kaiser Family Foundation polling has found that when informed about the tradeoffs of greater government involvement (i.e. higher taxes) some of the support for Medicare-for-all wanes.

As PPI has documented, there are many roads to universal and affordable health care. As the 2020 presidential cycle gets underway, there should be a robust debate about the best way for Dems to build on the ACA’s successes.

Overall, the poll suggested that a progressive, yet pragmatic, agenda could help Democrats sustain a governing majority. Voters clearly favor individual initiative and self-determination even if they favor a larger government role in health care specifically. Democrats need to maintain and expand this near-majority advantage going into 2020. And to do that, they must craft a broadly appealing agenda that brings in and keeps independents and less committed partisans—the majority of whom call themselves ‘moderate’—under the tent.

New PPI Poll: America’s Resilient Center & the Road to 2020

National survey shows suburban voters repelled by President Trump’s divisive behavior, open to Democrats’ “Big Tent” approach

WASHINGTON —The Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) today released a national opinion survey that highlights the surprising resilience of America’s pragmatic political center two years into Donald Trump’s deeply polarizing presidency. The poll reinforces a key takeaway from the 2018 midterm elections: Suburban voters – especially women – are repelled by the president’s racial and cultural demagoguery and are moving away from a Trump-dominated GOP.

“Our poll suggests that Donald Trump’s election in 2016 is more likely to be an aberration than any permanent shift in America’s political course,” said Anne Kim, PPI Director of Social and Domestic Policy and PPI President Will Marshall. “The defection of suburban voters creates a political landscape that favors Democrats in 2020 – if they stick to the ‘big tent’ approach that proved so effective in the midterm.”

The poll conducted by Pete Brodnitz at Expedition Strategies contains findings about what’s top of mind for voters, their ideological outlook and leanings, and their views on health care, trade, growth and inequality, the role of government, monopoly and competition, and other contentious issues.

“The agenda that could help Democrats sustain a governing majority, our poll suggests, is one that is progressive yet pragmatic—one that’s optimistic, aspirational and respects Americans’ beliefs in individual initiative and self-determination; one that broadens Americans’ opportunities for success in the private sector and strengthens the nation’s global economic role; one that demands more from business but doesn’t cross the line into stifling growth; and one that adopts a practical approach to big challenges such as immigration reform and climate change,” write Kim and Marshall.

“For Democrats to maintain and expand this near-majority advantage, they must craft a broadly appealing agenda that brings or keeps independents and less committed partisans—the majority of whom call themselves ‘moderate’—under the tent.”

The following key findings from PPI’s survey provide some guideposts for how progressives can develop a winning agenda and message in 2020:

Moderates matter more than ever.
Strong partisans of either stripe were a minority among our respondents – potential evidence that the nation may have hit “peak polarization” and is now on its way to a more rational equilibrium.

Americans want help, not handouts.
Despite the strong economy, many Americans are anxious about their economic futures. Nevertheless, the vast majority of Americans do not see government’s job as rescuing them from these anxieties.

Voters are open to a bigger federal role in health care and are especially worried about drug prices – but the messages are mixed.
Nearly half of respondents ranked health care as one of their top three concerns. High costs – especially prescription drug prices – and the fear of losing coverage were voters’ biggest worries.

Companies need to step it up on wages, but treating Big Business as the enemy is a mistake.
Despite the unpopularity of some sectors, voters are not generally anti-business. Few voters, for instance, are worried about corporate monopolies.

Businesses are no longer getting a free pass when it comes to wages and worker treatment. Our survey found surprisingly strong support for government intervention to raise wages.

Nationalism is a failing strategy – perhaps even among Trump’s core supporters.
Voters would like to see American companies succeed globally and don’t support closing our economy to foreign trade or Trump’s tariff wars. More broadly, voters would like to see the United States involved with the world rather than retreating inward.

The federal deficit could be the sleeper issue of 2020.
Voters are very worried about government spending and debt. It ranked as their second biggest worry, behind drug prices, and fifth on the list of big problems they want Washington to tackle.

Don’t forget immigration.
While immigration priority ranked relatively low for Democrats, it registered as the top-tier concern for Republicans and a major concern for independents. Immigration also looms large for non-college-educated whites, both men and women. The good news is that voters are far more nuanced in their views on immigration than President Trump.

Voters are pragmatists on energy and climate change.
Green hostility to fossil fuel is an anti-jobs stance among moderate voters. Democrats can win on energy and climate issues – but only if they stop outsourcing their energy policy to green activists and avoid a false choice between fossil fuels and renewable energy.

Americans prefer a responsive local government over a centralized federal government that they deeply distrust.
Voters across the political spectrum deeply distrust the federal government, both in its capacity and competence to get things done and on the question of whether it serves the interests of the public versus those of moneyed concerns.

While voters see state governments as much less captive to special interests than Washington, they otherwise tended to give the states similar grades. However, they express a strikingly high level of satisfaction in local government.

###

America’s Resilient Center and the Road to 2020 – Results from a New National Survey

The Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) today released a national opinion survey that highlights the surprising resilience of America’s pragmatic political center two years into Donald Trump’s deeply polarizing presidency. The poll reinforces a key takeaway from the 2018 midterm elections: Suburban voters – especially women – are repelled by the president’s racial and cultural demagoguery and are moving away from a Trump-dominated GOP.

“Our poll suggests that Donald Trump’s election in 2016 is more likely to be an aberration than any permanent shift in America’s political course,” said Anne Kim, PPI Director of Social and Domestic Policy and PPI President Will Marshall. “The defection of suburban voters creates a political landscape that favors Democrats in 2020 – if they stick to the ‘big tent’ approach that proved so effective in the midterm.”

The poll conducted by Pete Brodnitz at Expedition Strategies contains findings about what’s top of mind for voters, their ideological outlook and leanings, and their views on health care, trade, growth and inequality, the role of government, monopoly and competition, and other contentious issues.

“The agenda that could help Democrats sustain a governing majority, our poll suggests, is one that is progressive yet pragmatic—one that’s optimistic, aspirational and respects Americans’ beliefs in individual initiative and self-determination; one that broadens Americans’ opportunities for success in the private sector and strengthens the nation’s global economic role; one that demands more from business but doesn’t cross the line into stifling growth; and one that adopts a practical approach to big challenges such as immigration reform and climate change,” write Kim and Marshall.

“For Democrats to maintain and expand this near-majority advantage, they must craft a broadly appealing agenda that brings or keeps independents and less committed partisans—the majority of whom call themselves ‘moderate’—under the tent.”

PPI-Expedition-Strategies-2018-Poll-PPT

PPI_Americans-and-The-Economy2018