Marshall, Ainsley in Politico EU: How Britain’s Labour Party is (quietly) keeping up with the Democrats

Claire Ainsley, a former aide to Starmer who is now the director of the PPI’s project on center-left renewal, said: “Looking at who’s going to be the next candidate is actually only one part of the equation. The other part of it is which faction, if you like, is going to get their candidate to emerge?”

With Bill Clinton in the 1990s, she argued, “you build the platform and the candidate emerges. It wasn’t as if Clinton came with all these ideas — you had to build a platform.” But this becomes a battle of competing ideologies too, with different think tanks lobbying for the kind of center left they want to see. […]

Likewise, Labour’s recent former General Secretary David Evans, now an adviser to PPI, has been to the U.S. with Ainsley to speak to Democratic strategists, including at a Denver summit in April. The pair are due to attend a similar behind-closed-doors “retreat” in Las Vegas on Sept. 13, where speakers will include Obama’s former chief of staff (and potential presidential hopeful) Rahm Emanuel.

The PPI has its eye on talented governors such as Whitmer, Colorado’s Jared Polis, Pennsylvania’s Josh Shapiro, Kentucky’s Andy Beshear, newcomers such as North Carolina’s Josh Stein and former governors such as Rhode Island’s Gina Raimondo, who also served in Joe Biden’s cabinet as a commerce secretary.

Shapiro and Whitmer in particular, argued PPI President Will Marshall, embody an “impatience with government bureausclerosis” — a battle occupying Labour in the U.K. Friendly think tanks like to hail Shapiro for fixing a key interstate in just 12 days after it collapsed.

In the U.K., PPI is interested in center-left ministers such as Lammy, Wes Streeting, Bridget Phillipson, John Healey, Ellie Reeves, Alison McGovern, Torsten Bell, Kirsty McNeill and Lucy Rigby, along with new junior ministers such as Kanishka Narayan and Mike Tapp.

Democratic former Congressman Tim Ryan — who ran unsuccessfully for president in 2020 as well as against the now-Vice President JD Vance in a 2022 Ohio Senate race — came to the U.K. in July, facilitated by the PPI, and held briefings with Labour MPs and peers. Ainsley and Deborah Mattinson, a pollster and former Starmer adviser who works with the PPI, presented research on swing voters who are becoming disillusioned with center-left parties.

Read more in Politico EU.

Ritz for Forbes: Thanks To Trump, Adult Content Creators Could Pay Lower Taxes Than You

During the last election, President Trump made “No Tax on Tips” the centerpiece of what he claimed would be “pro-working class” tax reform. Congress moved to fulfill that promise when it created a new tax deduction as part of the “One Big Beautiful Bill” (OBBB) passed last summer. But new preliminary guidance from the Treasury Department about who can actually claim the new deduction makes increasingly clear just how unfair this policy really is to most working Americans.

OBBB allows workers with incomes less than $400,000 to deduct up to $25,000 of income they receive in tips from their taxable income through 2028. Many experts warned that such a policy would likely encourage savvy professionals to restructure their existing income as tips to benefit from the deduction, so Congress also attempted to limit it to only professions that “customarily and regularly” received tips in the past. Last week, the Treasury Department released a preliminary list of occupations that would qualify – and it includes many that neither voters nor lawmakers were probably intending to give a special tax preference.

For example, the list includes “digital content creators.” Most of the revenue content creators receive generally comes from subscriptions or advertising, but some platforms also allow viewers to make voluntary payments. This practice is particularly common on livestreaming sites like Twitch and OnlyFans, the latter of which is often used to stream sexually explicit content. What this means is that someone who posts adult content on OnlyFans can pay substantially less in taxes than most workers with the exact same income simply by soliciting voluntary payments from their viewers, because the IRS will consider those payments to be tax-deductible tips.

Read the full article on Forbes.

Kahlenberg for Washington Monthly: The Eternal Social Justice Summer

In a moment when the President of the United States is trying to use the power of the state to intimidate critics in academia and the media (not to mention his political opponents), some may think that a new book like Thomas Chatterton Williams’s Summer of Our Discontent, which focuses mainly on the illiberalism of the left, is terribly timed. They will fault the author for not “meeting the moment,” or worse, for “enabling” an autocrat by articulating “right-wing talking points.” Liberal critics have already panned the volume in The New York TimesThe Washington Post, and New York magazine.

Read more in Washington Monthly.

Humanity is ‘aging’ three months each year

FACT: Humanity is ‘aging’ three months each year.

THE NUMBERS: Median age,* worldwide –

2025 30.9
2022 30.1
2020 29.6
2010 27.2
2000 25.1
1980 21.5


Our World in Data
 

WHAT THEY MEAN: 

We last looked at the graying world in the fall of 2023. Here’s a reprise, with two more years of data:

Until the 19th century, life expectancy at birth was about 30, and a 25-year-old expected (on average) to live to 50. One rare exception who made it to the tenth decade — 90-year-old Usama ibn Munqidh, a Syrian aristocrat living in retirement at Saladin’s court in 1185 — found the old age experience a dismaying surprise. In his youth, he would happily ride off on weekends to spear a few Crusaders or some charismatic megafauna; now he’s worn out by a few hours with a calligraphy pen:

When I wake up I feel like a mountain is on top of me
When I walk, it’s like wearing chains
I creep around with a cane in my hand …
My hand struggles to hold up a pen, when it once
Broke spears in the hearts of lions.

Nobody’s surprised now. The elderly demographic is the world’s fastest-growing, adding 15 million octo- and nonagenarians, plus half a million over 100, since 2020. Birth rates, meanwhile, have dropped by half in the last 50 years. So humanity is steadily aging. Per the Our World in Data table, the world’s “median age” — that is, the age of the person exactly in the middle — rises about three months a year. At 30 years and a month as of 2022, it’s now about to hit 31. (Meaning that this actual “median person” is a “millennial” born early in 1995.) By the next U.S. presidential election, it will likely hit 32. A little detail, beginning with a sample list of median ages by country –

Japan 49.8 years
South Korea 45.6 years
France 42.3 years
Sweden 40.3 years
China 40.1 years
U.S. 38.5 years
Australia 38.3 years
Brazil 34.8 years
Jamaica 32.8 years
World 30.9 years
Mexico 29.6 years
India 28.8 years
Fiji 28.1 years
Jordan 24.7 years
Ghana 21.3 years
Kenya 20.0 years
Central African Republic 14.5 years

 

Pulling back a bit, Africa is the world’s “youngest” region, with a median age just above 19. Europe is the “oldest” at nearly 43, and Latin America is in the middle at 32. Asia is mixed: the South Asian tier is relatively youthful (Pakistan at 21, India 29, Sri Lanka 33); ASEAN skews a bit older, from the 26 in Cambodia and the Philippines to 41 in Thailand; Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Korea join Japan and Korea on the world’s aging frontier. China is a notch younger but aging fast: the median Chinese out-aged his or her median-American counterpart in 2019, turned 40 this year, and is now a year and a half older than the median American.

Youngest: The world’s youthful extreme is in the Central African Republic, where the 14.5-year-old median person is possibly a lycee sophomore (or more likely, in a 56% rural country, a farm kid pondering a move to the city). Niger, Somalia, Mali, Chad, and the Democratic Republic of Congo are one grade older, all somewhere between 15 and 16.

Most typical: The countries most closely representing this year’s world demographics, each with a median age between 30 and 31, are Bhutan, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Panama.

“Oldest”: Japan, whose median age will likely cross 50 this winter (after reaching 30 in 1977, and 40 in 1998), is furthest out on the gray frontier.* Italy is next at 48, followed by Hong Kong and Portugal at 47, with Korea, Bosnia, and Germany.

So: Over the 2020s and 2023s, expect production and consumer booms in India, Africa, and parts of the Middle East. Americans, and the U.S.’ neighbors north and south, will be aging. And Europeans and East Asians, having long since put down their spears and growing tired as they push around the modern equivalents of calligraphy pens, can look forward to labor shortages, lower growth rates, and politics increasingly dominated by arguments over how to pay for health and pensions. Maybe not very inspiring but still, as ibn M. might agree, better than any currently realistic alternative.

* Counting countries with populations above 100,000. The Vatican, with about 800 people, is technically the oldest country, with its various Cardinals, secretaries, and Swiss Guards at a median age of about 57.

FURTHER READING

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

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

Aging:

Our World in Data’s interactive table of median ages by country, region, income group, etc., from 1950 to the present with projections to 2100.

The CIA’s World Factbook ranks countries by life expectancy.

And Usama ibn Munqidh has perspective on old age and lots more — medieval battle tactics, poetry and calligraphy advice, Crusaders’ odd gender habits and loony trial-by-ordeal legal theories, and the mighty Saladin.

Countries:

Indonesia, at 240 million people, joins Malaysia, Panama, and Bhutan at the demographic median. Stat-portrait here.

Japan will be the first country (again, setting aside the Vatican and a couple of other micro-states) to pass 50.  Through the lens of Nippon Steel’s eventually successful bid to purchase U.S. Steel, Senior Fellow Yuka Hayashi explains how this is playing out in Japanese industry and foreign direct investment.

And only in the Central African Republic are most people 14 years or younger.

And at home:

As America’s population approaches the 40-year median Japan reached in 1998, PPI’s Ben Ritz and Nate Morris look at Social Security at 90, with demographics, financing, and policy ideas.

… and the broader PPI Budget Blueprint sets out tax, health, retirement, interest, and other reforms to bring down long-term debt, stabilize retirement and health programs, free up money for discretionary spending, and ensure “fiscal democracy” for the next generation.

ABOUT ED

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

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

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

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

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

PPI Report Finds That Socioeconomic Impact of Legalized Sports Betting is Less Harmful Than Feared

WASHINGTON — Last weekend marked the beginning of the 2025 NFL season. In many states, Americans will be able to bet on all the games using legalized sportsbooks.

Today, the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) released a new report arguing that while legalized sports betting has surged, it has not produced the widespread financial fallout that critics feared. Authored by PPI Vice President and Chief Economist Michael Mandel, “Balancing Innovation and Risk: The Case of Legalized Sports Betting,” shows that credit scores and consumer bankruptcies have been in line with the national average or improved in states where legalized sports betting is permitted.

“Problem gambling is real, and policymakers must ensure resources and safeguards are in place,” said Mandel. “However, the data shows that for most people, sports gambling in general hasn’t caused systemic financial harm — instead, it’s boosting the economy and providing another form of entertainment for people.”

Key findings include:

  • Early adopter states of mobile sports betting saw a 40% decline in consumer bankruptcies (2019–2024), compared to a 34% national decline.
  • Average credit scores for states with legal sports gambling rose about 1.8% from 2019 to 2024, in line with national trends.
  • Sports betting directly added $12.4 billion to GDP growth, in 2019 dollars,  between 2019 and 2024.
  • Overall spending on gambling has stayed flat as a share of consumer spending.
Mandel stressed that while responsible, legalized gambling can both educate Americans about risk and stimulate economic growth, stronger measures are needed to guard against addiction and unsafe practices. He called for pragmatic safeguards — such as closing education gaps and ensuring accessible support services for those affected by gambling disorders — to promote innovation in the industry while protecting consumers.

“Sports betting is best understood as part of a broader trend in discretionary, experience-based spending — like travel, live entertainment, or cosmetic procedures,” said Mandel. “Betting has become more of an experience that people get more enjoyment out of rather than other material goods.”

Read and download the report here.

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

###

Media Contact: Ian OKeefe – iokeefe@ppionline.org

Balancing Innovation and Risk: The Case of Legalized Sports Betting

SUMMARY

The legalization of mobile sports betting in many states has led to widespread worries about negative financial, social, and emotional impacts of easy access to sports gambling that cannot be ignored by policymakers. In particular, problem gambling is an issue that needs to be monitored and addressed, including filling in education gaps in a new category of discretionary spending and ensuring that there are support resources for those affected by gambling disorders. We examine several aspects of the socioeconomic impact of sports gambling. First, we find that even as net spending on legal sports betting rose from $920 million in 2019 to $13.7 billion in 2024, overall spending on gambling has stayed flat as a share of consumer spending. Based on data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), gambling accounted for 1.04% of personal consumer expenditures in 2024, compared to 1.07% in 2017. Given the inherent uncertainty of economic statistics, that’s effectively no difference.

Second, we look at the impact of sports gambling on consumer finances. We find no sign of a tidal wave of bankruptcies or consumer credit downgrades in states that were early adopters of mobile sports betting. Indeed, quite the opposite: Early adopter states showed a 40% decline in consumer bankruptcies between 2019 and 2024, compared to a 34% decline nationally, and a 36% decline for all states which legalized mobile sports betting. When we compared state-level credit scores in 2019 and 2024, we found a 1.8% increase in credit scores for early adopter states, roughly the same as the national average.

Third, we make the case that legalized sports betting serves as an economic innovation that generates positive consumer benefits and costs akin to other discretionary “experiential” spending
categories such as foreign vacations, live entertainment, and appearance-enhancing surgery. We show that it’s not uncommon for consumers to take on debt to finance outlays in these areas, yet the government does not step in to control individual behavior.

Read the full report.

Kahlenberg for The Chronicle of Higher Education: Trump’s New Attack on Admissions Will Fail

The war over affirmative action in college admissions has entered a new phase.

For decades, conservatives have campaigned against racial preferences while saying they favor race-neutral strategies for achieving racial diversity, such as giving a boost to economically disadvantaged students of all races. Now, however, the Trump administration is moving the goal posts. Their new stance is that class-based affirmative action is also illegal if it is aimed at promoting racial integration. In late July, the Department of Justice issued a stunning memorandum declaring that “criteria like socioeconomic status, first-generation status, or geographic diversity must not be used” if a university’s goal is to further racial diversity on campus.

The move represents a major blunder by the Trump administration — and a significant opportunity for colleges. By expanding its opposition to racial preferences to now include preferences for economically disadvantaged students, the administration moves from a strong political position to a very weak one. Furthermore, the attack on economic affirmative action will almost surely lose in court. The administration’s overreach gives colleges, which have been playing defense for years, a chance to finally put Trump on the hot seat. They should press the question: Why, exactly, is Trump seeking to end economic affirmative-action programs that benefit working Americans of all races?

Read more in The Chronicle of Higher Education. 

Manno for Forbes: Troubling Back-To-School Job News For College-Goers

The roughly 19.6 million undergraduates returning to campus this school year face bad news about bleak job prospects after graduation. Many will leave college indebted and ambitious, only to discover that the entry-level rung of the career ladder is no longer what it once was. They will end up in a job that doesn’t require their degree or be unemployed.

A recent article in The Atlantic titled “The Job Market Is Frozen” by staff writer Roge Karma tells the story of his younger brother who graduated with honors from a top U.S. private university. Over a six month period, his brother completed 576 job applications, received 29 responses, and had four interviews, none of which led to a job. Roge is an economist, so he was motivated to examine the situation in more depth.

He concludes that “Unemployment is low, but workers aren’t quitting and businesses aren’t hiring. What’s going on? Call it the Big Freeze. A job market with few hiring opportunities is especially punishing for young people entering the workforce or trying to advance up the career ladder, including those with a college degree.””

Many college students sense this.

Read more in Forbes.

New PPI Report Declares America’s Schools in Crisis, Urges a Bold, Bipartisan Compact for Reform

WASHINGTON — As partisan battles rage over library books, school choice, and the future of the U.S. Department of Education, a new report from the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) warns that both major political parties have abandoned serious efforts to improve public education. “A New Compact for Educational Excellence,” authored by PPI Director of Education Policy Rachel Canter, warns that while Republicans pursue an ideological push toward privatization, Democrats have retreated from reform and ceded ground to defenders of a broken status quo.

Recent federal data underscore the scale and urgency of the challenge: fewer than one in three eighth graders read at grade level, 40% of fourth graders fall below basic literacy, and NAEP scores remain well below pre-pandemic levels. Meanwhile, seven in ten Americans express dissatisfaction with the nation’s schools, according to Gallup.

“We are sending millions of children back to school this fall, but we’re doing so without a clear plan for how to help them succeed,” said Canter. “Too many national and state leaders have abandoned the charge of improving America’s public schools, putting the future of millions of children at risk. Now is the time to rally behind a new compact with families that restores excellence, choice, and accountability to public education.”

Canter outlines a sweeping nine-point reform agenda to rebuild public education and restore national confidence in schools:

  1. A goal of universal literacy by fourth grade; numeracy by eighth grade; and reading and math skills by graduation that enable students to succeed beyond high school.
  2. A larger voice for parents in school policies and decisions.
  3. A high-quality early childhood education program for every family that seeks one.
  4. A bridge from K-12 to adulthood.
  5. An expansion of public school choice and school autonomy.
  6. An unwavering commitment to accountability for all schools that receive public dollars.
  7. A new model for the teaching profession.
  8. A strong but targeted national role.
  9. A civic education that teaches our children what it means to be an American.
“If we want every child in America to succeed, we must give families real choices within the public system, support schools in enacting effective policies and programs, and demand better outcomes from every school that receives public dollars,” said Canter.

Read and download the report here.

The Reinventing America’s Schools Project seeks to refocus national leadership around proven strategies to improve public schools and educational achievement. We believe that American public schools must prepare children academically to be successful adults and citizens; families should have a voice in their child’s education, including a choice within the public system to find a school that best fits their child’s needs; and, though education is the province of the states, the federal government must protect the promise that every child will have access to a quality public education.

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

###

Media Contact: Ian OKeefe – iokeefe@ppionline.org

A New Compact for Educational Excellence

INTRODUCTION

America’s public school students are drowning.

After nearly three decades of slow but steady increases in reading achievement, the scores of our fourth and eighth graders stagnated after 2015 and have fallen precipitously since 2019 for all but the highest performers.

Though the pandemic caused immediate and severe learning loss, reading scores have continued to erode even as the country passed the fifth anniversary of the COVID-19 shutdown. Nationally, as of 2024, fourth and eighth graders are back to where they started at the advent of the reading assessment.

In simple terms, the share of fourth graders falling below the “basic” level of literacy has risen to 40%.3 Fewer than one-third of U.S. eighth graders can read at grade level. The picture is similarly bleak in math — stagnation just prior to the pandemic, followed by significant declines since, with the deepest drops among the lowest-performing students. The results in all grades and subjects show a widening gap between the highest and lowest performers, all while test scores remain below pre-pandemic levels, despite the Biden administration’s infusion of $190 billion in federal pandemic relief.

These results from the National Assessment for Education Progress (NAEP), also known as the Nation’s Report Card, spawned alarming headlines upon their release in January 2025: “American Children’s Reading Skills Reach New Lows,” blasted the New York Times; “Kids’ Reading and Math Skills Are Worsening, New Test Scores Reveal. What’s Going On?” USA Today fretted. The dire data posed no mystery to the Wall Street Journal’s editorial board, which summed up the situation bluntly: “America’s Schools Keep Flunking.”

American parents share the conclusion of the Journal’s ed board about the state of public schooling. August 2024 public opinion polling from Gallup shows satisfaction with education remains among the lowest it has been this century, with three in ten parents somewhat or completely dissatisfied with their child’s education and more than half of the wider public feeling the same.

A January 2025 Gallup survey about the general mood of the nation from two weeks before the recent NAEP release shows even lower satisfaction with public schools, with seven in ten respondents reporting dissatisfaction.

Despite this crisis, the consensus that policymakers and advocates reached in the early 2000s about the importance and urgency of improving educational outcomes has long since disintegrated, torn apart by the social controversies that now dominate education rather than ideas about how to improve teaching and learning. Meanwhile, the Trump administration is attempting to eviscerate, if not shut down, the U.S. Department of Education and to redirect federal education spending from public to private schools.

Democrats opened the door to these attacks by abandoning the Clinton-Obama legacy of school reform and lining up behind teachers’ unions defending the K-12 status quo. As a result, they’ve forfeited their party’s historical advantage on educational issues. But if Democrats can no longer claim the mantle of the party of education, neither can Republicans, who have abdicated responsibility for the majority of the nation’s schoolchildren by focusing on private school choice to the exclusion of nearly everything else.13 Ninety percent of American children attend public schools, and yet neither party is speaking to them or their families.

The consequences for the country and our children of continued inaction are severe. “Looking at this data, it’s clear that we’re in enormous risk of losing an entire generation of learners unless we show some focus and leadership,” Jane Swift, a former Republican governor of Massachusetts, told a reporter after the NAEP scores became public. In short, we’ve arrived at another “Nation
at Risk” moment, but this time, U.S. political and business leaders aren’t stepping forward to galvanize national action to fix our chronically underperforming public schools. Senator Michael Bennet was pointed in a recent interview about the vacuum of national attention and leadership, stating, “…We’ve abandoned our aspirations for our kids when it comes to their education, period. We can’t tolerate a system that creates the kind of outcomes we’re seeing. …We have a national interest in the fact that our reading scores are below where they were three decades ago. We have a national interest in the fact that our kids feel like the system we have — whether it’s K-12, higher education, or workforce development — is not preparing them to succeed in this economy.”

We couldn’t agree more. The country urgently needs a new vision that refocuses public schools on their core academic mission, ends the retreat from rigor and merit, increases opportunity for learners of all backgrounds, expands parental choice of public schools, closes achievement gaps, and moves to a post-bureaucratic system of autonomous and accountable public schools designed for today’s children.

Read the full report.

Some Thoughts on Homeownership, Credit Scores, and Policy Myopia

Credit scores have become an integral part of our financial lives. A great score can be used to leverage great deals — on loans, credit cards, insurance premiums, apartments, and cell phone plans. Bad scores hammer you into missing out or paying more. 

Making sure credit decisions are based on the best available information is absolutely key to ensuring accuracy and fairness. Keeping politics out of credit scoring is a must.

Which is why the pronouncement this summer by William Pulte, the Director of the Federal Housing Finance Administration (FHFA), that he was going to allow lenders can now use Vantage 4.0 (a credit scoring model developed by the three major credit reporting bureaus — Experian, Transunion, and Equifax) to “lower the cost of credit checks,”  is both unusual and concerning.  

First, the agency FHFA is in the middle of transitioning the housing government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) from the FICO Classic credit score for each mortgage they purchase to using both FICO 10T and VantageScore 4.0 credit scores. This change is mandated by law.

The Pulte proclamation seems to have skipped the normal regulatory process set forth under the Administrative Procedures Act (for example, the change was made without even an expedited notice-and-comment rulemaking), and also halted the shift from FICO Classic to FICO 10T — even though 10T is designed to provide lenders with a more accurate and dynamic assessment of credit risk by incorporating trended data such as recent payment activity. 

Second, the FHFA and the GSEs had already validated both VantageScore 4.0 and FICO 10T. Yet Pulte is only letting the GSEs use VantageScore 4.0 to be used (along with FICO Classic). Why, because supposedly, the historical data is still being collected for FICO 10T. 

But why would the federal government give one credit score the upper hand over another?  

We don’t know the answer, but one concern PPI noted when the issue of allowing for an alternative to FICO was first raised was the ownership of Vantage. At the time, proponents of Vantage argued that requiring the use of VantageScore 4.0 was needed to provide more competition and innovation in credit scoring. More competition can bring down costs and spur investment and innovation. But the problem is that VantageScore is owned by the three credit bureaus (Experian, Trans Union, and Equifax). Whether intentionally or not, the credit bureaus have a natural bias in favor of VantageScore 4.0 over FICO. This is why PPI has recommended that the three credit bureaus sell their stake in VantageScore.  

Third, the cost of credit scores is a tiny fraction of the overall closing costs. And as economist Douglas Holtz-Eakin noted, there is no readily available information on what VantageScore charges and how its price compares to FICO.    

Furthermore, the Pulte announcement could actually lead to higher costs for homebuyers. Investors may price in any perceived risk if they think that mortgage originators made the loan with the least favorable credit score. 

There are serious ideas to address this problem that members of both parties will have to make, such as reducing barriers to manufactured housing. The Pulte announcement on VantageScore is not one of them.  

Court Highlights DOJ Overreach and Refocuses on Consumer Welfare in Deciding Remedies in Google Search Monopolization Case

Judge Mehta of the District Court for the District of Columbia yesterday issued a long-awaited decision on remedies in the Google Search monopolization case. The 230-page opinion is both a nod to Google’s proposed remedies, but with modifications, and a reining in of overreach by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) in proposing to restructure and quasi-regulate the online search market.

Regardless of where different stakeholders come out on Judge Mehta’s opinion, one thing is clear. The remedies adopted by the court tell us a lot about antitrust’s emerging role in the digital sector. The decision reinforces the importance of antitrust enforcement in promoting competition in digital markets. But it also conveys a strong message about its limitations and why the courts are ill-suited to engage in ongoing enforcement of regulatory-style remedies in a complex and dynamic sector.

To be clear, the decision places significant restrictions on Google moving forward. It prohibits entering into or maintaining exclusive contracts for the distribution of Google Search, Chrome, Google Assistant, and the Gemini app. It also requires Google to share narrow sets of search index and user-interaction data and provide search syndication services for search and search text ads to “qualified competitors.”

These conditions target the conduct that fostered Google’s dominance in online search, as the court established at the liability stage in 2024. At the same time, the conditions also help rivals achieve the scale necessary to compete, but for a much shorter time period than requested by the DOJ. In doing so, the goal of the opinion is clear: address the competitive harm, open the search market to competition, and apply pressure on rivals to innovate quickly.

The remedies proposed by the DOJ and rejected by the court are also revealing. For example, Google is not required to divest the Chrome browser or Android. The decision also allows payments to distributors for pre-loading or placement of Google search products; rejects a requirement for Google to share granular query-level data with advertisers; does not require mandatory choice screens; and declines to impose anti-retaliation, anti-circumvention, and self-preferencing conditions.

In whittling down the DOJ’s 20-plus proposed remedies covering bans on contracts, divestitures, and regulatory oversight of Google’s search platform, Judge Mehta’s decision exposes several important themes.

First, it is hard not to notice the court’s conclusion — repeated many times over — that many of the government’s proposals are not “tailored to fit” or “unrelated to” Google’s anticompetitive conduct in online search. This sends a clear message that plaintiffs should stick to proposed remedies that address specific antitrust violation(s) and avoid those that are designed to achieve broader public policy goals in a market.

Second, you cannot miss the court’s focus on the impact of the DOJ’s proposed remedies on consumers — something that the government largely overlooked — and that PPI emphasized in its April 2025 report Antitrust Remedies and U.S. v. Google: Putting the Consumer Back into the “Fix.” The opinion highlights the importance of the consumer welfare standard in stating that the court “…must be sensitive to remedies that risk substantially stifling technological innovation or impairing consumer welfare,” and “…if one or more of these adverse market impacts were to come to pass, it would harm consumer welfare.”

Indeed, consumer welfare features prominently in Judge Mehta’s reasoning behind rejecting the DOJ’s proposal to require divestiture of the Chrome browser. To wit, “…the court is highly skeptical that a Chrome divestiture would not come at the expense of substantial product degradation and a loss of consumer welfare.” In refocusing the antitrust lens on consumer welfare, the decision also identifies user privacy and data security as a prominent consumer welfare issue.

For example, the court bases “…the release of less than the full datasets…” on the need to promote user privacy. Similarly, the decision requires modifications to the makeup of the Technical Committee to “…address the important data privacy and data security issues arising from the Search Index and User-side Data remedies.” In digital markets, where the currency of exchange is user information, not dollars, product quality and user privacy are central to antitrust’s effects-based analysis under the prevailing consumer-welfare standard. The opinion amplifies the relevance of this fact.

Last but not least, the decision opens by framing a critical reality for antitrust enforcement in the digital sector. Namely, the pace of innovation — and especially GenAI technology — is having a transformative impact on online search. A remedy must, therefore, consider the implications. For example, Judge Mehta’s decision explains the need to modify DOJ’s data-sharing proposals “…to mitigate their impact on Google’s and competitors’ innovation incentives.” The court also shortened the duration of the DOJ remedy because the “…10-year term runs the risk of growing stale in these fast-moving times, where GenAI technologies are breaking barriers seemingly at light speed.”

While there are many takeaways from the Google search remedies decision, two are likely to have significant staying power. One is that the pace of innovation — juxtaposed with the relatively slow pace of antitrust litigation — poses ongoing challenges in the digital sector. A second is that the consumer welfare standard remains alive and well. As PPI noted in Antitrust Remedies and U.S. v. Google: Putting the Consumer Back into the “Fix,” “The District Court has the unique opportunity to ensure a strong remedy that restores competition while striking a better balance to protect consumers under the consumer welfare standard.” The opinion achieves this important goal.

26 of this year’s 80 MLB All-Stars are ‘international’

FACT: 26 of this year’s 80 MLB All-Stars are “international”

THE NUMBERS: Home run leaders, morning of September 3, 2025 –

Raleigh 51
Schwarber 49
Ohtani 46
Judge 43
Suarez 42
Caminero 40
Soto 37

 

WHAT THEY MEAN: 

How “international” is American working life? Some pennant-race season perspective –

Always remembered for Fisk’s 12th-inning, Game 6 home run, the ’75 Series marks its 50th anniversary this fall. That year’s Red Sox roster, with two international players (ace Luis Tiant and middle-reliever Diego Segui, both Cuban-born), exactly mirrored the majors’ 92% U.S./Puerto Rican composition. The Big Red Machine – 20% international, 80% U.S.-born — was more like a 21st-century team, starting Dominican centerfielder Cesar Geronimo, Cuban first baseman Tony Perez, and Venezuelan shortstop Dave Concepcion, with reliever Pedro Borbon in the bullpen and Bahamian Ed Armbrister as a reserve outfielder.

A half-century later, MLB rosters have diversified and internationalized. They’re now 74% U.S.- and Puerto Rican-born, and 26% international. The leagues’ main recruiting spots outside the U.S. are still mainly on the Caribbean littoral — a hundred players from the DR and 63 from Venezuela; 20 from Cuba, 60 from everywhere else — but go deeper into Mexico and Canada, and also draw from Japan, Korea, and Taiwan. A rundown:

All Opening Day players* 953
U.S.* 704
Dominican Republic 100
Venezuela   63
Cuba   26
Mexico   11
Canada   13
Japan   12
Curacao     4
Korea     3
9 other countries   13

* An odd number, as it includes players on the DL.
**  Includes 16 Puerto Rican players, puzzlingly termed ‘international’ by MLB. 

To pull back a bit: Overall, the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ May Labor Characteristics of the Foreign-Born Workforce release finds 161.3 million people working here in 2024, including 130.9 million “native-born” workers and 30.9 million “foreign-born” workers. (BLS defines ‘foreign-born’ as the total number of “legally-admitted immigrants, refugees, temporary residents such as students and temporary workers, and undocumented immigrants”.)  This would mean 19.2% of workers were born abroad. In context, this is slightly below the average for wealthy western countries: the International Labour Organization’s most recent estimate says that as of 2022 in “North America’s” (meaning in ILO geography the U.S. and Canada only), immigrants make up 22.6% of the workforce, a bit less than the 23.3% share in western Europe.

Looked at more closely, BLS’ “foreign-born” stats have immigrant labor shares highest in physically demanding hourly-wage work — construction, groundskeeping, nannies and maids, hired farmhands — and also high in top-end glamor jobs from pro sports to science labs and movie studios. The lowest shares show up in middle- and upper-middle income positions: company managers, health care providers, lawyers and paralegals, teachers, and so on. A sample list, with figures from 2025 or the most recent available year:

Crop-picking farmworkers 58%
Computer science doctorates 58%
2025 Oscar nominees 50%
All farm, fishery, and forestry workers 44%
2024 U.S. Nobelists 43%
Doctoral-level science & tech workers 40%
Construction Workers 36%
MLB 27%
All major-league athletes 25%
Food service 25%
Personal care & services 22%
All science & tech workers (2021) 19%
All U.S. workers 19%
Health care practitioners 16%
Management jobs 15%
Education & training 12%
Lawyers & paralegals 10%
Security services   9%

Bureau of Labor Statistics for all workers, National Science Foundation for engineering and science workers; Motion Picture Academy for Oscar nominations (counting individuals rather than groups and collaborations); official stats from MLB, NBA, WNBA, and MLS, plus outside writers on hockey and football for pro athletes.

With this in the background, baseball has evolved in parallel with the U.S. generally. Like their top-of-the-economy peers in Hollywood and science, MLB teams now draw from a larger talent pool — this year’s top-ten home-run list features six Americans, two Dominicans, a Venezuelan, and Babe Ruth-like pitcher/slugger Shohei Ohtani — and probably have a higher overall quality of play. U.S.-born players, on the other hand, faced more competition to get their roster slots. It’s probably a mistake to draw too many big-picture lessons or policy ideas from this, but see below for some data on America’s larger workforce trends, and comparisons from the other five big leagues. Coda first, though, for those who weren’t watching in July:

The 2025 All-Star game ended with a six-player “home run swing-off” tiebreaker pitting the National League’s two Americans and a Venezuelan — Kyle Schwarber, Kyle Stowers, and Suarez — against a Cuban-American-Mexican AL trio. (Arozeranda, Rooker, and Aranda.) Ohio native and Indiana University grad Schwarber won it for the NL with a flawless 3-for-3 — three swings, three home runs — at-bat. Not quite Fisk’s 1975 drama, but still pretty good.

FURTHER READING

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

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

Baseball: 

The Opening Day rosters featured 245 international players, making up 26.5% of the 953 players out on the grass in the sun, riding the bench, or gloomily parked on the DL.

… Now: July’s All-Star rosters.

… Then: MLB’s ’75 Series retrospective, plus the Baseball Almanac’s count of that year’s international players.

… Tomorrow: The Dominican Summer League’s next-generation talent.

And the Society for American Baseball Research has a backstory on Cuban and Dominican baseball.

Some more close-ups:

Hollywood’s 2025 Oscar nominees.

The 2024 Nobel Prizes.

USDA’s look at America’s 1.17 million hired farmworkers.

And the National Science Foundation on the sci/tech workforce.

Worldwide perspective:

The International Labor Organization estimates 155.6 million “international migrant” workers as of 2022. That would be 4.7%, or one in every 20, of the world’s 3.3 billion workers. The lowest foreign-born rates are 0.7% in North Africa and 3.7% in East Asia; the highest, in the Persian Gulf monarchies, are above 50%. As above, the U.S.’ 19.2% appears to be a bit below the Canadian and European figures.

American big picture:

The Bureau of Labor Statistics’ most recent Labor Characteristics of the Foreign-Born Workforce brief, out last May, with figures for 2024.

A trawl through this report’s back issues (available online to 2003) finds two big trends.  One, the “foreign-born” worker share has been rising over time and especially fast in recent years – from the 14.5% share of in 2004, to 16.6% a decade later in 2014, 17.2% in 2021, and last year’s 19.2% – both through both high levels of immigration and the aging of the native-born workforce. (About 4 million Americans retire each year.) And two, foreign-born workers have grown relatively more educated over time — 56% now have “some college” or “BA or higher,” as against 37% in 2004 — meaning the “smile” curve may be flattening out. The Trump administration’s deportation campaign has very likely slowed the first trend — fewer foreign-born maids, groundskeepers, construction crews, and farm hands — and accelerated the second.

And around the leagues:

NBA: If MLB’s scouts spend their road time on Caribbean beaches or in Japan, their basketball counterparts draw more from a more global pool with a European focus. The National Basketball Association’s 2024-2025 season was 28.0% international with 21 Canadian players, 14 French, 13 Australians, 6 Serbs, and a record 5 from Cameroon.

WNBA: The Women’s National Basketball Association, meanwhile, features 41 international players on this season’s 173 roster spots, for a slightly lower 23.6%. DC’s Mystics play Australian guards Georgia Amoore and Jade Melbourne, along with forwards Sika Kone and Aaliyah Edwards, who are respectively from Mali and Canada.

MLS: Majority-international Major League Soccer has so much available foreign talent that it has an “International Rule” capping international players at 241 of the league’s 852 slots. Kind of a squishy rule, though, as it declares Canadians “domestic” to get a North American 50.1% majority player share.

NFL: The least “international” among the big leagues, the National Football League also seems to be the least analyst-friendly, as we haven’t found an up-to-date list of international players. Their 2023 list reported 88 international players with “at least one snap” in 2022. Much like MLB dubiously counts Puerto Ricans as “international,” the NFL’s “international list” includes 7 U.S. citizens from American Samoa. (They also recruit in the independent Republic of Samoa.) The other top sources are 22 Canadians, 19 Nigerians, and 7 Australians.

NHL: The “nation” in National Hockey League is not the U.S. but Canada, even if most of the rinks are now south of the 49th Parallel and won’t freeze even in March without artificial help. The NHL’s 712 players last year included 291 Canadians, 204 Americans, 216 Europeans (topped by Swedes, with Russia and Finland next), and one Aussie.

ABOUT ED

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

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

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

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

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