The furore over Keir Starmer citing Margaret Thatcher as one of the defining prime ministers of the 20th century has somewhat obscured the question of the “meaningful change” a Labour government would deliver. The purpose of referencing prime ministers who delivered transformative change – whether we agree or disagree with their means and ends – is surely to position the next Labour government in the tradition of great reforming administrations. Ultimately, history will be the judge, but as we look towards a possible Labour government for the first time in 14 years, what meaningful change is the party arguing for?
The scale of the challenge facing Labour is daunting. Only this week, the Resolution Foundation’s Economy 2030 inquiry powerfully demonstrated that the British economy faces continued relative decline unless we urgently correct our course. Some of our malaise dates from the post-financial crisis era and the political and policy choices made in its aftermath, most notably austerity and a botched Brexit. But, depressingly, much of it is attributable to long-running structural weaknesses in the UK economy which predate the 2008 financial crisis, such as the lowest investment in the G7 over the past 40 years and high inequality between people and places.
The consequence of all this is that our middle and lower earners are far worse off than their counterparts in similar-sized economies. As the Resolution Foundation charted, typical households in Britain are 9 per cent poorer than their French equivalents, while low-income families are 27 per cent poorer.
On this episode of RAS Reports, PPI’s Reinventing America’s Schools Project Co-Director Tressa Pankovits sits down with Jorge Elorza, CEO of Democrats for Education Reform (DFER) and former Mayor of Providence, Rhode Island to discuss the importance of school choice and what voters need to look for in 2024.
THE NUMBERS: Average U.S. tariff rates* for clothing by gender, 2022 –
Men’s
13.6%
Women’s
16.7%
No specified gender
12.0%
* Tariff revenue divided by import value. These calculations includes tariff revenue collected from both imports subject to MFN tariff rates, and from Chinese products subject to “301” tariffs (which often add 7.5% to existing rates). Import value includes clothing from MFN tariff sources, from China, and from countries exempted from tariffs under FTAs and trade preference programs.
WHAT THEY MEAN:
The House New Democrat Coalition’s eight-point trade policy plan — out last month from the NDC’s 11-member Trade Task Force, headed by Rep. Lizzie Fletcher (D-Texas) and co-chaired by Reps. Don Beyer (D-Va.) and Jimmy Panetta (D-Calif.) — has lots of ideas on digital trade, the China relationship, free trade agreements, farm exports, and more. Included in the NDC’s list is a hope to “advance equity in trade policy by considering solutions to reduce gender bias and regressivity in the tariff system.” Here’s some background on the gender piece:
Our Valentine’s Day Trade Fact last February pointed out the strange fact that the U.S. tariff system taxes women’s underwear more heavily than men’s. Examination of the tariff schedules and import data across the clothing universe over the past few months shows that this underwear diss of women is not a weird anomaly. Rather, it is a specific case of a larger systemic issue, which the NDC is very right to highlight: the tariff system in general taxes women’s clothing more heavily than men’s, imposing special charge on American women likely extracting above $2 billion per year. Here are the facts:
1. Tariff rates on average are higher on women’s clothes than on men’s: The U.S. Harmonized Tariff Schedule divides goods into 11,414 “lines,” each with a tariff rate. Chapters 61 and 62 cover clothes. Unique in the Tariff Schedule, they divide most clothes by gender and freely impose different tariff rates for similar items based on this division. For instance, men’s and boys’ cotton suit jackets under line 61033200 are taxed at 13.5%. The corresponding cotton jackets in the women and girls’ heading, at line 61043200, at 14.9%. More generally, 17 “headings” in Chapters 61 and 62 cover comparable clothes divided by gender: men’s overcoats, women’s overcoats, men’s “suits and ensembles,” women’s “suits and ensembles,” men’s “shirts and blouses,” women’s “shirts and blouses,” men’s underwear, and women’s underwear. Here are the tariff rates in 2017* for these items, derived by dividing total tariff revenue by import value:
Men
Women
Overcoats
12.5%
13.7%
Suits
13.3%
15.1%
Shirts
17.0%
19.7%
Underwear
8.6%
12.8%
* Data is calculated using 2017 tariff revenue. The rates for 2022 would be higher, since additional tariffs on China have raised rates overall.
So in each category, tariff rates are higher on women’s clothes than on men’s. Combining all the categories, tariff rates on women’s clothing are on average 16.7%, 2.9 percentage points higher than the 13.6% average for men’s.
2. Free Trade Agreements Don’t Help Much and Might Accidentally Amplify Disparity: In theory, the U.S.’ free trade agreements and duty-free preference programs for developing countries should moderate and in some cases eliminate this disparity, by eliminating tariffs on both men’s and women’s clothes. In practice, though, FTAs usually have clothing “rules of origin” so complex as to make them difficult to use, meaning they have less impact than most probably guess. Overall, the 14 U.S. FTAs provide 10% of American clothing imports, and the “CBI” and “AGOA” programs, which waive tariffs on Caribbean- and African-produced clothing, another 2%. So about 90% of the clothing brought into the U.S. comes with full tariff payments. Since 96% of clothing sold in American stores is imported, that means the large majority of garments include tariff costs. And on top of this, a group of researchers from the U.S International Trade Commission found that the FTA countries in practice ship more men’s clothing than women’s, meaning that the FTAs are likely saving men more money than women.
3. Women Therefore Pay More than Men for Similar Things: What does this all mean in practice? Last year’s tariff payments totaled $4.7 billion on $31.1 billion worth of women’s clothes, and $3.1 billion for $24.2 billion worth of men’s clothes. Or, in more direct terms, markups and U.S. transport and overhead costs mean that the cost of an average shirt or coat roughly quadruples from arrival at the border to the cashier, the tariff system appears to be raising the price women pay for clothes, relative to men, by an average of an extra dollar per garment. Looking at this another way, a 2018 working paper from the U.S International Trade Commission concluded that the higher rates on women’s clothes — their finding, pre-“301” tariff, was 14.9% for women’s clothes and 12.0% for men’s — plus the fact that women on average tend to purchase more clothing than men, meant that buyers of women clothes shouldered an additional $2.77 billion in tariff burden than buyers of men’s clothes. Gender bias in the tariff system accounted for about $1.8 billion extra burden on buyers of women’s clothing as of 2015, and presumably somewhat more now.
Conclusion: In sum, the US tariff schedule explicitly taxes women more heavily than men for the same sorts of things. In doing so, it imposes a kind of gender surcharge of at least $2 billion a year. This appears to be the only federal tax in which rates differ based on gender. Our V-Day conclusion on U.S. underwear policy — “Seriously?! Boo! Do better! ???????????? — applies in this larger case too. And Rep. Fletcher and the NDC’s Trade Task Force earn enthusiastic applause for bringing this into the Congressional debate.
Special Note: Research and drafting for this Trade Fact by PPI 2023 Policy Fellow Elaine Wei.
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.
Americans’ views on the economy differ dramatically depending on which side of the diploma divide they fall on. A new comprehensive survey of working-class voters from my organization, Progressive Policy Institute (PPI), finds that working Americans believe they are worse off than they were 40 years ago.
The poll, done in partnership with YouGov, surveyed a representative national sample of voters without a four-year college degree and oversampled in seven key battleground states. The responses revealed that these workers feel like life has gotten harder for them, yet they believe national political leaders, and Democrats in particular, are more concerned about college graduates. It is one of the main reasons why these voters, who once formed the backbone of the Democratic Party, have become estranged from it.
For example, those surveyed overwhelmingly see the Biden administration’s push for student loan forgiveness as unfair to the majority of U.S. workers, who, like them, do not hold a four-year degree or the associated debt. Instead, these voters care much more about career-oriented opportunities. When asked about what is most likely to help working people get ahead, 74% stated the need for increased public investment in apprenticeships and career pathways to help non-college workers acquire better skills. Additionally, when asked what they believe would help most when it comes to having a good job and career, roughly 50% said affordable, short-term training programs that combine work and learning. Only 9% said they viewed college as the best way for them to get ahead.
Earlier this year, with strong bipartisan support, Minnesota legislators passed a pair of bills that they call “triple win” legislation. The new laws are designed to address three critical issues: ensuring public school students graduate with marketable skills, the shortage of certified construction workers, and a pervasive lack of affordable housing.
Minnesota’s forward-thinking initiative is the subject of a Reinventing America’s Schools (RAS) webinar on Tuesday, December 5. The 74 Million, Progressive Policy Institute, and Minnesota’s Center for School Change are co-sponsoring the webinar, which is the latest in RAS’ series on reinventing high schools.
The successful passage of these laws provides funding to replicate programs like the one at GAP School, which is an alternative school in St Paul, MN, serving students aged 16-24. The school’s director, Jody Nelson, will participate in the webinar. GAP’s program:
• Enables students to learn marketable construction skills, thus giving a head start into a well-paying career;
• Constructs homes for low-income families, thus helping meet Minnesotan’s need for more deeply affordable permanent housing;
• Helps provide workers for construction and related fields, which are encountering significant shortages.
Khalique Rogers, co-director of Minnesota’s Center for School Change (CSC), helped lead the legislative effort, with good reason. Rogers, who is featured in the webinar, personally experienced homelessness.
Rogers explained that after moving from Chicago to what they hoped would be a better life in Minneapolis, his family’s meager resources were soon exhausted by hotel bills and by landlords who demanded rental application fees, even when they secretly already had another renter identified. Resources exhausted, the family was forced to sleep in their car. Finally, they found a shelter, but it only welcomed his mother and siblings. His father wasn’t allowed to stay because all of the shelters were for single parents — mothers and children only. Rogers describes the experience as “dehumanizing.”
Though no one wants anyone to freeze in Minnesota’s severe winters, Rogers continues to challenge what he and other youth see as Minnesota’s over-reliance on temporary shelters. After interviewing more than 30 youth who also experienced homelessness, he shared his findings in an online Minnesota publication, and a Minnesota Public Radio interview, explaining “It’s important to hear and learn from youth experiencing homelessness in the Twin Cities.” As he testified at the Minnesota legislature, “Many students find shelters to be dangerous places — we need to provide permanent housing options.”
Now a graduate of St. Paul College and a student at the University of Minnesota, Rogers convened 40 advocates, including 12 students already learning construction skills and building homes. Under Roger’s leadership, their activism during the 2021 and 2023 legislative sessions convinced lawmakers legislators to spend $20 million per year over the next six years, much of it on permanent deeply affordable housing. In 2023, Minnesota lawmakers doubled funding for Youthbuild, a program for “at-risk” youth that helps them earn a high school degree as they develop marketable construction skills and knowledge. Lawmakers also agreed to modify existing legislation so that public schools can apply for up to $100,000 from a pool of more than $40 million to help construct permanent affordable housing.
Minnesota Democratic State Representative Matt Norris, lead sponsor of HF 1310 and HF 2492 in the Minnesota House, is also on the webinar’s panel. Norris said he authored the bills because, in addition to addressing the shortage of much-need, deeply affordable housing and ensuring students graduate with marketable skills, the high school construction training programs already in operation have proven cost-effective and should be scaled. He calls the state’s positive response to the urgent need for more young people to enter construction and related fields a “win-win-win.”
The success of schools with home-building career pathways helped convince lawmakers that the money to scale the model would be well spent. “Our students have renovated four houses and built two new homes,” said Jody Nelson, executive director of Change Inc., which runs GAP School. For years, the school’s construction career pathway has been affiliated with the national YouthBuild USA, as well as Minnesota’s own YouthBuild program.
“Lots of our students are immigrants and refugees,” Nelson said. “It’s a great way into high-wage, high-demand jobs.
GAP alumni Hser Pwe was born in Burma and grew up in a Thailand prison-like refugee camp after his family fled murderous Burmese soldiers. He testified to the legislature that the YouthBuild program at GAP not only taught him construction skills, but also helped improve his English and realize that he really “did” have opportunities. When he graduated from GAP in 2014, GAP helped him find a job installing floor covering. Eight years later, he’s been promoted to foreman, loves his career, and makes more than $44 per hour.
Pwe told lawmakers, “Because of this program I can speak English and support my wife and children. I have even become a U.S. citizen. Without YouthBuild, I do not know where I would be today.”
Thanks in part to this collaboration of legislators, educators, students, and people who’ve experienced homelessness, Minnesota is now on the path to simultaneously providing dignified affordable housing options and livable-wage careers for high school graduates (even those who may also be college-bound).
Khalique Rogers and Joe Nathan are Co-Directors of the Center for School Change, and Tressa Pankovits is Co-Director of Reinventing America’s Schools at Progressive Policy Institute.
Alongside the Hudson Institute, PPI’s Tamar Jacoby co-led a bipartisan conversation on C-SPAN with Representatives Don Bacon (R) and Chrissy Houlahan (D). The panelists discussed the uncertain future of US aid to Ukraine and gave their perspectives on the path ahead for funding the ongoing war.
What is the future of the global App Economy? The average person already spends hours each day on mobile applications, connecting with friends and relatives, watching news and entertainment, playing games, and doing daily tasks such as shopping and banking. People will use apps to interact with their cars, to connect with their health care. Artificial intelligence, low latency and high bandwidth 5G connections, virtual/mixed reality, intensive data processing and on-device machine learning will give rise to entire new categories of mobile applications. Individuals and businesses will become ever-more dependent on mobile apps for their daily lives.
Australia is a key player in the evolving global App Economy. Australian-based app developers with a strong global presence include Sydneybased Canva, the online design and visual communication platform with more than 130 million monthly users across 190 countries. In 2022, Tasmania-based Savage Interactive won an Apple Design Award for its art app Procreate, and Melbourne-based Studio Drydock won for its game Wylde Flowers. Gold Coast-based Desygner, known for its graphic design apps and brand management software, has more than 20 million users worldwide. And Melbourne-based fintech app Afterpay, acquired by Block, the parent company of Square, in January 2022, is still hiring extensively in Australia, based on its job postings.
Looking forward, the Australian App Economy is a potent source of future jobs, since developing, updating, maintaining and securing mobile apps is becoming even more important. None of these jobs existed 15 years ago, when Apple first opened the App Store on July 10, 2008, in the middle of the global financial crisis. Android Market (which later became Google Play) was announced by Google shortly after. These app stores created a new route through which software developers could write programs for smartphones. These mobile applications —called “apps” — could then be distributed to the rapidly growing number of smartphone users around the world.
The jobs generated by the app stores became an important part of the recovery from the financial crisis of 2008-2009, the subsequent economic expansion and the response to the pandemic. More than that, app development and the app stores became a key route by which young people can develop tech skills and became an integral part of the global digital economy.
In this paper we estimate 182,000 App Economy jobs for Australia, as of August 2023, and compare it to previous PPI estimates. We estimate the size of the iOS and Android ecosystems. We compare Australia’s App Intensity with other industrialized countries, where App Intensity is defined as the number of App Economy jobs as a share of total employment. Finally, we also give some examples of App Economy jobs, with special attention to export-oriented jobs.
FACT: Working-class Americans on trade policy – no clear consensus on past agreements, little support for new tariffs, strong hope for training and apprenticeships.
THE NUMBERS: “Effects of agreements to lower tariffs and other barriers on me and people like me,” among Americans with less than college education* –
Positive
Negative
Not much either way
Race & ethnicity
African American
42
13
44
White
25
40
35
Hispanic
33
29
39
Red v. blue
Self-described liberal
45
18
37
Self-described conservative
20
51
29
Youth v. age
18-29 years old
45
24
32
55-64 years old
20
46
34
PPI poll of Americans without college degrees, released November 2023
WHAT THEY MEAN:
PPI’s two 2023 polls, done this past September and October by YouGov, offer in-depth insights on working-class opinion in the United Kingdom and the United States. Some headline findings from the 46-question U.S. version show respondents –
• Are pessimistic about long-term trends, with 66% saying “the working class” has lost ground in the last four decades as against 21% “better off” and 13% “about the same,” with illegal immigration and automation of worksites the most frequently chosen explanations.
• Consider inflation the “most significant challenge facing the U.S. economy,” with 36% citing “high cost of living” and 33% “inflation” per se.
• View e-commerce and tech sector employment (44%) as the top career choice for young people, with less for government and military (14%) manufacturing (13%), and service-sector work (8%).
• Support activist (though not overbearing) government, with especially high hopes for programs that can help non-college workers build careers and enhance wages, especially via short-term training (46%) and apprenticeship (23%).
The poll’s four trade questions ask in various ways about the effects of past trade agreements and about future options. Three findings, on overall views, divergences by political orientation and demographics, and future options:
1. No Overall Consensus: Asked how “trade agreements to lower tariffs and other barriers have affected you and people like you,” respondents split among three options with a slight negative tilt: 29% positive; 35% negative; and 36% (the highest share) as “not much effect either way.” A similarly-worded question about the effects of past trade agreements “on our country” as a whole, as opposed to the respondents as individuals, drew a somewhat different response: 28%, about the same share as in the more personal question, responded positively; a noticeably higher 44% viewing the effects as negative; and “not much effect either way” shrank to 28%. This suggests a substantial group viewed trade agreements as having little impact on themselves or their communities, but being overall negative for the country.
2. Axes of Divergence: PPI’s poll shows working-class Americans splitting over trade along the same ideological, ethnic, and generational axes earlier trade polls (Pew, Chicago Council on Global Affairs, major news organizations) have found over the last decade for the population as a whole. That is, the working class’ center-left contingent is on balance positive about trade agreements, and its right more negative. To wit:
• Race and Ethnicity: African American respondents, among the most upbeat groups in the survey in this area, viewed the effects of past trade agreements as positive for themselves by 42%-13%. Hispanic respondents agreed, though by a less emphatic 33%-29%, while “other” ethnicities split 43%-34%. White respondents were the exception (though a big one, as they made up 70% of the respondents), splitting the opposite way with only 25% “positive” and 40% “negative.”
• Red v. Blue: Self-identified liberals and Democrats viewed the effects of past trade agreements “on yourself and people like you” as positive by 45%-18% and 39%-22% respectively. By contrast, 51% of conservatives and 49% of Republicans viewed past agreements as affecting themselves and people like them negatively.
• Youth v. Age: Young people view trade agreements quite favorably, with 18-29-year-olds on the “positive” side by 45%-24% and 30-44 year-olds by 32%-24%. Their Gen-X parents aged 55-64 were the survey’s least happy age group — 20% positive and 46% negative — and the over-65 boomers weren’t much warmer at 26%-41%.
Perspective from other surveys: These ideological and demographic divisions resemble those appearing in other surveys done for the population as a whole over the past two decades by Pew, the Chicago Council for Global Affairs, and the major news outlets. (PPI’s poll also echoes these in not finding big differences by gender.) While the positive/negative splits in the earlier polls can vary based on the wording of questions, the patterns have been consistent throughout the century: young, ethnically diverse, and liberal America is generally positive about trade and trade agreements, and older, white, and conservative America is less so. As an additional perspective on PPI’s results, the earlier surveys also often include breakouts by education level, and typically found more support for trade and trade agreements among college-educated Americans than non-college.
3. Toward 2024: Finally, the poll suggests that the policy option put forward by the Trump campaign this fall — a 10% global tariff and a sharp break in economic relations with China — is not popular. (The question does not mention Trump’s name or associate the option with his campaign, to avoid skewing the answers.) Asked to choose among three policies — this protectionist approach, a non-trade option in which future policy would focus on other issues such as energy and anti-corruption, and a renewed effort to reduce tariffs through agreements with allies and friendly countries — only 23% selected the Trump-like option. Especially unpopular among young people (14%), liberals and Democrats (9% and 11%), and African Americans (16%), this option didn’t elicit much enthusiasm elsewhere either, as the favored choice of only 26% of white voters, 19% of political independents, 20% of respondents in union households, and 38% of conservatives.
4. And where to from here? As earlier trade polls found for the American population as a whole, PPI’s poll of working America yields mixed views; a plurality of the electorate’s ‘blue’ side upbeat about trade agreements and the opposite on its ‘red’ side; and little support for new tariffs, while other sections of the poll underline this by showing high sensitivity to inflation. The answers don’t yield any simple ‘here’s what to do’ conclusion.
But another section of PPI’s poll may, indirectly, suggest a response. One way to view trade policy is as a branch of economics that creates complex choices which carry both benefits and stresses: export opportunities and competitive challenges, lower inflation but sometimes accelerated change in the job mix. The poll’s questions on labor policy does seem to find strong and in fact near-consensus views on how best to manage the stress. That is, rather than traditional ‘adjustment’ programs for competition or automation on one hand, or long-term college commitments on the other (or for minimal-government ideologies), the respondents express strong hope for a third activist approach which doesn’t now exist on a large scale: direct support for workers trying to build careers and raise their wages through easily available short-term training, certification, and apprenticeship programs. If workers have confidence they will receive support as the economy changes, and that it will be the kind of support they want, solutions to divisions – not only in trade policy but in other complex fields – may be easier to find.
FURTHER READING
Big picture:
Claire Ainsley, U.K.-based Director of PPI’s Project on Center-Left Renewal, on British working-class opinion and the matching U.K. poll.
And the full U.S. poll, with the 46 questions and PPI President Will Marshall’s accompanying assessment of its insights on working Americans’ career hopes and assessments of recent history, views on immigration and education, trade and industrial strategy, climate change, gender identity and book bans, anti-trust, tax and budget, and views on presidents and political parties. Some top-tier findings:
An unhappy mood: “Working Americans believe the last 40 years have not been kind to people like them. Two-thirds say they are worse off and only 21% say their lives have improved.”
High concern over inflation and strong view that it is related to government budgeting: “These voters overwhelmingly (69%) name the high cost of living as their top worry. In distant but still significant second place (11%) is the concern that government deficits and debt are too high. In fact, the need for fiscal restraint and controlling government spending is a recurrent theme in this survey.”
But the belief that good policies and activist government can make life better: “Democrats can find more support among working-class voters for public policies aimed at fostering more inclusive economic growth, so long as they don’t confuse support for a more active government with support for a bigger government.”
And a political direction: “On all these issues, our poll found space for Democrats to offer pragmatic, common-sense alternatives to the stridently ideological views of right and left-wing populists.”
Elsewhere in trade polling:
For comparisons and population-wide polling, a 2022 Trade Fact looks at major surveys from 2015 through 2021 covering views of trade generally, Trump tariffs, NAFTA renegotiation, the China relationship, and more.
And an update: The Chicago Council on Global Affairs’ October 2023 release on broader U.S. public views of trade shows a very positive view (referring to “trade” as such, rather than to agreements); is also consistent with PPI’s poll showing some enthusiasm among Democrats; and finds support for semiconductor subsidies and concern about economic relations with China. Their summary graph:
“Council polling shows bipartisan support for international trade, as Americans across the board widely recognize its benefits for themselves, the economy, and American workers. Even so, Americans support some restrictions, especially on goods such as semiconductors.”
Trade summary, from the Chicago Council’s full-scale international affairs poll.
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.
The aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic and the combination of advancing technology have brought about a major shift in the workplace. Between February 2020 and August 2023, the number of employed Americans with disabilities soared by 33% or 1.9 million. By comparison, the number of employed Americans without disabilities rose by only 1%, or 1.5 million. In other words, workers with disabilities account for 57% of the increase in employment since the beginning of the pandemic.
Today, the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) released a new report “Disability and Changes in the Workplace,” analyzing available data and discussing how the changing environments from the pandemic allowed workers with disabilities to find job opportunities that are a good match for their needs.
Report author Dr. Michael Mandel, Vice President and Chief Economist of PPI, describes how the rapid adaptation of businesses to “work from home” during the pandemic allowed workers with disabilities to operate from a more congenial or accommodating environment. At the same time, advancing technology has also lowered the barriers for Americans to access forms of independent, flexible work, like gig-economy delivery and ride-sharing platforms, that can be better suited to workers with unpredictable challenges such as those related to fatigue, chronic pain, or mental health issues.
“The United States is experiencing a major change in the workplace — leading to increased opportunities and careers for Americans with disabilities,” said Dr. Michael Mandel. “Policymakers and employers alike have an important role to play to ensure that work can remain flexible and accessible for all Americans, and continue to find novel ways to approach working.”
Read and download the full report here and read more about how remote work has fueled the surge in jobs for workers with disabilities in The Messenger.
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. Find an expert at PPI and follow us on Twitter.
In this episode of the Liberal Europe Podcast, Ricardo Silvestre (Movimento Liberal Social) welcomes Tamar Jacoby, from the Progressive Policy Institute, former journalist and author, and now living in Ukraine where she reports on the war and the work done by the government and civil society to modernize and make Ukraine a more liberal democratic country.
This podcast is produced by the European Liberal Forum in collaboration with Movimento Liberal Social and Fundacja Liberté!, with the financial support of the European Parliament. Neither the European Parliament nor the European Liberal Forum are responsible for the content or for any use that be made of.
The aftermath of the acute phase of the pandemic has brought two important disability-related trends to the workplace. First, cognitive difficulties, debilitating fatigue, and other challenging conditions have become increasingly prevalent as long-term consequences of infection with COVID-19. Partly as a result, the number of adults reporting disabilities has surged in recent years. From February 2020 to August 2023, the number of adults with disabilities rose 3.1 million, or 10% (Table 1 and Figure 1). By comparison, the number of adults with no disability rose by only 2% over the same stretch.
This upward spike breaks a long-term trend. From 2009 to 2019, the number of adults with disabilities grew at only 1% per year, roughly the same pace as the number of people without disabilities. These figures are based on the monthly Current Population Survey (the same survey used to track the unemployment rate) which tracks disability by asking respondents whether they have one of six conditions, including “serious difficulty concentrating, remembering, or making decisions.”
The second and more empowering trend: The combination of advancing technology and pandemic-related pressures have made it easier for Americans with disabilities to find working situations that are a good match to their needs. The rapid adaptation of businesses to “work from home” during the pandemic allowed workers with disabilities to operate from a more congenial or accommodating environment, including being able to take breaks when necessary and not have to struggle with commuting and mobility issues. At the same time, advancing technology has also lowered the barriers for Americans to access forms of independent, flexible work, like gig-economy delivery and ride-sharing platforms, that can be better suited to workers with unpredictable challenges such as those related to fatigue, chronic pain, or mental health issues.
These two trends together have produced a startling shift in the workforce: Between the beginning of the pandemic in February 2020 and the latest data in August 2023, the number of employed Americans with disabilities soared by 33% or 1.9 million (Table 1 and Figure 2). By comparison, the number of employed Americans without disabilities rose by only 1%, or 1.5 million (these figures include self-employed). In other words, workers with disabilities account for 57% of the increase in employment since the beginning of the pandemic. That’s compared to less than 5% of overall employment.
These results highlight the central role of Americans with disabilities in the post-pandemic workforce. Debates over key workplace issues, such as the pressure to shift from “working from home” back to “working at the office,” and attempts to regulate flexible platform work, must be seen through the lens of how they affect Americans with disabilities. As employers and policymakers debate the shape of the post-pandemic workplace, they should preserve the changes to the workplace that made it more hospitable to people with disabilities.
FACT: ‘American’ foods are the base of som tam, goulash, vindaloo, Swiss chocolate, and French fries.
THE NUMBERS: Sample agricultural commodities –
North America: Squash, pumpkins, blueberries, cranberries
Central America: Tomatoes, chocolate, vanilla, peanuts, chili peppers
South America: Cashews, potatoes, vanilla, corn, chilies, etc.
WHAT THEY MEAN:
The Thanksgiving holiday commemorates a specific event — a three-day autumn “entertainment and feast” held somewhere near Plymouth, a more conceptual reminder of mutual regard and common benefit among people of very different backgrounds, and also of western hemisphere food. Some examples of this 402nd observance week:
North America and Thanksgiving: Only two first-hand accounts describe the 1621 “First Thanksgiving,” and both are brief. Edward Winslow, Plymouth Governor several times in the 1630s, notes codfish and bass, plus corn and the five deer Massasoit and his 90 Wampanoag sagamores brought to the event. William Bradford, the first Governor, mentions ducks, turkey, and “meal” as well. Both are silent on cranberries and pumpkin pie, though that doesn’t mean they didn’t have any. Here’s Winslow’s report (via Pilgrim Hall Museum):
“Our harvest being gotten in, our governour sent foure men on fowling, that so we might after a speciall manner rejoyce together, after we had gathered the fruits of our labours ; they foure in one day killed as much fowle, as with a little helpe beside, served the Company almost a weeke, at which time amongst other Recreations, we exercised our Armes, many of the Indians coming amongst us, and amongst the rest their greatest king Massasoyt, with some ninetie men, whom for three dayes we entertained and feasted, and they went out and killed five Deere, which they brought to the Plantation and bestowed on our Governour, and upon the Captaine and others. And although it be not always so plentifull, as it was at this time with us, yet by the goodness of God, we are so farre from want, that we often wish you partakers of our plentie.”
And Bradford’s:
“They begane now to gather in ye small harvest they had, and to fitte up their houses and dwellings against winter, being all well recovered in health & strenght, and had all things in good plenty; fFor as some were thus imployed in affairs abroad, others were excersised in fishing, aboute codd, & bass, & other fish, of which yey tooke good store, of which every family had their portion. All ye somer ther was no want. And now begane to come in store of foule, as winter approached, of which this place did abound when they came first (but afterward decreased by degrees). And besids water foule, ther was great store of wild Turkies, of which they tooke many, besids venison, &c. Besids, they had about a peck a meale a weeke to a person, or now since harvest, Indean corn to yt proportion. Which made many afterwards write so largly of their plenty hear to their freinds in England, which were not fained, but true reports.”
Forty-one decades later, the turkey, cranberries, and pumpkins traditionally served for Thanksgiving remain New England and North American specialties. Crops, fruits, and roots originating further south have often spread more widely. Some illustrative lists, with two glamor products:
Mexico & Central America: The middle swath of the western hemisphere is home to the peanuts used in West African groundnut stew, the tomatoes flavoring Italian pasta sauce, and chocolate, vanilla, and corn. Chile peppers are still more “globalized”: the ancestral ones grew in Mexico (though there’s a case for Brazil too), and their descendants now routinely provide the spike for som tam in Khon Kaen, goulash in Budapest, bean curd in Chongjing, momo (usually in oil) in Lhasa, vindaloo in Goa, berbere in Addis Ababa.
Those looking for more heat this weekend than Bradford, Winslow, and Massasoit had in 1621 can consult the “Scoville Heat Scale” which, named for an early 20th century Massachusetts pharmacist, attempts to organize all the chili pepper varieties by heat content. It runs from zero Scoville Heat Units to two million in the case of artificially amped-up “bear spray equivalent” peppers bred over the last decade. Assuming these — Carolina Reaper, Trinidad Scorpion, etc. — are basically inedible stunts, sample Scoville ratings* from the feeble bell to the mighty habanero look like this:
Habanero
150,000
Thai prik kee nu
75,000
India byadgi
75,000
Ethiopian berbere
40,000
Ghanaian kpakpo
35,000
Peruvian Amarillo
35,000
Lhasa red pepper
23,000
Jalapeno
10,000
New Mexico “Hatch”
2,000
Paprika
500
Pepperoncini
100
Bell Pepper
0
* Using averages rather than the more technically correct range; the generally accepted range for the habanero, for example, is 100,00-350,000 Scoville units.
South America: Cash crops like cashews, staples like cassava and quinoa, and fruits such as avocado and pineapple. A nominee for the “most globalized” South American crop is the potato. Often disrespected with terms like “humble” (BBC) and “lowly” (Smithsonian Magazine), potatoes are the world’s sixth-most-produced crop at 376 million tons a year and root up in at least 150 of the world’s 197 countries. The top seven producers account for two-thirds of annual potato tonnage:
China
94 million tons
India
54 million tons
Ukraine
21 million tons
United States
19 million tons
Russia
18 million tons
Germany
11 million tons
Bangladesh
9 million tons
U.S. producers grow about 100 variants including russets, fingerlings, purple-blues, whites, and so forth. By comparison, farmers in the original Andean potato-cultivation areas manage 4,500. By volume, though, the U.S.’ 19 million tons are about three times the output of the 14th-largest producer Peru’s 5.7 million tons, and 39th-place Bolivia’s 1.2 million tons combined. Having been carried to Europe by Spanish entrepreneurs in the 1500s, the potato returned east across the Atlantic to be served boiled or mashed at Thanksgiving events that, though more complex than the impromptu 1621 event, still mean something similar.
FURTHER READING
The Pilgrim Hall Museum of Plymouth has two contemporary notes on the first Thanksgiving.
Per USDA, about 79,000 native American farmers and ranchers operate 59 million acres of crop and ranch land, producing about $3.5 billion worth of agricultural output annually. The Inter-tribal Agricultural Council, based in Billings Montana, promotes tribal farm and fishery exports.
And USDA’s statistical deep dive into 21st-century Native farm and ranch life, from the 2017 National Census of Agriculture.
And Mitsotam Café at the Museum of the American Indian has menus and material on contemporary Native American farming and products.
Chile peppers:
The National Institute of Standards and Technology explains the Scoville Heat Scale.
And the Chile Pepper Institute at New Mexico State University plans its 2024 conference.
And Washington’s Potato Commission explains Pacific Northwest potato farming.
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.
Today, Dr. Diana Moss, Vice President and Director of Competition Policy at the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI), provided new analysis on the proposed merger of JetBlue and ultra-low-cost carrier (ULCC) Spirit. The merger raises novel issues for airline competition in the United States and is the first time the U.S. Department of Justice has sought to block an airline merger because it will substantially reduce competition under Section 7 of the Clayton Act.
The merger of U.S. airline carriers JetBlue and Spirit, if it succeeds, will be the seventh major U.S. airline merger in the last two decades. As of mid-2012, the four largest airlines controlled about 57% of the national market, increasing to 68% in mid-2022. This slow hemorrhage of domestic carriers has tightened the Big 4 airline oligopoly, with little meaningful entry of new carriers. Since the last major swath of mergers in the mid-2000s, the entry of new carriers has reverted to levels in the pre-deregulation era.
As with previous airline mergers, the prospect of reduced competition following a JetBlue-Spirit tie-up raises concerns about higher fares and lower quality. But it is also an important case of “first impression.” If the merger goes through, JetBlue will likely dismantle Spirit, cutting budget-conscious travelers’ national ULCC flying options in half. This is a far cry from European passenger airline markets that feature many more low-cost carriers.
“Consumer choice, an important dimension of competition, is highly visible in the airline sector. It is a practical application of the premise that a substantial loss of competition can hurt consumers by taking away their options. If the government prevails, JetBlue-Spirit could open up bandwidth for the idea that a loss of choice is as harmful to consumers as higher prices or lower quality,” said Diana Moss. “Taken together, these harmful effects make a powerful case for why denying the JetBlue-Spirit merger would maintain competition and protect consumers.”
The Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) is a catalyst for policy innovation and political reform based in Washington, D.C. Its mission is to create radically pragmatic ideas for moving America beyond ideological and partisan deadlock. Learn more about PPI by visiting progressivepolicy.org.
The merger of JetBlue and Spirit has surfaced novel issues for airline competition in U.S. passenger markets, where concentration is often high and smaller carriers face a high hurdle in getting a foothold. As with previous airline mergers, the prospect of reduced competition following a JetBlue-Spirit merger raises concerns about higher fares and lower quality. But it is also an important case of first impression. If the merger goes through, JetBlue will likely dismantle ultra-low-cost carrier (ULCC) Spirit, cutting budget-conscious travelers’ national U.S. ULCC flying options in half. This is a far cry from European passenger markets that feature many more low-cost carriers. As an important dimension of competition, consumer choice is highly visible in the airline sector. The idea that less choice is bad for consumers does not require the complex fact-finding and analysis that is typical in contested merger proceedings. Rather, it is a practical application of the premise that a substantial loss of competition hurts consumers simply by taking away their options. Viewed through this lens of antitrust “pragmatism,” JetBlue-Spirit could open up bandwidth for new precedent that a loss of choice is as harmful to consumers as higher prices or lower quality. When taken together, these harmful effects make a powerful case for why denying the JetBlue-Spirit merger would maintain competition and protect consumers. To take a deeper dive into how PPI is thinking about consumer choice, antitrust pragmatism, and airline competition, please read on.
AIRLINE MERGERS AND CONSUMER CHOICE
The merger of U.S. airline carriers JetBlue and ultra-low-cost carrier (ULCC) Spirit, if it succeeds, will be the seventh major U.S. airline merger in the last two decades. Put another way, at this pace of consolidation, the U.S. will have lost a domestic airline carrier about every 33 months since the mid-2000s. A merger of JetBlue and Spirit would combine the sixth and seventh largest airlines by market share, leapfrogging Alaska to land in fifth place behind the top four: Delta, American, Southwest, and United.
Despite their positioning as smaller domestic airlines, a merger of JetBlue and Spirit highlights two recent shifts in U.S. airline merger enforcement. It is the first time the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has sought a full-stop injunction for an airline merger on the grounds that it will substantially reduce competition under Section 7 of the Clayton Act This stands in contrast to previous airline mergers where the government settled with remedies, such as slot or gate divestitures. The DOJ’s unwillingness to accept a fix in JetBlue-Spirit is another in a series of moves that reveal the Biden administration’s more aggressive stance on reining in consolidation.
The DOJ’s challenge of the JetBlue-Spirit merger is also notable for another reason. JetBlue intends to eliminate Spirit, reconfiguring the trademark yellow planes and raising fares. As one of only two national U.S. ULCCs, the merger eliminates about 50% of this market segment. This is a markedly different landscape than in Europe, which features many more low-cost carriers from which consumers can choose. ULCCs are disruptive players, providing a vital source of choice for budget-conscious travelers. These options will be dramatically scaled back when JetBlue retires the Spirit model. The DOJ’s case tees up consumer choice as an essential element of competition, extending traditional concerns that an airline merger can raise fares and degrade service quality.
The court could look askance at the DOJ’s claim that the loss of Spirit will hurt consumers by reducing consumer choice. Or it could widen the antitrust aperture by giving credence to how a loss of competition manifests harmfully in fewer options for consumers. The case for why a loss of choice is bad for consumers does not require voluminous data and complex economic models. As such, it is by far the most practical application of the premise that mergers that substantially reduce competition are illegal. Viewed through the lens of antitrust “pragmatism,” a positive judicial finding for the government in JetBlue-Spirit on the issue of consumer choice could free up bandwidth for advancing stronger merger enforcement.
There is wisdom in the words of legendary boxer Mike Tyson, “Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth.”
The ultra-green activists have been punched in the mouth, so to speak. Their plan to keep all fossil fuels in the ground has been bested by a tough opponent: reality.
As a result, their efforts to limit U.S. liquified natural gas (LNG) production and exports in the name of abolishing all fossil fuel use are bringing us closer to a climate disaster.
There is no question that we are in a climate emergency that must be addressed with a determined push for a clean energy transition. That push should be pursued with speed and resolve — but without losing sight of the goal, which is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This is vital to the health and prosperity of current and future generations.
Storm clouds are gathering around the world. In Europe, Asia and the Middle East, tyrants and terrorists are on the march, while the country most able to stand up to them — the United States — is rancorously disunited.
Hamas’s Oct. 7 massacre of 1,200 Israelis was a harrowing display of barbarism cracking through civilization’s fragile veneer. In Europe, Russian “dictator” Vladimir Putin is doubling down on his criminal war to compel Ukraine’s subservience to Moscow.
