PPI’s Trade Fact of the Week: PPI has published 171 papers, posts, op-eds & Trade Facts so far this year

FACT: PPI has published 171 papers, posts, op-eds, and Trade Facts so far this year.

THE NUMBERS:

Publication average, 2022: One every two days

 

WHAT THEY MEAN:

With staff preparing for holiday travel, in lieu of a regular Trade Fact we have some reading ideas for the long weekend: (a) highlights from PPI’s papers and posts over the past year; (b) four not-quite-canonical classics for the ambitious reformer already thinking about 2023; and (c) four book recs for sidewise, bottom-up, and overhead views of economic policy, trade, and technology:

1. Five reads from PPI: 

  • Bill Galston & Elaine Kamarck, in The New Politics of Evasion, look at swing voters, the American political system, and liberalism in 2022.
  • Ed Gresser on the U.S. tariff system, mostly ineffectual as a job-preserver but quite good at taxing the shoes and clothes low-income families and single moms buy.
  • Paul Bledsoe’s prescient case against the European Union’s dangerous reliance on Russian gas (December 2021) and better alternatives for European security and emissions reduction.
  • Malena Daley cautions against antitrust over-enthusiasm in the tech world.
  • Arielle Kane examines the lessons of COVID-19 and preparation for the next pandemic.
  • And Taylor Maag and Gresser suggest replacing Trade Adjustment Assistance with all-worker-eligible supports.

 

2. The timeless wisdom of the classics:

At last! That long-awaited sub-Cabinet nomination (or alternatively Congressional subcommittee chair, Chief Negotiator assignment, White House Senior Director position, etc.) has finally come through. You’re memorizing the oath and preparing to change the world. Some lesser-known classics can help you see what’s ahead:

The Tactics of Reform — As you get started, remember that while issues and political coalitions constantly shift and change, the challenges of reform are always the same. As medieval knights must triumph over ogres, dragons, and giants, modern reformers must overcome entrenched defenders of the status quo, ossified procedures and vicious though pointless bureaucratic rivalries, and ruthlessly ambitious subordinates who care more about getting your job than the vision. Mervyn Peake’s Gormenghast books (1946-1959) are a sort of parable illuminating their likely tactics, from passive aggression and embittered moping to arson, defenestration, and insincere proposals for incremental change.

The Art of Persuasion — It’s a few months later. You’ve set out a vision and called in the ‘stakeholders’ … somehow logic, eloquence, and appeals to conscience and interest don’t seem quite enough. For additional persuasive power, try Darrell Huff’s How to Lie with Statistics (1954).

The Vigorous Leader — A year in. Reform is stalled, and your superiors in the administration (alternatively the Committee chair/your Cabinet officer/etc.) seem to be hearing more complaints than applause. Time for a stronger approach. Han Fei-tzu’s The Five Vermin (240 BC) helps you play to win, by silencing … forever … the greedy interest groups, preening intellectuals, shirkers, obstinate petty officials, and big-mouths of all sorts who are in your way.

The Perversity of Human Nature — It’s over. How could your steadfast supporters, tough but principled negotiating partners, and loyal opposition have behaved this way? Try ibn Marzuban’s The Book of the Superiority of Dogs Over Many Who Wear Clothes (920)

3. And four new (or new-ish) books on global-economy-related matters: 

Brad DeLong’s Slouching Towards Utopia: An Economic History of the 20th Century (2022) on big-think economists, their visions, and their equivocal successes.

Stephanie Elizondo-Griest – All the Agents and Saints: Dispatches from the Borderlands (2017), on business, daily life, and crossings at the U.S.-Canada and U.S.-Mexico borders.

Jan-Werner Muller’s What is Populism (2016, still relevant though) on the origins and ideas of populist-nationalist movements in the U.S., Europe, and Latin America.

David Kaye’s Speech Police: The Global Struggle to Govern the Internet (2019) on platforms, users, international organizations, national laws, and the future of cyberspace.

 

FURTHER READINGS:

Our Trade Fact launch edition, on the case for liberalism in darkening times.

Happy Thanksgiving from all of us to PPI’s supporters, readers, and friends at home and abroad.

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 Progressive Economy 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

Bledsoe for The Hill: Cop Out: Ignoring the Dictatorships now Causing the Climate Crisis at COP27

By Paul Bledsoe

for The Hill

The big news out of COP 27, the UN climate negotiations, according to most media was a global agreement to create a fund to provide developing nations more aid to explicitly address rising climate change impacts. Yet, this action, while justified, is at best a thin, temporary band aid. Because without deep cuts in greenhouse gases from huge polluters like China, the cost of climate impacts will soon skyrocket into the trillions, overwhelming the ability of rich and poor countries alike to address it.

So, what was done in Egypt to actually limit emissions and control global temperature increases, which after all is the central goal of the 2015 Paris climate agreement? Precious little. Instead, a perverse sort of political correctness on the global left overtook the needed focus on solving the climate crisis, much of which is now inarguably caused by autocratic nations like China, Russia, Turkey, Iran and Saudi Arabia, who were barely mentioned during these talks.

China’s annual emissions alone are nearly one-third of the global total, more than all the developed countries combined, and still rising. Global greenhouse emissions cannot decline — and climate protection cannot be achieved — until and unless China begins to cut its emissions. Yet, China was never under any intense pressure from developing nations to act at these negotiations. China’s President Xi Jinping, fresh from gaining a third consecutive five-year term as the leader of the Communist Party Conference, didn’t even bother to show up. Never mind, that China consumes nearly 60 percent of the world’s coal each year!

Read more in The Hill.

New Report from PPI Examines how Platform Work Supports the Care Economy

Platform work offers more flexibility and better earning opportunities for millions of working Americans providing unpaid care

Today, the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) released a new report showing that on the average day, 36% of working-age Americans provide unpaid care for children, parents and other loved ones. This unpaid labor is worth $980 billion per year, according to this new report, titled “Platform Work and the Care Economy” and authored by PPI Vice President and Chief Economist Dr. Michael Mandel.

The report examines how the stress of this immense burden can be eased by the availability of flexible platform work, including companies such as Lyft, Uber, Doordash, and Instacart.

“Platform work provides an alternative that offers better scheduling and earning opportunities for unpaid caregivers,” writes Dr. Michael Mandel in the report. “Rather than requiring a choice between full-time work and no paid work at all, there is a flexible alternative.”

The report also explores the possibility that platform work may help narrow the longstanding gender gap in unpaid caregiving.

Read and download the full report:

 

 

Dr. Michael Mandel is Vice President and Chief Economist at the Progressive Policy Institute in Washington DC and senior fellow at the Mack Institute for Innovation Management at the Wharton School (UPenn). He was chief economist at BusinessWeek prior to its purchase by Bloomberg.With experience spanning policy, academics, and business, Dr. Mandel has helped lead the public conversation about the economic and business impact of technology for the past two decades. His work has been featured by the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Washington Post, Boston Globe, and Financial Times, among others.

The Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) is a catalyst for policy innovation and political reform based in Washington, D.C. Its mission is to create radically pragmatic ideas for moving America beyond ideological and partisan deadlock. Learn more about PPI by visiting progressivepolicy.org.

Follow PPI on Twitter: @ppi

Find an expert at PPI.

###

Media Contact: Aaron White; awhite@ppionline.org

Platform Work and the Care Economy

Welcome to the Care Economy, a term that is being used much more frequently these days. America’s aging population means that many workers are spending more hours than ever taking care of older parents. At the same time, the time burden of raising children has not diminished. That means roughly 36% of the working-age population is engaged in providing unpaid care on any given day, according to the annual American Time Use Survey from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (ATUS).

Overall, if Americans were paid $15 per hour for their unpaid caregiving labor, then the total value of the time spent on unpaid care would be $980 billion per year.

The nature of work in America, though, means that unpaid care is more stressful than it needs to be. In an ideal world, many people with caregiving responsibilities would search out part-time positions that fit their specific situations. But conventional part-time employment tends to offer much lower hourly pay than comparable full-time positions and, it turns out, much less flexibility. Therefore, caregivers are forced to either (1) accept low paying and inflexible parttime jobs; (2) take conventional full-time jobs, with all the stress of combining work and unpaid care responsibilities; or (3) drop out of the paid workforce completely. Notably, this difficult decision — and the burden of unpaid care in general — falls mainly on women. We estimate that the size of the caregiving gender gap can be valued at $325 billion per year.

This “caregiving gender gap” is especially large for part-time job holders. Among working-age women who hold part-time employment, 49% have unpaid care responsibilities on the average day, compared to 30% of men with part-time employment, based on our tabulations of the 2021 ATUS (Column (2), Table 1).

Further, these averages do not convey the unpredictable nature of the caregiving role. It’s one thing for a single working mother to arrange her schedule to be home by six o’clock to make dinner and assist with homework. It’s quite something else when a child suddenly falls ill and needs to be kept home from school for a day or a week. Eldercare is even more unpredictable. Medical crises can happen suddenly, as when an aging parent falls, breaks their hip, and can no longer stay in the house where they have lived for 50 years. The nature of aging is that unpaid care responsibilities cannot be postponed or scheduled in advance.

Government policies can certainly help ameliorate the burden of unpaid care. For example, the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA) requires covered employers to provide unpaid leave for certain medical and family obligations. Currently, 11 states, including California, have put in place paid family and medical leave policies. In his April 2021 American Families Plan, President Biden proposed subsidizing high-quality child care for low-income and middle-income households, and “creating a national comprehensive paid family and medical leave program that will bring America in line with competitor nations that offer paid leave programs.” Some of these programs were incorporated into earlier versions of the Build Back Better legislation, but not the version that eventually passed Congress as the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022.

Even if this legislation had passed in its entirety, the structure of most full-time and part-time jobs is not supportive of unpaid caregiving responsibilities. First, most employers run lean operations without excess labor to rely on in times of emergency. The number of open positions hit record levels in the first half of 2022, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, driven by short-staffing in industries such as retail, health care, and transportation. Under these conditions, employers struggle when their employees can’t show up on short notice because of the need to suddenly take an aging parent to the doctor.

Second, government-mandated paid leave plans, like the one proposed by President Biden or currently in effect in states like California, typically offer only partial reimbursement of a participant’s usual pay. The workers who take time off to fulfill caregiving duties additionally have to worry about making up the lost income after the immediate crisis is over. Even the most flexible and supportive employers may be incapable of rearranging work schedules to provide more hours for someone returning from leave.

THIS PAPER: A FOCUS ON PLATFORM WORK

In this paper we demonstrate how platform work, such as work facilitated by companies such as Lyft, Uber, DoorDash, and Instacart can improve earnings opportunities for many Americans in the Care Economy. We first estimate the number of paid employees in the Care Economy, then compare it to unpaid job equivalents. All told, there are roughly 4.5 million full-time equivalent (FTE) workers engaged in eldercare. The child care services industry employs roughly about 700,000 (FTE) workers, up 10% since 2007.

These are substantial numbers, but fall far short of the actual time devoted to caregiving. Second, we use the ATUS to estimate the number of hours of unpaid caregiving, and translate those hours into full-time equivalent (FTE) jobs. We find that unpaid caregiving is equal to more than 30 million FTE jobs. By comparison, the health care and social assistance sector includes 17 million FTE paid jobs.

Third, we analyze how the unpredictability of caregiving is more conducive to platform work than to traditional part-time employment. In particular, we show two key advantages that platform work has over conventional part-time work: “downward flexibility” and “upward flexibility.” We define downward flexibility as the ability of the worker to choose to reduce hours on short notice to deal with unpredictable caregiving issues. We define upward flexibility as the ability of workers to increase hours after a caregiving crisis is over to meet existing financial goals and commitments.

Downward flexibility is often cited as an advantage of platform work for unpaid caregivers. They can fully customize their working hours, choosing to be home when children are home from school. They can adjust when, or even if, they work, to match unforeseen short-term changes in care arrangements, such as school being closed for a day. And they can step away from their work for extended periods to deal with major health crises, such as an elderly parent who is injured.

Upward flexibility usually receives less attention, but it is a key characteristic of platform work that differentiates it from an employer-employee relationship. In general, most jobs are timecapped, in the sense that the worker needs special permission from their immediate supervisor or higher-ups in order to work more hours. Someone who misses out on income when they take time off to care for their aging parent has no guarantee of getting enough hours to meet existing financial goals and commitments, especially if the company is operating under a tight budget.

Upward flexibility provides a way of addressing unexpected caregiving responsibilities while still continuing to pay for essentials, such as housing and food, meeting debt obligations, and/or saving for the future. Upward flexibility is especially important for low-income households that otherwise may struggle to stay afloat and take care of their children and parents at the same time.

Downward and upward flexibility makes it easier for both men and women to combine platform work with caregiving. A 2021 survey of drivers on one platform suggests that the percent of male drivers who report routinely providing care for family members or loved ones (56%) is quite high, and very near the percent of female drivers who are caregivers (61%), as shown in Table 1 (Column (1)). Indeed, the “caregiving gender gap” between men and women who choose platform work is much smaller than that gap for part-time workers in the general population.

Platform work could lead to a smaller caregiving gender gap because men who are unpaid caregivers, whether for children or adults, are more likely to seek out the flexibility offered by platform work. Alternatively, men who participate in platform work for other reasons can find it easier to take on unpaid care responsibilities, especially since they have the flexibility to earn more and still fulfill financial commitments and goals, including meeting debt obligations and saving for the future. Overall, this suggests that platform work can help narrow the caregiving gender gap.

THE GROWTH OF THE CARE ECONOMY

The Care Economy is becoming more economically meaningful in the United States, as the total number of people who need some form of care continues to grow. At the younger end of the age spectrum, the number of children under the age of 15 is up slightly in the 15 years since 2007. At the older end of the age spectrum, the number of Americans who are 65 and over has risen almost 60% since 2007 (Figure 1).

Over the same period, the amount of paid Care Economy work has continued to rise, especially work serving the needs of the elderly. Paid FTE employment in eldercare-related industries such as home health care providers and nursing facilities has risen by 41% since 2007 (Table 2). In particular, FTE employment at home health care agencies is up 70%. By comparison, the amount of overall FTE private sector employment rose only 8% since 2007. All told, there are roughly 4.5 million full-time equivalent workers engaged in eldercare.

The child care services industry employs roughly 700,000 FTE workers, up 10% since 2007. If we include all the informal arrangements with people who are paid to monitor and care for kids in their homes, then the total number goes up to roughly 1.5 million, based on a 2019 report from the CED. And to the degree that elementary and middle schools play a “caretaking” role, some portion of the roughly 6 million public school instructors and staff should be booked against the Care Economy as well.

So far, we have been considering paid caregiving. However, we can estimate the number of unpaid caring hours, based on the annual American Time Use Survey from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). The BLS collects data on daily activities from a rolling sample of about 9,000 adult Americans over the course of a year. Broad categories of time use include personal care, working, household activities such as food preparation and cleanup, purchasing goods and services, and leisure and sports (including watching television).

The categories of time use that we focus on are “caring for and helping household children and adults” and “caring for and helping nonhousehold children and adults.” (These two categories also include travel time). Table 3 lays out some of the basic facts from the 2021 ATUS about the number of hours devoted to unpaid caregiving as a primary activity. Line (1) gives the average percentage of the population aged 15+ engaged in unpaid caring or helping children and adults inside or outside the household. The table shows that 21.7% of the population cares for household members on an average day, and 9.1% of the population cares for non-household members on an average day.20 Line (2) gives average hours of unpaid caregiving per day for people involved in those activities. We multiply line (1) by line (2) to get line (3), the average hours of unpaid caregiving per day for the entire population, and then multiply line (3) by 7 to calculate the average hours of unpaid caregiving per week (line (4)).

We multiply line (4) by 275 million, the number of people 15 and over, to derive the total number of hours devoted to unpaid caregiving (line (5)). Finally, we calculate full-time equivalent employment by dividing by 40 hours per week (line (6)).

In total, we find that unpaid caregiving hours are equivalent to more than 30 million FTE jobs. That far exceeds the current amount of paid employment in the health care and social assistance sector, which is 17 million paid FTE jobs.

To put it another way, if people were paid $15 per hour for their unpaid caregiving labor, then the total economic impact of the unpaid care sector work would be $980 billion per year.

THE UNPREDICTABILITY OF THE CARE ECONOMY

The problem, of course, is that much of the unpaid caregiving is supplied by individuals who already have other responsibilities, including paid work. And it is often difficult to integrate since unpaid Care Economy tasks are often unpredictable. Caring for children, as any parent knows, involves frequent unanticipated crises of uncertain duration. Children may suddenly get sick, especially during the age of COVID, and can’t go to school or child care, leaving parents with no choice but to stay home or ask for help from friends or relatives.

The literature and anecdotes suggest that unpredictability is an even more important characteristic of unpaid eldercare. The elderly are likely to suddenly suffer from major illnesses or injuries, such as a stroke, that require a large amount of support. And their ability to take care of daily tasks, like getting themselves to the doctor, may deteriorate at unpredictable rates.

Unpredictability is an important reason why studies and reports consistently show a constant friction between work schedules and unpaid care needs. As one analysis notes:

“Particularly when care demands increase, the unpredictability and the duration of the caregiver experience is accompanied by increased stress, distraction and anxiety over lost productivity.”

The stress can be seen in an employee survey done for a 2019 report on “The Caring Company” from the “Project on Managing the Future of Work” at the Harvard Business School. The survey revealed that “32% of all employees had voluntarily left a job during their career due to caregiving responsibilities.”

What drove these voluntary departures? According to the report:

A closer look at the 32% of employees who admitted to leaving a job due to caregiving showed that this is a multigenerational issue. Care obligations can arise at one or more stages of a worker’s career. Employees cited taking care of a newborn or adopted child (57%), caring for a sick child (49%), or simply managing a child’s daily needs (43%) as the top three reasons for leaving. However, the obligation to provide care for other adults also featured prominently. A third of employees who left a position (32%) cited taking care of an elder with daily living needs as the reason. Almost 25% did so to care for an ill or disabled spouse, partner, or extended family member.

One academic paper identifies a clear difference between child care and eldercare:

While childcare has a fairly predictable pattern with children becoming less dependent on parents as they get older, eldercare is unpredictable, varies in duration, and tends to increase in amount and intensity over time as the care recipient ages.

The burden of the unpredictability of unpaid care mostly falls on women, because they disproportionately provide most of the unpaid care. That’s the “caregiving gender gap,” and no matter what set of numbers you look at, the caregiving gender gap is wide. Going back to Table 1, 49% of women aged 25-64 who work part-time report caring for household or nonhousehold members, compared to 30% of men aged 25-64 who work part-time. That’s based on the 2021 ATUS.

Here’s another illustration of the caregiving gender gap. Table 3 calculates that there are 909 million hours per week in unpaid care for household members, and 351 million hours per week in unpaid care for non-household members, for a total of 1.260 billion hours per week in unpaid care.

Out of those more than one billion hours of unpaid care per week in the United States, roughly 66%, or 840 million hours, come from women, and roughly 34%, or 420 million hours come from men. That’s a difference of 420 million hours per week. Valuing time at $15 per hour — which clearly is a floor — the size of the caregiving gender gap can be quantified as $325 billion per year (420 million hours per week x $15 per hour x 52 weeks).

CONVENTIONAL PART-TIME JOBS, FLEXIBILITY, AND WAGES

It’s important to stress that working a conventional part-time job — say, in the retail sector —typically does not solve the unpaid care issue. Research shows that conventional part-time employment is less flexible and lower-paid than full-time employment. For example, a February 2022 report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics used newly collected data to ask the question: “Does part-time work offer flexibility to employed mothers?” The authors’ answer was no.

…mothers working part-time are employed in jobs that lack many of the attributes that would characterize these jobs as flexible. Mothers in part-time jobs were less likely to have paid leave, work-at-home access, and advanced schedule notice. Although part-time jobs require fewer work hours, these shorter work hours may come at a cost of reduced flexibility, pay, and availability of family-friendly benefits.

For example, the report noted that mothers who worked part-time were less likely to have access to paid leave. Only 29.3% of mothers who were part-time workers had access to paid leave, compared to 76.0% of mothers who worked full-time.

Moreover, the report showed that employed mothers have less control over their work schedule in part-time jobs. According to the data, 22% of mothers in part-time jobs had less than a week’s notice of their work schedule, compared to 10% percent of their full-time counterparts. Similarly, only 50% of employed mothers in part-time jobs had at least 4 weeks advance notice of their schedule, compared to 71% for full-time employed mothers.

Other studies show similar results. “Among 30,000 employees at 120 of the largest retail and food-service firms in the United States… we find that a third of workers are involuntarily working part-time: They usually work fewer than 35 hours and would like to be scheduled for more hours at their job.”

Then there’s the question of pay. BLS data shows that part-time jobs pay considerably less than full-time jobs. Across the private sector, as of June 2022, average hourly wages and salaries for part-time workers came in at only $16.60 per hour, 47% below average full-time wages and salaries. Part-time work is also paid much less within the same occupational category. For example, within service occupations, part-time workers are paid wages and salaries of $13.16 per hour on average, 26% than full-time workers. Within sales and related occupations, part-time workers are paid $13.98 per hour on average, a full 55% less than full-time workers.

Obviously, part of that gap is because part-time workers have different demographic and education characteristics than full-time workers. But even taking those differences into account, the wage penalty for part-time work is still huge. According to a 2020 study, part-time workers “are paid 29.3% less in wages per hour than workers with similar demographic characteristics and education levels who work full-time. Even after controls for industry and occupation are added, part-time workers are paid 19.8% less than their full-time counterparts. … By gender, the adjusted wage penalty is 15.9% for women and 25.8% for men, suggesting that men pay a noticeably higher price for working part time.”

Moreover, “within all occupational groups, mothers earned less per hour when they worked part-time rather than full-time.” Most strikingly, “women working part-time in service occupations and sales and office occupations earned 75% of the earnings of their full-time counterparts, or 25 cents on the dollar less per hour.”

CHARACTERISTICS OF PLATFORM WORK FOR THE CARE ECONOMY

So far, we have established that unpaid care work is pervasive across the economy. Moreover, the high time demands and unpredictability of unpaid care suggests that caregivers would prefer work that leaves them enough time to provide care; is flexible enough to adapt to care crises; and does not require them to absorb a lower hourly wage for the “privilege” of working part-time.

Yet it is clear that conventional part-time work is profoundly biased against precisely the caregiving groups that would want to take advantage of it. With part-time work having lower hourly pay and potentially less flexibility, many people with care responsibilities opt for full-time jobs, or not working at all.

Table 4 shows the distribution of unpaid caregiving hours across full-time and part-time employees, and people who don’t have paid work, broken down by gender. We see that less than 14% of unpaid caregiving hours come from part-time employees. That low figure shows how problematic conventional part-time work is for people doing unpaid caregiving.

By comparison, platform-based work is better suited to people with unpaid care responsibilities. Table 5 lays out the reasons why. These include better schedule control, downward flexibility in work hours, upward flexibility in work hours, and earnings consistency. Let’s discuss each of these in turn.

Better control over schedules: As documented in the previous section, conventional part-time employment, especially in the retail sector, often gives workers little control over their own schedule. By contrast, platform economy work offers workers granular and immediate control over their own schedule. Given the unpredictability of caregiving responsibilities, that control is a huge advantage.

Downward flexibility is the ability of the worker to choose to reduce hours on short notice to deal with unpredictable caregiving issues. That is a major advantage of platform work for unpaid caregivers. They can choose totally customized working hours, such as being home when children are home from school. They can adjust their working schedules to match unforeseen shortterm changes in care arrangements, such as school being closed for a day. And they can step away from their work for extended periods to deal with major health crises that require focusing on caregiving responsibilities.

Upward flexibility can be defined as the ability of platform workers to adjust their use of the platform to increase their earnings opportunities to meet financial goals and commitments. That includes paying for essentials such as food and housing; paying for extras such as gifts and vacations; paying off debt; and saving for retirement or home purchase.

Upward flexibility is a key characteristic of platform work that differentiates it from an employer-employee relationship. In general, most conventional jobs are time-capped, in the sense that the worker needs special permission from their immediate supervisor or higher-ups in order to work more hours. Someone who needs to take off two weeks to care for their aging parent has no guarantee of getting enough hours to make up for the lost income, especially if the company is operating under a tight budget.

Upward flexibility provides a way of reconciling unexpected caregiving responsibilities while still meeting the family’s financial goals and commitments. Upward flexibility is especially important for low-income households that otherwise may struggle to stay afloat and take care of their children and parents at the same time.

Earnings consistency: Conventional part-time work usually incurs a wage penalty; most studies show that part-time workers make substantially lower hourly wages than similar full-time workers. This part-time “wage penalty” is typically larger for men. By contrast, platform work generally offers the same pay scale no matter how much time a worker puts in. To the extent that there are small wrinkles in the pay structure, such as incentives for driving during high-demand periods, they are mostly available to all drivers. Thus, platform work does not unfairly penalize workers for the “privilege” of working part-time.

IMPLICATIONS

The stresses of unpaid caregiving responsibilities are not well-suited to conventional part-time employment, forcing people to either work full-time or withdraw completely from the workforce. The choice is especially tough for people working in retail, service, or production occupations, which have less flexibility even than full-time jobs. And because women typically do two-thirds of the unpaid caregiving, the lack of a good flexible alternative falls even more heavily on them.

Platform work provides an alternative that offers better scheduling and earnings opportunities for unpaid caregivers. Rather than requiring a choice between full-time work and no paid work at all, there is a flexible alternative.

In addition, platform work may help spread the burden of caregiving. Consider the caregiving gender gap. As shown in Table 1, 49% of women aged 25-64 who work part-time are unpaid caregivers for household or non-household members. That’s according to the 2021 American Time Use Survey. But only 30% of men aged 25-64 who work part-time are caregivers. That’s a huge gap. By contrast, a 2021 survey of drivers on one platform shows that 56% of male drivers report that they “routinely provide care for family members or other loved ones” almost identical to the 61% of female drivers who report being caregivers. While these numbers are not directly comparable to the figures produced by the ATUS, the much smaller gender gap for the platform survey suggests that platform work makes it easier for men to combine part-time work with caregiving.

This reduced caregiving gender cap could be because men who have unpaid caregiving responsibilities, whether for children or adults, are more likely to seek out flexible platform work. Alternatively, men who are already doing platform work find it easier to take on unpaid caregiving without changing their overall goals and commitments, since they can add on more hours of work as needed to make up for the time spent on caregiving. Either way, platform work is associated with a more even distribution of caregiving responsibilities across genders.

As America ages, navigating the stress of the Care Economy in a fair way is going to become increasingly important. Platform work has an important role to play.

READ THE FULL REPORT

Maag for Medium: A New Way for America to Re-Embrace Apprenticeship

By Taylor Maag, PPI’s Director of Workforce Policy

Apprenticeship is engrained in America’s history — three of our Founding Fathers started their careers as apprentices. George Washington, for example, apprenticed as a land surveyor. Yet even with this 250-year runway, apprenticeships have not taken off in the United States as they have in other advanced nations.

Our country has about 500,000 registered apprenticeships today, mostly in traditional sectors such as building trades and heavy industry. As a share of their labor force, Great Britain, Australia, and Germany have roughly 10 times more.

It is puzzling that the U.S. hasn’t followed its peers in scaling up apprenticeship, a training model that is also a job, allowing people to work and earn while they are learning the critical skills necessary for good jobs and careers. It’s an especially relevant model now, when most U.S. jobs require at least some postsecondary education and training, and when employers, even in our tight labor market, report a serious shortage of skilled workers in their fields.

Read the full piece in Medium.

Marshall: Pelosi Has Served Her Country with Consummate Skill, Integrity and Patriotism

Progressive Policy Institute President Will Marshall released the following statement in reaction to Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s announcement that she would step back from leadership in the 118th Congress:

“The Progressive Policy Institute is glad to join in today’s outpouring of tributes to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

“She was the first woman to be elected to the nation’s third highest constitutional office. Over the course of two decades as Speaker, she has served her country with consummate skill, integrity and patriotism.

“At the same time, she has also been a highly effective party leader: smart, disciplined, fair, open-minded and, when the occasion demanded it, tough as nails. In good times and bad, she helped to keep her often fractious party united and focused on doing the people’s business.

“It’s not easy to combine these roles, but for Nancy Pelosi public service and Democratic politics are family traditions. She was born Nancy D’Alesandro in Baltimore, where both her father and brother served as Mayor.

“We won’t forget, and we don’t think the American people will forget, the courageous way Speaker Pelosi defended our democracy when it came under attack by a deranged and lawless president on Jan. 6, 2021.”

PPI Urges Congress to Advance a Modern Regulatory Framework for Digital Assets after FTX Meltdown

In the wake of the collapse of crypto exchange platform FTX, the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) today sent a letter to leadership of the House Committee on Financial Services and the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs calling for a functional and modern regulatory regime for digital assets.

Efforts to provide clarity to the regulatory framework of stablecoins have advanced in the House Committee on Financial Services, albeit slowly. The crash of FTX is yet another example of customers losing their savings due to the failure of unregulated institutions, highlighting the need for quick action from federal policymakers on digital assets. PPI urges the leadership of the House Financial Services and Senate Banking Committees to come together in a bipartisan way and advance regulation that balances both the benefits and risks of digital assets for investors and future consumers. 

Download and read the full letter here: 

 

November 17, 2022 

The Honorable Maxine Waters
Chair
U.S. House Committee on Financial Services
Washington, DC 20515 

The Honorable Patrick McHenry
Ranking Member
U.S. House Committee on Financial Services
Washington, DC 20515

The Honorable Sherrod Brown
Chair 
U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs
Washington, DC 20515 

The Honorable Pat Toomey
Ranking Member
U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Chair Waters, Ranking Member McHenry, Chair Brown, and Ranking Member Toomey: 

The collapse of crypto exchange platform FTX underscores the need for a modern, clear, and well functioning regulatory regime for digital assets. In a moment where uncertainty for cryptocurrency investors is rising — with customers losing their savings in the failures of unregulated institutions — the need for legislation to protect investors in the market for digital assets has never been more clear. But protecting investors while enabling the innovation that drives progress will require a balanced approach. 

Stablecoins can mitigate the risk of volatility associated with other cryptocurrencies and capitalize on the benefits of digital assets, such as allowing for faster and more efficient transmission of money. However, without a regulatory definition of ‘stablecoins,’ other tokens call themselves stablecoins and are listed as such but are not truly stable, hurting consumers who invest in them. The industry has seen so-called-stablecoins lose value almost overnight, as evidenced by the collapse of TerraUSD in May 2022.

Bipartisan legislative efforts by House Financial Services Committee Chair Maxine Waters and Ranking Member Patrick McHenry have sought to address the need for regulatory clarity in the realm of stablecoins. These efforts can be an important building block in the effort to provide sensible protections for investors. 

In the wake of the failure of FTX, regulation may need to be expanded to a broader scope. Fundamentally, though, regulation must both ensure stability and liquidity, and put appropriate measures in place to protect consumers when that is not the case. In regard to stablecoin regulation, a first step is defining a stablecoin as something backed by dollars, allowing consumers to determine legitimate value of digital assets in the market. Additional measures could include enforceable reserve requirements for stablecoins, transparency, and disclosure requirements for the assets backing those stablecoins, compliance with anti-money laundering/counter-terrorism financing rules, and clear rules regarding the timely redemption of payment from the sale of stablecoins. 

Innovative payment systems like stablecoins bring competition to the banking and money transmission industries and can provide less expensive, more efficient payments. But legislation is needed to make this system more sustainable. It is crucial that Congress move forward to regulate digital assets, including stablecoins, in a way that balances their benefits and risks. 

Sincerely, 

Progressive Policy Institute 

 

DOWNLOAD THE LETTER

+++

The Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) is a catalyst for policy innovation and political reform based in Washington, D.C. Its mission is to create radically pragmatic ideas for moving America beyond ideological and partisan deadlock. Learn more about PPI by visiting progressivepolicy.org.

Follow PPI on Twitter: @ppi

Find an expert at PPI.

###

Media Contact: Aaron White; awhite@ppionline.org

PPI’s Trade Fact of the Week: 458 Native American-owned businesses exported in 2019

FACT: 458 Native American-owned businesses exported in 2019.

THE NUMBERS: Average employment and payroll for Native American-owned businesses* –

Exporting firms: 21 workers at payroll of $59,260 per worker

Non-exporting firms: 8 workers at payroll of $39,370 per worker

* Census & Bureau of Economic Analysis 2020 report

WHAT THEY MEAN:

Observing the beginning of Native American Heritage Month two weeks ago, and with a Tribal Nations Summit at the White House set for the end of November, U.S. Trade Representative Amb. Katherine Tai says that in developing trade policy:

“We must ensure that Tribal leaders and Indigenous communities have their rightful seat at the table. For these reasons, USTR held our second and now annual Tribal consultation and we are determined to visit with, learn, and hear directly from Tribal leaders on the impact of trade policies on their communities. We also remain deeply focused on exploring how trade policy can enhance the economic well-being of Indigenous workers around the world.”

“Seat at the table” can sound like boilerplate, but in this case it’s not. Under a 2021 White House Memorandum, Biden administration trade (and other) officials have been holding regular “tribal consultations”, meant to solicit advice on policy from representatives of the 574 federally recognized Native American tribes. Some thoughts on the data, institutional steps, and an overseas model that might support this program:

1. Small but high-value export community: Statistical agencies provide some basic facts and data: 1.6 million Native American workers (BLS, 2022); 26,064 known Native American-owned businesses (Census & BEA, 2019); and 79,000 farmers and ranchers (USDA’s 2017 Census of Agriculture), half of whom live and work in Arizona and New Mexico. The Census/BEA report has specifics on exporters:

  1. As of 2019, 458 Native-owned businesses were exporting. This made up 1.7% of Native-owned businesses, which is a bit below the 2.8% exporter rate for the total U.S. business community.
  2. Per the job and pay figures above, the exporters are on average larger and higher-paying employers than non-exporters.
  3. Canada is their main foreign market, buying $56.6 million of $164 million in known Native American exports. The UAE was second at $14.4 million, followed by the EU at $11.1 million, Australia at $7.4 million, and Mexico at $7.0 million.
  4. Still unknown: what products are these businesses exporting? & is there a way to distinguish reservation-based firms specifically?

USDA’s figures, meanwhile, provide an exceptionally detailed portrait of Native American agriculture – 59 million acres of land; heavier on ranching than crops; $3.5 billion in annual sales, more women operators and more very small farms than the national average – but sadly do not provide export data.  Larger tribal governments, however, do at times have statistical reports that can provide some insight. About a decade ago, for example, the Navajo Nation’s tribal enterprises Navajo Agricultural Production Industries estimated $2-$3 million in farm exports, all going to Mexico, in a Navajo agricultural economy then measured at about $35 million per year.

2. “Seat at the Table” Program Might be Broadened: Annual tribal consultations presumably offer tribal governments to raise concerns and identify opportunities that federal government trade officials may miss. (Opportunities to suppress overseas counterfeiting of tribal crafts, as the Indian Arts and Crafts Act works to authenticate tribal artisanal work and deter counterfeiting within the United States? Do trade agreements and national laws offer particular opportunities or create problems for tribes – Tohono O’odham, Blackfeet, Sioux, Mohawk, Inuit – with cross-border memberships?) This may be less effective as a way to provide reactions and advice on day-to-day negotiations and litigation; a complementary option would be to add tribal governments to the “Intergovernmental Policy Advisory Committee” – “IGPAC” for short, the “cleared-advisor” group created to give state, local and other sub-federal governments – which does not now and may never have had a tribal government representative.

3. An Overseas Model: The most ambitious foreign model for indigenous trade development is probably New Zealand’s “Trade Engagement with Maori” system, based on the 19th-century British-Maori Treaty of Waitangi defining Maori rights and New Zealand government obligations. Trade Engagement is a consultative system codified in a 2019 Memorandum of Understanding, which establishes regular meetings with clan leaders, field hearings, consultations on ongoing negotiations, and also provides explanations of features of New Zealand’s trade agreements meant to provide opportunities or special protections for Maori industry, agriculture, and intellectual property.

FURTHER READINGS:

The Biden administration’s Memorandum on Tribal Consultation.

The 2022 White House Tribal Nations Summit will take place Nov. 30 and Dec. 1.

From the National Congress of American Indians, President Fawn Sharp evaluates Biden Administration policies, and offers thoughts on tribal sovereignty, Internet access.

Data – 

Census and BEA on American exporting businesses as of 2019. Sort on “Ethnicity, Race, and Veteran Status” to view Native American businesses; also features in-depth data on exporters by race & ethnicity (African American, white, Asian American, Pacific Islander, Hispanic), male/female, publicly/privately owned, and veteran status.

… and the Minority Business Development Administration’s Arizona center promotes Native American exports.

USDA’s summary of Native American agriculture, from the 2017 National Census of Agriculture. (The Census comes out every five years; USDA is now working on the 2022 edition). This finds 79,198 Native American farmers and ranchers, running 60,083 operations on 59 million acres of land – 6.5% of U.S. farmland overall – and producing $3.5 billion in agricultural output.

An overseas model – 

New Zealand’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade explains the Trade Engagement with Maori program, including Maori benefits in current New Zealand-Taiwan negotiations, the CPTPP, the PACER-Plus arrangement with Pacific island states, and others.

Policy (1): Intellectual Property Rights –

Tribes as groups, and Native American artisans as individuals, are routine targets for intellectual property theft. Companies continue to use tribal names for profit without permission or payment, and counterfeiters based in Asia copy tribal crafts and sell them as originals not only overseas but in the United States. Secretary of the Interior Deb Haaland (Laguna Pueblo) pictured above) explains the Indian Arts and Crafts Act and options for protecting consumers and artisans from counterfeiters.

National Geographic (2018, subscription required) has a case study, reporting on a large-scale case of counterfeiting of Zuni, Navajo, and other tribal crafts in the mid-2010s, with maps of counterfeiters in the Philippines and China and import routes.

Policy (2): Cross-border Nations –

The Tohono O’odham tribe, with land just west of Tucson, on the U.S.-Mexican border and its current implications for tribal family relationships and economy.

St. Regis Mohawks, on the south bank of the St. Lawrence River; Mohawk Akwesasne in Ontario is across the river on the north bank.

The Blackfeet Nation in Montana, with relatives north.

And Inuit Circumpolar Council represents Inuit in the U.S., Canada, Greenland, and Chukotka (Russian far east) in Arctic policy discussions.

Case study –

The Navajo Agricultural Production Enterprise (NAPI), reports $2-$3 million in annual farm exports — pinto beans, corn, wheat and fresh produce such as apricots and cherries — principally to Mexico.

And the Navajo Arts and Crafts Enterprise (NACE) features works from three reservation silversmith shops and 30 weavers, helping artisans and elderly people to supplement family incomes, raise the prestige of craft traditions among young people, and enables U.S. and foreign buyers to buy directly from tribal artisans and avoid counterfeits. They report about $150,000 in annual exports.
And for policy updates, the Navajo Nation’s Washington office.

And some USG resources –

USTR’s Native American Month statement.

USDA’s Foreign Agricultural Service on agiculture and seafood export promotion (could use an update).

The Commerce Department’s Senior Advisor on Native American Affairs.

The webinar earlier this week, from the Ex-Im Bank and the National Center for American Indian Business Development, on export finance opportunities.

 

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 Progressive Economy 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

High overall inflation and low digital inflation may spur digitization

Will the combination of high cost increases and low digital inflation spur reluctant companies to digitize?

One of the pleasant economic surprises in recent months has been the low rate of inflation for digital goods and services, compared to the overall inflationary surge. The latest producer price report, released November 15, shows that a basket of digital goods and services (described below) had a median year-over-year price increase of 1.9%. By comparison, the overall year-over-year price increase for final demand, less food and energy, was 6.7%.

We wrote about this big gap between “New Economy” digital inflation and “old economy” inflation  in a December 2021 blog item. In June 2022, leading economic statistician Marshall Reinsdorf wrote a paper for PPI examining the continued slow rate of price increases for most digital goods and services.

The growing gap between overall inflation and digital inflation means that the relative price of digital goods and services is falling. To put it another way, in the low-inflation era that preceded the pandemic, many companies  enjoyed the benefit of low costs without having to make expensive and potentially risky investments in digitizing their operations.

Now that easy period is over. Companies are looking at technology as a way out of their high-cost trap. Business spending on software, computers, and communication gear hit an all time high in the third quarter of 2022. The layoffs at companies such as Amazon and Facebook notwithstanding, there’s no evidence that companies in the aggregate are cutting back on tech investment. A survey from Gartner predicts a 5% gain in tech spending in 2023.

Nobody likes inflation. But there may be a silver lining if the threat of rising costs forces companies to take digital steps that should have come years ago.

 

 

 

Our price index of digital goods and services includes:

Bundled access services
Cable and other subscription programming
Communications equipment mfg
Computer & peripheral equipment mfg
Data processing and related services
Electronic and mail-order shopping services
Internet access services
Internet publishing and web search portals
Semiconductor and other electronic component mfg
Software publishers
Video programming distribution
Wireless telecommunications carriers
Information technology (IT) technical support and consulting services (partial)

 

 

 

 

 

PPI Hosts Midterm Analysis Event to Discuss the Key Lessons and Major Takeaways Moving into a Divided Congress

Event featured Rep. Cheri Bustos and leading policy and political experts

Today, the Progressive Policy Institute hosted a panel discussion diving deep into the 2022 midterms, analyzing the political and policy implications of a divided Congress and the messages that moved voters to the polls and delivered a surprisingly strong midterm election for the Democrats. The event featured an all-star lineup of thought leaders and policymakers, including: Congresswoman Cheri Bustos (D-IL)PPI President Will MarshallRuy Teixeira, Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and co-editor of The Liberal Patriot Substack; and Elaine Kamarck, Director of the Center for Effective Public Management at the Brookings Institution.

“The most gratifying part of this outcome for me is that extremism and democracy did matter, contrary to the punidtocracy’s very categorical certitude that nobody in America could look beyond their kitchen table to these esoteric issues, like the state of our democracy. That proved not to be the case,” said Will Marshall, President and Founder of the Progressive Policy Institute during the event. “Certainly abortion — the extreme anti-abortion tribe on the right, was a huge issue. We saw anti-abortion crusaders go down, we saw election deniers and conspiracy theorists go down in flames. It was the cherry on the pie that Donald Trump got the blame for the Republican losses, and he got a presidential rival in Gov. Ron DeSantis. So this split decision turns out to be the best midterm result I’ve seen since 1998.”

The event included thought-provoking discussions on what led voters to the polls — including access to abortion, inflation, crime and protecting our democracy, how the midterm elections will determine the future platform and leadership of the Democratic party, and the challenges the White House will face with a likely divided Congress.

See photos and clips from the event on PPI’s Twitter:

The Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) is a catalyst for policy innovation and political reform based in Washington, D.C. Its mission is to create radically pragmatic ideas for moving America beyond ideological and partisan deadlock. Learn more about PPI by visiting progressivepolicy.org.

Follow PPI on Twitter: @ppi

Find an expert at PPI.

###

Media Contact: Aaron White; awhite@ppionline.org

MOSAIC MOMENT: Transatlantic Takeaways

Last month, the Progressive Policy Institute hosted an established group of 12 women in tech and workforce development policy, traveling to London, Brussels and Berlin to meet with political leaders, policy experts and thought-leaders across Europe.

On this episode of the Mosaic Moment, host and program director, Jasmine Stoughton, asks what one transatlantic policy was most interesting and why. Hear from Joanna Ain, Fallon Wilson and Liz Wilke on the U.K. and European policies that made the biggest impact on them during their time abroad!

Guest speakers:

  • Joanna Ain is an associate director of policy at Prosperity Now. Follow Joanna on Twitter.
  • Dr. Fallon Wilson is the vice president of policy at the Multicultural Media and Telecommunication Internet Council. Follow Fallon on Twitter.
  • Dr. Liz Wilke is the principal economist at Gusto. Follow Liz on Twitter.

Mosaic is a project at the Progressive Policy Institute that aims to put more women at the forefront of policy making by empowering our experts with the tools and connections needed to engage with the media and lawmakers on today’s toughest policy challenges.

Follow Mosaic on Twitter and LinkedIn

The Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) is a catalyst for policy innovation and political reform based in Washington, D.C. Founded in 1989, PPI started as the intellectual home of the New Democrats and earned a reputation as President Bill Clinton’s “idea mill.” Today, PPIs work centers on fortifying the vital liberal center against the global rise of illiberal populism and nationalism. Many of PPI’s groundbreaking policy innovations have been translated into U.S. policy and law, and have influenced center-left political leaders around the world.

Follow PPI on Twitter and LinkedIn

Marshall for the New York Daily News: Build on this, Democrats: How the party can capitalize on Republicans’ midterm fizzle

By Will Marshall
President and Founder of PPI
For New York Daily News

Last week’s delightfully abnormal midterm elections left Democrats elated and Republicans wondering how they failed to parlay President Biden’s dismal approval ratings and public consternation over soaring prices into big political gains.

The answer has three overlapping parts: a deeply unpopular stance on abortion, a bad habit of indulging anti-democratic extremism, and a raft of terrible candidates — all of which Republicans inflicted upon themselves. But for Democrats and Biden, dissecting the results and capitalizing on them are two very different matters. To hear voters’ 2022 message and win over many more in 2024, the party must decisively reoccupy the center, with pragmatic solutions that speak to voters’ everyday concerns.

As it happens, most voters (31%) did say inflation was the issue that mattered most to them. But contrary to the media’s claims that abortion was no longer a salient issue, it came in a close second (27%), followed by crime, guns and immigration. Those who chose abortion overwhelmingly backed Democratic candidates.

Read the full piece in the New York Daily News.

Five Trends in American News Consumption

By Malena Dailey (Progressive Policy Institute) and Rosie Beacon (Tony Blaire Institute)

The relationship between the media and democracy has historically been symbiotic: Changes in how society consumes media tends to alter the ways in which citizens engage with democracy. The ascendancy of populist politicians highlights the real-world impact of these trends, with social media providing a new medium for consumption of information as well as means for political figures to engage with the public.

In a moment defined by rising political tensions and differing perceptions of truth — exacerbated by conflicting spins on current events by partisan news organizations and misrepresentation of the truth online — understanding media consumption provides a path to understanding trends in American politics. Media provides information and ultimately influences people’s voting intentions, especially in a news environment that is already very politically charged. In order to understand the full picture of the trajectory of American politics, we must understand how Americans engage with news.

As we leave another election period, it is worth reflecting on what the evidence actually says about where and how most Americans get their news and what this says about modern digital led democracies.

1. Digital devices are the main way people access news, but social media is not the most popular way of accessing it — news brands are still important

Before social media, the day’s news agenda was largely decided by a small editorial elite at major news outlets. Whereas now, the prevalence of social media as a news source demonstrates that editorial narratives are decided as much by social media algorithms as they are the traditional purveyors of news. But irrespective of whether people get their news from news websites, search or social media, the role of news brands is still significant for readers.

The role of traditional news providers as producers of news has not diminished as much as their role as editors and curators of the agenda. The substance of newspapers is still important in what people consume, but the kind of news people see is no longer solely decided by newspapers.

Though digital devices are by far the most common way Americans access their news, where they get that news on their devices is divided among a number of different pathways. News websites, apps, and search engines are the digital pathways most Americans get news from at least sometimes. 63% at least sometimes get news from news websites or apps, 60% from search and 50% from social media, according to an analysis done by Pew Research. In the U.S., nearly a third of Americans regularly get news on Facebook (31%), and this outpaces all other social media sites.

Most individuals using social media are not doing so with the purpose of consuming news, though less than half of users on Facebook, and roughly a third of those on Instagram, YouTube and TikTok regularly get news from the site. This is closer to half for Twitter. Consuming such news via social media can be thought of in two main concepts. First, “incidental exposure,” where people are shown news articles when they are using social media platforms for other reasons. And second, “automated serendipity,” where algorithms surface news from outlets people would not normally use.

2. Individual journalists are now more significant than in a pre-internet age, and these journalists are generally partisan 

Explicitly opinionated and partisan journalists carry an enormous amount of influence in the U.S. media landscape, especially in comparison to other countries. In the U.S., the most mentioned journalists by people are all partisan journalists (74% are political), in contrast to the U.K. where they are generally independent or impartial (38% are political). News brands still galvanize more attention (37%) online, but 21% — a fifth — pay most attention to journalists.

In a pre-internet era, journalists’ careers were tied to the outlets they worked for, but the rise of social media has allowed many individual journalists — and other varieties of “political influencers” — to build their own profiles independent of particular news brands.

This highlights the contrast with countries that have strong national media brands with strict impartiality rules — such as the BBC in the U.K. or ARD News in Germany. Whereas in the U.S., news is much more of a commercial venture, with business models that are somewhat reliant on controversy and strong journalistic personalities. The U.S. is also unable to enforce impartiality due to the Constitution. This is similarly compounded by social media platforms, whose business models and algorithms reward engagement thus giving a stronger platform to contention.

This also demonstrates the importance of cable TV in engaging Americans with news personalities. They may follow up these interests through digital channels, but cable personalities remain memorable to audiences and likely create the interest in the first instance. When asked to name journalists they regularly pay attention to, 74% were from broadcast TV or radio, 17% from online/other and only 9% from print, according to Reuters.

3. The media is politicized, but not completely polarized

While it is true that the U.S. has a higher level of news polarization than the U.K., Germany, or Norway, Reuters also found that it has barely increased since 2016 despite the turbulent political landscape. It has not increased substantially, if at all, in the last six years.

Political polarization is often characterized as one of the major problems democracies face in an increasingly digital landscape. Indeed, the Economist Intelligence Unit’s annual Democracy Index identified political polarization as the biggest threat to U.S. democracy — differences of opinion in the U.S. have evolved into political sectarianism and institutional gridlock. It would therefore be logical to assume this is also reflected in news consumption patterns, given the ascendancy of partisan news media in the U.S. in particular.

But across all four countries, news audience polarization has changed by 3 percentage points or less since 2016, indicating only minimal shifts in audience behavior. What’s more, Reuters calculated a “theoretical maximum” of news polarization. This found that even in the U.S., news polarization is far from the theoretical limit (34%). This should not foster any complacency however, Germany is at 10% of the theoretical limit.

The main difference in the U.S. is that there is no large outlet that appeals to the average political leaning of the population, whereas Germany, Norway. and the U.K. all have public service media, such as the BBC, to anchor their news landscape. Most of the major news brands appeal more to left of center-leaning audiences (New York Times, CNN), with Fox News being one of few outlets on the right.

4. While news polarization is not growing, it has exacerbated pre-existing differences of opinion on particular policy areas — such as climate change

Of all the markets Reuters studied across the world, the U.S. expressed the lowest interest in climate change news. Polarization is considered, at least in part, to drive this relative disinterest. There is a 41 percentage point gap between those on the left interested in climate change news and those on the right. This is quite the contrast to countries with high levels of interest, where there is significantly less left-right polarization.

In the U.S., 55% of those with a left political leaning are interested in climate change news, versus only 14% of those with a right political leaning. Whereas within countries with the highest levels of interest, there is less left-right polarization, such as Greece (a 16 percentage point gap) and Portugal (10 percentage point gap).

This is one issue that could be particularly impacted by a political shift in the House of Representatives. Though climate policy garners widespread support across congressional districts, legislation meant to address it remains quite partisan — meaning a shift to a Republican majority would jeopardize the ability for Congress to enact pro-climate policy.

Interest is highest in several Latin American, Southern European and Asia Pacific markets. Just over half of respondents in Greece (53%), Portugal (53%), Chile (52%) and the Philippines (52%) say they are interested in news about climate change and the environment. Interest is lower in Northern and Western European markets such as Norway (33%) and France (36%), whereas the U.S. has 30% interest. Compounded by the economic climate, it is therefore not surprising that climate has not been a prevalent issue in regards to voting intention in this election.

5. There are generational disparities in what is perceived as a trusted source of information

For the average American adult, trust in major news sources has declined since 2016, but trust in news obtained on social media has remained roughly the same. According to a Pew Research study, in 2022, 71% of U.S. adults said they trust local news organizations, 61% trust national news, and 33% trust news from social media sites. However, for Americans under 30, this gap closes considerably, with 56% trusting national news sources and 50% trusting social media.

This is intuitive when looking at the medium of choice for news consumption across age groups. When surveyed, 44% of American young adults (ages 18-29) say that they get news from television, compared to 74% of adults aged 50-64. And, while digital sources are a popular medium across age groups, there are additional differences in what generations mean when they refer to digital platforms. When looking at all age groups, a higher percentage of American adults over 30 get news from websites or apps of news organizations than on social media or other digital platforms such as search engines or podcasts. For the 18-29 year old demographic, the most common digital media for news consumption is social media, with 76% of respondents saying they use social media for news.

To some degree, this is reflective of what different generations expect from informative content. A 2019 Reuters study found that in contrast to the mentality of traditional media which seeks to inform based on what you “should know,” younger audiences see news as what is useful, interesting, or fun to know. Social media allows for this while also curating news to the type of content which is relevant to the lives and experiences of young people, cutting out the perceived need to seek out news elsewhere when it can be integrated into the experience of interacting with friends and online communities.

Research note: We obtained much of the data and analysis included in this article from Reuters Institute Digital News Report 2022 and Pew Research Center

Malena Dailey is a Technology Policy Analyst at the Progressive Policy Institute. Rosie Beacon is a Policy Analyst at the Tony Blaire Institute, and is based in London. 

Marshall for The Hill: What Does a Midterm Split Decision Mean for Democrats?

By Will Marshall, President of PPI
for The Hill 

The votes are still being counted, but Democrats could yet win a split decision in the 2022 midterm elections. So much for the Red Tsunami giddily forecast by conservative commentators in the run-up to Tuesday’s vote.

There’s little doubt the Republicans will take over the House of Representatives, albeit by a much narrower margin than they expected. But control of the Senate will be decided in exactly the same place and manner as it was in the 2020 elections — a high-stakes run-off election in Georgia.

On Dec. 6, Sen. Ralph Warnock, the Democratic incumbent, will face off again against his Republican challenger, Hershel Walker. It’s a strange reprise that tells us several interesting things about U.S. politics.

Read the full piece in The Hill. 

PPI’s Trade Fact of the Week: U.S. employment of biotech scientists has grown by 45,000 since January 2021

FACT: U.S. employment of biotech scientists has grown by 45,000 since January 2021.

THE NUMBERS: U.S. biotechnology researchers* –
09/2022 286,400
12/2020 239,600
12/2015 156,600
12/2010 130,000
12/2000 111,400
12/1990 107,400

* Bureau of Labor Statistics

WHAT THEY MEAN:

It is seventy years since Watson & Crick worked out the DNA molecule’s double-helical structure (1953), fifty since Cohen & Boyer produced the first “recombinant” DNA cell (1972); and 40 since the first biotech medicine launch (human insulin from an E. coli cell, 1982). For 2022, here’s a Food and Drug Administration announcement about a salmon, genetically engineered for rapid growth, which went on sale last year:

“AquAdvantage Salmon has been genetically engineered to reach a growth marker important to the aquaculture industry more rapidly than its non-GE farm-raised Atlantic salmon counterpart. It does so because it contains an rDNA construct that is composed of the growth hormone gene from Chinook salmon under the control of a promoter (a sequence of DNA that turns on the expression of a gene) from another type of fish called an ocean pout. … The salmon cannot be raised in ocean net pens: instead, the approval allows for them to be grown only at specific land-based facilities: one in Canada [Prince Edward Island], where the breeding stock are kept, and Indiana, where the fish for market will be grown out using eggs from the Canada facility. [A third site is getting ready in Ohio.] Both the Canada and Indiana facilities have multiple and redundant physical barriers to prevent eggs and fish from escaping, including metal screens on tank bottoms, stand pipes, and incubator trays to prevent the escape of eggs and fish during hatching or rearing. The tanks also have covers, nets, jump fences, and screened overflow tanks to prevent escape over the sides of the tanks or incubators. The facilities in Canada are indoors. All tank drains and stand pipes have covers or sleeves permanently attached to them. In order to prevent eggs or small fish from passing through the pipes or plumbing, there is a closed septic system and additional screens and chlorine pucks are used to kill any escaped fish or eggs in the main drain area.”

Product of Massachusetts-based AquaBounty, the salmon was the second major biotech fish launch, following the 2005 introduction of Florida-farmed glow-in-the-dark aquarium fish.  Both in turn are the output of a U.S. biotech world reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics to employ 286,000 R&D scientists, up 45,000 from the BLS’ January 2021 tally and double the 134,000 counted in 2012. The OECD’s most recent measurement of research commitments finds the U.S. contributing about $88 billion of about $115 billion in known private-sector biotech R&D as of 2020. (Note though OECD’s figures don’t include government research, and also don’t try to estimate the possibly substantial R&D commitments in China, India, and Russia.) A quick rundown of current biotech products and plantings:

(1)  Medicines:  The FDA reports suggest 117 biologic medicines were on the market by 2000 and 334 (if we’re counting correctly) are available now. Roughly speaking, then, the array of biotech medicines grew by about 6 per year from 1980 to 2000, accelerating to about 10 per year since the turn of the century. Examples from the 2022 approval list include a hepatitis C medicine, a blood coagulant, mRNA vaccines, thalassemia, and a relapsed leukemia treatment.

(2)  Agriculture: U.S. farmers grow biotech crops on about 175 million acres of farmland, up from 4 million acres in 1995 and accounting for about a third of the world’s 470 million acres of biotech planting.  They produce 11 biotech crops — alfalfa, apples, canola, corn, cotton, papaya, pineapples (pink variety), potatoes, soybeans, summer squash, and sugar beets — and U.S. planting has risen from 4 million acres in 1995 to 175 million acres over the last decade, and includes 93% of U.S. corn, 95% of U.S. cotton, and 95% of U.S. soybeans. Worldwide, the U.S. is the largest of 29 biotech producers, accounting for about a third of 470 million acres in world biotech planting as of 2019, according to the most recent count by biotechnology industry group ISAAA.** Latin American countries — Brazil and Argentina in particular — combine for about 206 million acres, with smaller totals (see below) in Canada, India, China, Pakistan, and South Africa. Their initial survey in 2003 found 17 countries and 167 million acres.

* A pig, a rabbit used to produce treatments for hemophilia, a goat, and a chicken along with the AquAdvantage salmon and the aquarium fish.

** “International Service for Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications”

FURTHER READINGS:

A fish –

Producer AquaBounty.

And the FDA’s January 2022 approval note (which follows some litigation).

Data — 

OECD stats on private-sector biotech research by country (as noted above, covering OECD members only, meaning no data for China, India, Russia, Brazil, etc.).

U.S. regulators –

The Food and Drug Administration’s biologicals list.

Also from the FDA, a look at agricultural biotech.

And USDA on biotech in American farming.

Agriculture –

An overall summary from ISAAA’s on biotech agriculture worldwide.  By their count, eight of the 29 biotech-using countries account for about 93% of world biotech planting (by acreage) in 2019, as follows:

World total    470 million acres
U.S. 170 million acres
Brazil 130 million acres
Argentina  59 million acres
Canada  31 million acres
India  29 million acres
Paraguay  10 million acres
China   8 million acres
Pakistan   6 million acres
All Other  33 million acres

 

ISAAA.

A trade dispute: With Mexico raising questions about accepting U.S. biotech corn, a laconic U.S. Trade Representative comment.

A biotech Hawaiian papaya, designed to fend off a virus.

History –

The Chemical Heritage Foundation on Berg, Boyer, Cohen, and the first recombinant DNA experiments in 1971.

And the National Institutes of Health look back at the first biotech controversy (a six-month ban on lab research, imposed by Cambridge (MA) in 1976).

And last – 

Designed in Singapore and raised in Florida ponds, “Glofish” are available online at $25-$150 for barbs, danios, miniature sharks, bettas, and tetras in “Electric Green,” “Cosmic Blue,” “Galactic Purple,” “Moonrise Pink,” “Starfire Red,” and “Sunburst Orange”.

The FDA’s comment.

 

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 Progressive Economy 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

Lewis for Medium: I drink my beer from a can, don’t take away my choices

By: Lindsay Mark Lewis, PPI’s Executive Director

Over the last several weeks, there has been increased focus and attention on the competition and antitrust debate in Washington. There has been a debate about the connection between these policies and efforts to address historically high inflation. With real consequential decisions looming for consumers, it’s perplexing why the administration chooses to focus on industries that provide consumers with more choices of quality products at competitive prices, such as the beer industry.

Yet, the Biden administration has voiced its concern. In a February report, the U.S. Treasury claims that the beer industry is facing increasing consolidation, lessening consumer choice, and ultimately asks that regulators evaluate whether mergers in the beer industry are providing fewer options for American customers.

Read the full piece in Medium.