PPI’s Trade Fact of the Week: ‘Squid Game’ outdrew the World Series this year – Nov. 17, 2021

FACT:

“Squid Game” outdrew the World Series this year.

THE NUMBERS: 

111 million:  Squid Game viewers, September/October 2021
70 million:    World Series viewers, October/November 2021

WHAT THEY MEAN:

Korea-made drama Squid Game, which premiered Sept. 17 on Netflix, centers on a contest in which 456 impoverished and debt-ridden players compete for a ₩45.6 billion prize (~$38 million) in a series of children’s games. The losing players are ruthlessly executed. (Shot, stabbed, thrown off a bridge, etc.; more variety presumably in Season 2.) The show’s 9-episode Season 1 run logged over 111 million views, a count not only well above Netflix’s earlier 82-million-viewer record (the 2020 scheming-18th century-Brit-aristocrat series Bridgerton), but outpacing the Atlanta-v.-Houston World Series.  Americans weren’t alone in their enthusiasm: Squid Game was also Netflix’s top show in Denmark, Bolivia, Kuwait and Bahrain, India, Bulgaria, and 44 other countries.

Not a unique triumph for Korean arts, Squid Game is an especially visible example of the much larger “Hallyu Wave” phenomenon. Hallyu, translated as “Korean Wave,” is shorthand for the international appeal of South Korean pop culture, first in Japan, China, Taiwan, and Southeast Asia and more recently in the U.S., Europe, Latin America, and the Middle East.  At the cultural high end, last year’s Parasite — a satire on class disparity and wealth inequality, pitting scheming low-income moochers against a greedy and clueless rich family — was the first Asian and first non-English-language film to win a Best Picture Oscar.  At the somewhat less-high end, five of Billboard’s 10 non-English No. 1 albums since 1958 have come since 2018 from K-Pop boy-band groups BTS and SuperM. In between are clothing styles, video games, cosmetics, band and artist merchandise, and other cultural and lifestyle products.

Korean government economists calculate the value of Hallyu exports at $12 billion in 2020.  This would still be well below the $36 billion in exports from Korea’s mighty auto factories, but within sight and growing by 22 percent per year. More is presumably ahead; as one 2021 indicator, Netflix invested nearly $500 million in the Korean entertainment industry and opened two studio facilities in South Korea.

What explains Hallyu’s success?  Some analysis credits Korean government support and organization.  The Korea Herald, reporting on the creation of a “Hallyu Department” in the Ministry of Culture, Sports, and Tourism last year scoffs at this idea: “it is not the first time that the government is attempting to play a role in the promotion of the Korean wave, each time against resistance from the industry who feared government meddling in what is essentially a private sector initiative may have the opposite effect”.  Rather, the success of Korean culture looks organic, matching (a) appealing plotting, cliffhanger endings, and striking visuals with (b) new forms of access as widespread Internet use, secure financial services, and open data flow enable online streaming services such as Netflix and Hulu to compete to offer their subscribers an array of films, music, and TV, and (c) devoted and highly organized international fan bases using social media to evangelize and market to one another.

 

 

FURTHER READING

 

Read Squid Game ratings and rankings by country from Netflix, here.Read more background about Hallyu Wave, here.

Policy or not?

The Carnegie Endowment looks at Korean government support for cultural industry and Hallyu as soft-power policy, read more here.

The Korea Herald is skeptical, read more here.

The Korea Economic Institute sides with the Herald, viewing government promotion Hallyu as largely “mistargeted,” “ineffectual,” and annoying to fans, read more here.

Fans and artists

Time on U.S. K-pop fans as a 2020 political force, read here.

Navigating through K-pop fandom with fan clubs and fan cafes, read here.

For insight on Korean filmmaking and its international appeal, read here.

And for the Korean Cultural Center/DC’s October Hallyu & K-Pop demo, click here.

 

Special note: Research and drafting for this Trade Fact by Lisa Ly, Social Policy Intern for the Progressive Policy Institute. Lisa is currently a Master of Public Policy candidate at The George Washington University. 

 

 

ABOUT ED

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

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

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

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

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

Mortimer for Newsweek: The House’s SALT Cap Proposal Is Bad Policy and Bad Politics

The tax bill passed by Republicans in 2017 mostly made our tax code worse, increasing the federal debt by up to $2 trillion and delivering the bulk of its tax cuts to corporations and the rich. But the bill contained one very good, very progressive provision: capping the State and Local Tax (SALT) deduction at $10,000 per household. Unfortunately, House Democrats just made a proposal that would compound the GOP tax bill’s regressiveness: increasing the SALT cap and giving multimillionaires a $25,000 per year tax cut. The Senate must not follow their lead.

The SALT deduction has been around in some form for a long time, dating all the way back to the Civil War. It allows taxpayers to deduct what they pay in state and local income, property and sales taxes from their federal taxes. But not all taxpayers get to reap the benefits of the SALT deduction. Taxpayers must itemize their tax returns to be able to claim the SALT deduction—and only the richest taxpayers tend to itemize. Most taxpayers tend to take the standard deduction rather than itemize, unless they make at least $500,000 in a single year. And as one becomes richer, and consequently pays more in state and local taxes, the dollar benefit of the SALT deduction becomes larger.

Until the 2017 Republican tax bill capped the SALT deduction at $10,000, there was no limit on the amount that could be deducted. The cap amounted to a tax hike that applied almost exclusively to the richest Americans. It raises about $85 billion each year, 90 percent of which comes from the richest 10 percent of Americans.

Read the full op-ed in Newsweek.

PPI Attends Signing Ceremony for President Biden’s Bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act

Legacy bipartisan achievement will help rebuild our communities and create jobs across America

 

Lindsay Mark Lewis, Executive Director of the Progressive Policy Institute, attended the signing ceremony this afternoon for President Biden’s Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and released the following statement:

“The Progressive Policy Institute’s policy team is grateful to the White House and Congressional leaders for the opportunity to have contributed to the deliberations around the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. This landmark bill at last ends a generation of chronic underinvestment in the public goods that make the great American jobs and innovative machine run.

“Congratulations to President Biden for succeeding where his predecessor failed, and we thank him and his team for including PPI in today’s historic bill signing.

“It is finally infrastructure week in America.”

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.

###

Media Contact: Aaron White – awhite@ppionline.org

 

Ritz for Wall Street Journal: Build Back Better Must Adjust to Address Inflation Concerns

With inflation rising to its highest levels in over 30 years, Democrats must make sure they don’t exacerbate the problem. But the Build Back Better bill currently being considered by Congress would pour roughly $200 billion of deficit-financed fuel on the fire in its first year alone. Even worse, the bill threatens to turn potentially transformative policies into something temporary that angers voters and returns Republicans to power.

The solution isn’t to abandon President Biden’s agenda. There’s still time for Democrats to give priority to a few key programs in a focused and sustainably financed “kids and climate” bill, like the moderate New Democrat Coalition and many others have long advocated doing.

Sen. Joe Manchin and House moderates do their progressive colleagues a favor by demanding a bill that is fully funded without shell games and budget gimmicks. Pivoting to such a bill would shield Democrats from inflation risks and allow them to make permanent progressive policies that otherwise might vanish.

Read the full piece in the Wall Street Journal. 

PPI’s Trade Fact of the Week: Pirate attacks are at their lowest rate in 30 years – Nov. 10, 2021

FACT:

Pirate attacks are at their lowest rate in 30 years.

THE NUMBERS: 

Pirate attacks worldwide

2021: 125?
2020: 195
2019: 162
2012: 297
2010: 445

WHAT THEY MEAN:

A terse description of a high-seas pirate attack off Nigeria three weeks ago, from the International Maritime Bureau’s Piracy Reporting Centre:

Oct. 25, 2021: While underway, a container ship was boarded by an unknown number of pirate and the crew retreated into the citadel.  On being notified of the incident, the IMB Piracy Reporting Centre immediately alerted and liaised with the Regional Authorities and international warships to request for assistance.  A Russian Navy warship and its helicopter responded and proceeded to render assistance resulting in the crew and ship being safe.  The pirates escaped with stolen ship’s properties.  

Background: A decade of naval cooperation, even among distrustful big powers, appears to have made high-seas pirate work more difficult and less rewarding.

In 2010, international waters off Somalia — the Red Sea, the Gulf of Aden, and the ‘Bab-el-Mandeb’ strait, the principal commercial and energy link between Asia and Europe, with 50 ship transits and 3.4 million barrels of oil moving daily — were the center of the pirate industry.  The collapse of Somalia’s central state in 1991 left country prey to sequential waves of violent clan-based militias, radical fundamentalists and crime gangs.  One product of this was a notorious high-seas pirate industry; at its peak from 2005 to 2010, gangs using small speedboats and automatic weapons were attacking three or more ships a week on the high seas — in total, 181 attacks in 2009 — and in 2010 they were holding 30 vessels and 600 sailors for ransoms ranging up to $95 million.

Since then, the 29-country naval patrol known as CTF-151 (“Combined Task Force 151”) with rotating commands led this year by Pakistan and now Brazil, appears to have essentially eliminated the Somali pirate industry.  The last two successful attacks on high-seas vessels in this region were in 2017, and the most recent failed attempt was in 2019; none at all are reported for 2020 and 2021.

On a worldwide scale, pirate attacks have fallen by over half in the past decade, from 445 known attacks in 2010 to 195 in 2020.  The running tally kept by the International Maritime Bureau in Kuala Lumpur suggests that this year’s count may fall below 150, which would be the fewest attacks since 1994.  Piracy is now most frequent in Indonesia and in the Singapore Strait, the sites of 47 of last year’s 161 attacks and 25 of the 97 attacks reported through September 2021.  Only two of these, though, were actual attacks on high-seas shipping; the others were attempted robberies of ships in port or at anchor. Attacks off West Africa are somewhat less frequent — 24 in 2020, or two each month — but appear to feature especially well-armed and violent pirates, responsible for all three 2020 high-seas hijackings of ships, along with 128 of the 135 crew kidnappings, and nine of the 11 incidents of firing on shipping.  In West Africa too though, frequency and severity have diminished this year, with the open-water event off Brass last month the only high-seas attack recorded so far.  Its quick interruption by a Russian naval patrol, even though the pirates got away with some stolen equipment, suggests some success for international naval cooperation here as well.

FURTHER READING

Facts and data

The International Maritime Bureau’s piracy reports for 2020 find:

Totals: 195 pirate attacks of all kinds worldwide, down from a peak of 445 attacks in 2010, and down again by 30% (from 132 to 97) through the first nine months of 2021.

Hijackings: 11 hijackings of high-seas shipping, down from 53 in 2010; only two so far in 2021.

The International Maritime Bureau on recent pirate attacks, with the full-year 2020 and partial-year 2021 reports available at no cost via e-mail:

Navy perspectives 

Command Task Force 151, led last year by Pakistan and this year by Brazil, patrols Somali waters.

The Marinha do Brasil takes over CTF-151.

And the U.S. Navy reports on joint anti-piracy training with the Ghanaian navy this spring, and Ghanaian-American sailors Samuel Ellis and Prince Boateng visiting home.

The Singapore-based Information Sharing Center for the Regional Cooperation Agreement on Combating Piracy (RECAAP) oversees anti-piracy operations in maritime Southeast Asia.

Two views on Somali piracy

Brookings Institution scholars speculate on a link between illegal/unreported/unregulated fisheries and piracy rates, can be read here.

And a personal account from journalist Michael Scott Moore in The Guardian, on his 977 days as a pirate kidnap victim can be read here.

ABOUT ED

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

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

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

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

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

Progressive Policy Institute’s Statement on House Passage of President Biden’s Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill

Will Marshall, President of the Progressive Policy Institute, released the following statement in reaction to the House passage of the Biden Administration’s bipartisan infrastructure framework:

“Congratulations to Speaker Pelosi and House Democrats for passing tonight a landmark infrastructure bill that is a key pillar of President Biden’s Build Back Better agenda for an inclusive economic recovery. The president has succeeded where previous administrations have failed, and this long overdue investment in modernizing American infrastructure will create good jobs, spur economic innovation and help U.S. workers and companies outcompete China for economic and technological leadership in this century.

“It is also a rarity in Washington – a major bipartisan achievement that fulfills President Biden’s pledge to make our government work for all Americans again. The infrastructure bill enjoys broad public support, including among voters in battleground districts and states likely to determine the outcome of next year’s midterm elections.

“We were also glad to see the Progressive Caucus retreat from their counterproductive and unsuccessful strategy of holding the bill hostage to their demands for higher spending. With a second landmark accomplishment under his belt, President Biden and the party can now move on to passing a transformative Build Back Better bill that can measurably improve Americans’ lives.

“To accomplish this goal, PPI urges lawmakers to focus on delivering a few core priorities well instead of trying to enact the full progressive wish list of spending programs on a half-funded and temporary basis. We remain concerned that the House bill – as currently written – tries to do too much with too little, wastes precious resources on tax cuts for the rich, and is not offset in a sustainable way. We encourage our friends in Congress to compromise and prioritize so they can deliver a durable progressive win for the American people.”

Read PPI’s statement on the agreement to the Build Back Better framework here.

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

Follow the Progressive Policy Institute.

###

How Tech is Building a New Middle Class

The death of the American middle class has been a potent theme in political discourse and on the pages of mainstream publications for decades. Good jobs for “middle-skill” workers were pulled down by the implosion of manufacturing employment, on the one hand, and the growth of the poorly paid and perpetually-squeezed health care sector, on the other. The classic “steelworker to nurse or health technician” story ends up requiring much more education for the roughly the same pay. Steel production workers earn an average of $23 per hour, according to BLS figures, while licensed practical and vocational nurses, which require at least a year of extra education, earn an average of $24 per hour.

But for those pundits searching for the new middle class, there is good news. The tech-ecommerce boom has become the biggest source of “good jobs” both nationally and in most states. Since September 2017 to September 2021, the tech-ecommerce ecosystem — composed of thousands of small and large firms in addition to the big tech companies — created 1.4 million jobs in the United States. That’s three times as many as health care, the previous champ of job creation, which added 500,000 jobs over that same stretch. The rest of the economy lost 900,000 jobs.

This stunning job growth, surprisingly underappreciated and even mocked by many progressives, is building a new middle class across the United States. The key is that tech and e-commerce companies pay “middle-skill” Americans a better wage than they can get at other employers, including hospitals and senior citizen facilities. Our analysis of government data shows that workers with some college, including an associate’s degree, earn 32% more in tech-ecommerce than in the economy as a whole. Average pay in tech-ecommerce — including all positions from coders to fulfillment center workers — varies from state to state, but it is higher than average pay in manufacturing in 42 states, and higher than average pay in health care in every state.

This central role of tech-ecommerce in generating well-paid middle-skill jobs is new. During the 1990s tech boom, which I wrote about extensively as economics editor and then chief economist at BusinessWeek, the great majority of new tech jobs required a college education. Software developer jobs in Silicon Valley were not a viable replacement for the manufacturing middle class.

But today, tech-ecommerce firms are creating a broader array of jobs. As of 2019, tech-ecommerce companies employed 1.8 million American workers with some college, in occupations like computer support specialists and network and computer system administrators. (That figure is based on our tabulations of the March 2020 Annual Social and Economic Supplement to the Current Population Survey, covering 2019 earnings and employment). The higher pay and job creation is being fueled by huge productivity gains in the tech-ecommerce sector, which are being passed onto workers, just as economic theory would predict.

Here’s where the growth of the new tech-ecommerce middle class intersects with policy. Although I have always been an avid supporter of tech-driven growth, tech has never been the unalloyed panacea that many in the industry claimed. In 2000 I wrote a book entitled “The Coming Internet Depression,” that emphasized the volatility of tech jobs.  More recently, it’s become clear that the tech-ecommerce ecosystem would benefit from more regulation.

But not all forms of regulation are created equal. The most radical of the antitrust bills now being considered by Congress, including the new legislation sponsored by Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), titled “The American Innovation and Choice Online Act,” are specifically designed to change the way that big tech companies do business, and to protect less efficient competitors.

Tech critics are engaged in the equivalent of ripping random parts out of a smoothly running car engine, while assuring the passengers — American workers, in this case — that the parts aren’t necessary and that the car still runs just as fast.

Some have accused Big Tech of engaging in labor market “monopsony,” meaning that they control the demand side of job markets. But if tech firms were behaving like labor market monopsonists, they would be holding down hiring and wages. That’s so clearly not happening, it’s laughable. Between 2012 and today, the five big tech firms went from 300,000 to almost 1.9 million workers globally, in perhaps the biggest surge of “good job” hiring in recorded history.   Other tech company employment grew as well. Salesforce went from 8,000 workers to 56,000. Cognizant, an IT consulting firm with a large global footprint, went from 27,000 U.S. workers to 44,000.

In September, Amazon announced plans to hire 125,000 new workers, at an average starting pay of $18 per hour, which translates into $36,000 per year for full-time work, without counting overtime or bonuses. To put that in perspective, two parents starting at an Amazon fulfillment center would earn $72,000 per year together, roughly comparable to the $68,000 median household income reported by the Census Bureau.

What’s happening is that tech-ecommerce is filling the middle-skill job hole in the economy that health care failed to fill. Health care is a low-productivity industry which overworks and underpays its employees, as you might expect given its highly regulated nature. The average pay for tech-ecommerce workers with some college (including an associate’s degree) is roughly $59,000, compared to $41,000 for people with a similar education in the health care and social assistance sector. The average pay for tech-ecommerce workers with a high school diploma is $42,000, compared to $31,000 for people with a similar education in the health care and social assistance sector. To put it by occupation, health technologists and technicians get paid a median hourly wage of $21.93, while computer support specialists get paid a substantially higher wage of $26.69.

What about manufacturing? Let’s consider Eastman Kodak, a “progressive” company featured by Rick Wartzman of the Drucker Institute in his 2017 book on the “good jobs” of the past. Kodak, which employed 145,000 workers globally at its peak paid its workers well above the national average and provided a fleet of benefits. Kodak’s founder, George Eastman, introduced a form of profit sharing — the so-called wage dividend — in 1912. In the 20 years from 1959 to 1979, Kodak’s workforce doubled in size, and real average pay for employees doubled as well.

Kodak’s ability to sustain well-paying jobs for its workers was closely linked to its willingness to invest in new technology. Kodak pursued an active research agenda, patenting new inventions that kept it ahead of rivals and potential entrants. “By the time rivals found ways around the current technology,” wrote one study from the Brookings Institution, “Kodak was on to the next technology.” One surprising example: Kodak was the original company behind Super Glue, which it later licensed.

Despite decades of antitrust actions and consent degrees, Kodak still controlled 80% of the amateur photographic film market in 1979.  According to researcher Kamal Munir of Cambridge Judge Business School, “gross margins on film ran close to 70%, and its success was further underpinned by a massive distribution network and one of the strongest brands in the world.”

Would workers have been even better off if Kodak had been broken up for antitrust reasons? One could debate that question endlessly. But one thing is clear: Production workers at Kodak benefited from being part of a large company that excelled at R&D and marketing, and that actually manufactured products in the United States. That helped create good jobs.

Conversely, business strategies that separate out production from R&D and product development have proved to be a disaster for less educated workers, who fare better when they are part of the “mother ship” and entitled to the same benefits and pay structure as their highly educated counterparts.

That’s what makes the progressive attack on tech the ultimate self-destructive act politically and economically. They are undercutting the very middle-income workers that progressives claim to care about.

No one denies that Big Tech merits closer regulatory attention. But we have to remember that progressive historically has two meanings. One strand is the fight against corporate corruption, which is essential to keep capitalism on the rails. The other strand is about economic progress and raising living standards. We have to balance the two.

 

Ritz and McDermott for The Hill: Shortening programs won’t help Democrats build back better

The Build Back Better Framework released by the White House on Oct. 28 would make some potentially transformative investments in American society. But those investments are severely weakened because most are scheduled to expire after only a few years to make the 10-year cost of the bill seem smaller than it really is. Advocates of this tactic hope that these temporary programs will prove so popular that a future Congress will extend them. But this risky bet would make it easier for a Republican-controlled Congress to kill the Democrats’ accomplishments without actually addressing the concerns of their fiscally pragmatic members.

While today’s lawmakers may like their own proposals, they cannot be sure that a future Congress will continue funding programs that are scheduled to expire. Making the Democratic agenda temporary empowers Republicans who want to repeal it.

Read the full piece in The Hill.

PPI Statement on President Biden’s Build Back Better Framework

Will MarshallPresident of the Progressive Policy Institute, released the following statement in reaction to President Biden’s announcement of a deal on the Build Back Better framework and imminent vote on the bipartisan infrastructure package:

“President Biden today unveiled a revised Build Back Better framework that better reflects his party’s diverse coalition, and he urged Democratic lawmakers to proceed to a vote on his bipartisan infrastructure bill.

“PPI applauds the president’s diligent efforts to forge a new consensus behind a more balanced and realistic reconciliation bill. While we are concerned that the new framework tries to do too much with too little, we believe all progressives need to compromise to help President Biden deliver on his core commitments to working Americans.

“We call on the House Progressive Caucus to stop threatening to vote down the president’s infrastructure bill. They have been heard for months and many of their demands have found their way into the new framework.

“The new $1.8 trillion framework in important respects resembles one PPI published earlier this month as a pragmatic alternative to the left’s $3.5 trillion wish list. Our package cost just under $2 trillion, with roughly half the money focused on helping working families, one third on combatting climate change and the remainder being used to cover the uninsured and lower premiums for those with health insurance.

“Unfortunately, many of these core priorities are cut short because the new White House framework tries to enact too many programs on a temporary basis instead of prioritizing a few robust and transformative initiatives. We think many of these programs merit further study and deliberation and that they should be taken up in subsequent legislation rather than depriving core initiatives of permanent funding in the current bill. We also have serious concerns about whether the tax policies included in the framework will actually produce enough revenue to fully pay for the spending, particularly if all these ostensibly temporary programs are eventually extended or made permanent.

“As the framework is translated into legislative language, we hope to see further refinements aimed at allaying such concerns. In the meantime, we commend President Biden for patiently brokering the compromises necessary to get his Build Back Better bills across the finish line. Together with the American Rescue Plan, they would have a transformative impact on American jobs, innovation and competitiveness, and would ensure a more inclusive economic recovery that helps those hit hardest by the pandemic.

“It’s past time to stop debating and take the first step by passing the bipartisan infrastructure bill.”

Earlier this month, the Progressive Policy Institute released a focused blueprint for delivering on President Biden’s promise to Build Back Better while addressing the concerns of moderates who cannot support $3.5 trillion of new spending. The report, titled “Reconciling with Reality: The top priorities for building back better,” outlines a bold plan to deliver on three urgent priorities of the Democratic party within the confines of a roughly $2 trillion bill: supporting working families, combating climate change, and expanding access to affordable health care for those in need. Read it here. 

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.

###

Marshall for The Hill: Remember, Democrats: Business isn’t the enemy

Republicans are following the Pied Piper of Mar-a-Lago down a twisted trail of sedition and anti-democratic extremism. That’s weakening the party’s historically strong bond with U.S. business leaders, who are appalled by former President Trump’s delusional bid to void the 2020 election, as well as a concerted push by red state officials to make it harder to vote, get a legal abortion or protect school children from unvaccinated adults.

In Texas, for example, leading local corporations such as American Airlines and Southwest Airlines are flouting Republican Governor Greg Abbott’s executive order banning private companies from requiring their workers to get COVID-19 vaccines, while iconic Georgia firms such as Coca Cola and Delta Airlines condemned the Republican legislature’s passage of a severely restrictive voting law last Spring.

The growing rift between business and a Trumpified GOP marinating in grievance and paranoia should be opening doors for Democrats. But they’ve got a business problem of their own, namely the high media profile of leftwing activists who are reflexively hostile to our largest and most successful companies.

Read the full piece in The Hill.

Understanding the negative impact of the Klobuchar-Grassley bill on tech services

Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) and Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) have unveiled their tech antitrust legislation, entitled The American Innovation and Choice Online Act. At first glance, the goals of the Klobuchar-Grassley bill seem unobjectionable, and the bill is presented as a commonsense solution to an obvious problem. As the Klobuchar press release says, the point of the legislation is to prohibit large digital platforms from “favoring their own products or services” or “disadvantaging rivals,” as well as discouraging a wide array of other discriminatory conduct.

But the bill’s combination of broad language, very high fines, and no safe harbor means that even good faith efforts to adhere to the bill’s intentions could result in a huge financial hit to major American firms such as Apple, Alphabet, and Amazon.  That threat, in turn, will lead these companies to substantially reduce or alter the services they offer to minimize opportunities to be fined.

In order to understand this problem, I’m going to step through one example here in detail related to Amazon. Amazon offers its Prime customers free two-day delivery, which they love.  For a price, it also offers third party sellers Fulfillment by Amazon (FBA), which gives them access to Prime delivery services for their products.

Sounds like a good deal, right? It’s highly unusual for a major retailer to give rivals access to its cutting-edge logistic operations, including handling returns.  But this access was a win-win-win proposition. It was great for consumers, great for sellers, and great for workers, who Amazon has been hiring at a furious rate.

But under the Klobuchar-Grassley bill, regulators would have to ask the question: Does the price that Amazon charges for FBA discriminate against third-party sellers? Amazon has to set the price for FBA taking into account its marginal cost of handling the product, both during normal time and peak season. It also has to factor in the fixed costs of the fulfillment infrastructure—the warehouses, the robots, the trucks and the computer systems.

Setting the FBA price is a complicated calculation with no single right answer. In fact, if I lined up four economists and logistics analysts, they would likely give at least four different answers.  One price might be the average cost of providing the logistic services, including all the infrastructure needed for the e-commerce peaks. Another price might be the price of buying the same fulfillment services on the open market.  A third price might be Amazon’s marginal cost of handling the product during normal season. A fourth price might be zero — because, after all, some people might argue that charging third-party sellers anything for logistics services would “self-preference” Amazon.

There is no language in the bill that guides regulators about which price to use, and no safe harbor. In particular, the usual antitrust presumption in favor of consumer welfare is nowhere to be found.  So as sure as the sun rises in the east, as soon as this bill is passed and signed into law, Amazon will be accused of setting the price of FBA “too high” — that is, greater than zero — exposing the company to fines as high as 15% of revenue.

Facing this threat, Amazon can choose to keep Prime in place, and run the risk of huge, business-killing fines. More likely, it could reduce the quality of its delivery promise, and offer the same lower-quality logistic service to everyone, including Prime customers.  Or it could close down its third-party selling market, so it’s not exposed to fines.

But no matter what Amazon does, the loser would be consumers and workers. The legislation would break a successful business model that makes consumers happy and provides hundreds of thousands of jobs for workers, and for what purpose?

The exact same issues arise for other important services provided by large platform companies covered by the Klobuchar-Grassley legislation. The broad language, lack of safe harbor, and high fines would force them to reduce the services they provide. Consumers will be worse off, and so will be workers.

 

Tech-ecommerce drives job growth in most states

Based on our analysis of BLS data, the tech-ecommerce ecosystem added 1.4 million jobs between September 2017 and September 2021, the most recent data available from the BLS. The previous job creation leader, the health care sector, added 500,000 jobs, roughly one-third of the tech-ecommerce total. And the rest of the economy lost 900,000 jobs.

On the state level, the tech-ecommerce ecosystem took the place of health care as the main job producer in most of the country. From our analysis, 40 states gained more jobs from tech-ecommerce than health care and social assistance from 2017Q1 to 2021Q1 (our analysis requires detailed QCEW data from the BLS, which currently goes through the first quarter of 2021).*

The top of the list, not surprisingly, was California, which added 310,000 tech-ecommerce jobs over the four year stretch. That made a big difference. In a June 2021 blog item, we estimated that tech-ecommerce accounted for roughly 42% of the increase in California personal tax revenues from 2015 to 2020.

The next four states, ranked by tech-ecommerce job creation, are Texas, Florida, Washington, and New York. New York, in particular, added 73,000 tech-ecommerce jobs over that 4-year stretch. Meanwhile, the number of jobs in the crucial New York finance and insurance sector was flat or slightly down.

Other states with strong tech-ecommerce job growth included Ohio (61,000); Arizona (58,000); Georgia (56,000);North Carolina (56,000); Illinois (56,000); and New Jersey (55,000). Note how tech-ecommerce jobs are well-distributed around the country.

Amazon is currently building its second headquarters in northern Virginia, with a total of 25,000 workers expected over the next decade. But even before the Amazon build-out, Virginia has experienced a surge in tech-ecommerce jobs. Between 2017Q1 and 20201Q1, tech-ecommerce jobs rose by 38,000, while jobs in the rest of the economy, including health care, fell by 53,000.

Virginia’s tech-ecommerce jobs are also well-compensated, earning an average of $109,700 per person in 2020. That’s compared to an average wage of $65,100 for all Virginia workers, and $63,900 for Virginia manufacturing workers.

Nevada had a 76 percent increase in tech-ecommerce jobs from 2017Q1 to 2021Q, the biggest percentage gain among states. Arizona had a 49% increase in tech-ecommerce jobs, the third highest percentage gain. Arizona tech-ecommerce jobs paid an annual wage (including bonuses) of $83,300 on average in 2020. That’s comparable to the average pay for Arizona manufacturing wages($82,400), and substantially higher than average pay in Arizona health care and social assistance ($57,600). Tech-ecommerce pay in Arizona is 43% higher than average pay for the Arizona economy as a whole.

The raw numbers are not so impressive for smaller states, but tech-ecommerce is still important for a state like Delaware, which gained 2,000 tech-ecommerce jobs between 2017Q1 and 2021Q1, while finance and insurance employment stagnated. Average pay for the tech-ecommerce sector in 2020 was $73,000 per year, compared to $58,000 for health care and social assistance jobs.

New Hampshire gains 5,000 tech-ecommerce jobs, while health care was flat in terms of hiring and the rest of the state economy lost jobs. In Vermont, tech-ecommerce jobs were flat but employment in the rest of the economy, including health care, shrank by 20,000.

One interesting note: Minnesota is one of the few states where health care jobs grew significantly more than tech-ecommerce jobs. Perhaps coincidentally, Minnesota is also the home state of Senator Amy Klobuchar, who is the lead sponsor for a tech antitrust legislation in the Senate.

 

Tech-Ecommerce Drives Job Growth in Most States
Change in jobs, 2017Q1-2021Q1 (thousands)
Tech-ecommerce Private healthcare and social assistance Rest of private sector
California 310 173 -796
Texas 165 40 45
Florida 119 51 -4
Washington 84 26 -77
New York 73 79 -725
Ohio 61 -8 -173
Arizona 58 37 61
Georgia 56 24 17
North Carolina 56 17 77
Illinois 56 -2 -318
New Jersey 55 -2 -150
Pennsylvania 54 15 -245
Colorado 44 14 -8
Tennessee 42 10 13
Maryland 41 -8 -127
Virginia 38 5 -58
Indiana 33 9 -54
Nevada 31 15 -65
Michigan 26 -11 -208
Missouri 26 4 -72
Oregon 25 33 -55
Massachusetts 24 -14 -137
Utah 24 18 87
Kentucky 23 8 -46
Oklahoma 22 0 -37
Wisconsin 18 5 -82
South Carolina 15 12 12
Connecticut 14 -1 -98
Kansas 12 4 -44
Mississippi 10 -3 -24
Idaho 10 13 55
Louisiana 9 3 -118
Iowa 7 -6 -41
Minnesota 7 12 -110
Nebraska 5 1 -20
New Hampshire 5 0 -14
District of Columbia 5 -1 -54
Arkansas 4 0 -6
New Mexico 4 0 -28
Rhode Island 4 -3 -20
Delaware 2 0 -12
West Virginia 2 3 -32
Maine 2 -1 -3
Montana 2 2 11
South Dakota 1 4 -2
Wyoming 1 1 -2
North Dakota 1 3 -21
Alaska 1 1 -17
Hawaii 0 1 -89
Vermont 0 -2 -18
Data: BLS (QCEW), PPI. Tech-ecommerce sector includes NAICS 334, 4541, 492, 493, 5112, 518, 519, 5415

 

*Note that the total lost jobs on the state level, outside of tech-ecommerce and healthcare, is much larger because the most recent detailed state level data available is 2021Q1.

Bledsoe and Ritz for The Hill: America needs a climate plan compromise

President Biden’s Build Back Better agenda is making its way through Congress via a budget reconciliation bill — a once-in-a-generation opportunity for America to reassert its leadership in combating the climate crisis. But a major part of the effort is jeopardized by disagreements over the Clean Electricity Performance Program (CEPP), which would subsidize electric utilities that increase the share of clean energy they produce while penalizing those that do not. This provision could be responsible for up to one-third of the emissions reductions in Biden’s climate agenda, so lawmakers must either find a way to compromise on the CEPP or replace it with a policy that can achieve similar emissions reductions.

Negotiators are reportedly considering dropping the CEPP over concerns from Sen. Joe Manchin JOE MANCHIN Overnight Energy & Environment — Presented by the American Petroleum Institute — Democrats address reports that clean energy program will be axed Overnight Health Care — Presented by Carequest — Colin Powell’s death highlights risks for immunocompromised Progressive coalition unveils ad to pressure Manchin on Biden spending plan MORE , (D-W. Va.), who not only holds the crucial 50th vote Democrats need to pass the bill through the Senate but is also chairman of the Senate Energy Committee that has jurisdiction over the CEPP provisions. Manchin says he is concerned that the program would only subsidize transitions that are already taking place rather than encouraging the adoption of new renewable energy sources. He’s also concerned that the program would hurt states like West Virginia that are heavily dependent on natural gas and coal by requiring them to adopt expensive technologies like carbon capture and storage (CCS) without offsetting the costs. And he has noted the opposition of some major electric utilities over cost and reliability worries, although the industry is somewhat divided on the bill.

Whether climate hawks agree with these concerns or not, the reality is that any climate policy must address them to become law. Because of the work that has already gone into developing the policy, and Manchin’s chairmanship of the relevant committee, we believe the clearest path forward is for Manchin and fellow negotiators to modify the CEPP so that it addresses his concerns while meeting the science-based targets necessary to retain the support of other Democrats.

Read the full piece in The Hill. 

Marshall for The Hill: Democrats need a win — now

In politics, success tends to beget success. That truism apparently eluded leftwing Democrats on Sept. 30 when they refused to vote for President Biden’s $1.2 trillion bipartisan infrastructure bill.

Instead of basking in accolades for having passed a second landmark achievement to go with Biden’s $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan, Democrats are treating the public to an extended exhibition of their inability to forge the internal consensus necessary to govern.

Even as clogged U.S. ports and long delays in delivering goods of all kinds underscore the urgent need for upgrading the nation’s economic infrastructure, the Congressional Progressive Caucus vows to persist in blocking the bill if they don’t get their way on a follow-on reconciliation bill that would spend trillions more on new social entitlements and climate protection.

That’s sewn anger and mistrust among moderate House Democrats, who were promised a vote and stood ready to pass the infrastructure bill last month. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) set a new deadline for a vote — Halloween, fittingly enough. To arrest the administration’s faltering momentum, Democrats need a big political win, and soon.

Read the full piece in The Hill. 

PPI Unveils Radically Pragmatic Blueprint for Reconciliation

Today, the Progressive Policy Institute’s Center for Funding America’s Future released a focused blueprint for delivering on President Biden’s promise to Build Back Better while addressing the concerns of moderates who cannot support $3.5 trillion of new spending. The report is titled “Reconciling with Reality: The top priorities for building back better,” and is authored by Ben Ritz, Director of the Center for Funding America’s Future.

Rather than cutting corners and using gimmicks to cram the entire progressive wish list into a smaller bill, PPI believes the party’s goal should be a more focused and disciplined reconciliation bill that sets clear priorities and accomplishes a few big objectives well. Specifically, this report outlines a bold plan to deliver on three urgent priorities of the Democratic party within the confines of a roughly $2 trillion bill: supporting working families, combating climate change, and expanding access to affordable health care for those in need.

“Despite the drama last week, President Biden and Democrats in Congress can still deliver the historic economic and social investments they promised during the campaign — but they need to spend smarter, not just bigger. Our blueprint is a reality-based approach to crafting the reconciliation bill, which will allow for an enormous advance of progressive government. Now is the time for the party to come together and show America they can govern,” said Ben Ritz, Director of the Center for Funding America’s Future.

“We urge Democrats to compromise around a set of urgent priorities the American people can understand, develop a consensus plan to fully pay for it, and work in a radically pragmatic spirit to get this big progressive win across the finish line. That’s the best way to help President Biden and their party deliver for the American people,” said Will Marshall, President of the Progressive Policy Institute.

The bipartisan infrastructure bill passed by the U.S. Senate in August remains snagged by internal disagreements among Congressional Democrats about the size and cost of the follow-on social investment package party leaders hope to pass with reconciliation rules that are not subject to a Republican filibuster. Democrats will likely need to reach a compromise on the reconciliation package by October 31st so they can pass the infrastructure bill before funding for the nation’s highway program expires.

Read the blueprint here:

 

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.

Launched in 2018, PPI’s Center for Funding America’s Future works to promote a fiscally responsible public investment agenda that fosters robust and inclusive economic growth. We tackle issues of public finance in the United States and offer innovative proposals to strengthen the foundation of our economy and build shared prosperity.

Follow the Progressive Policy Institute.

###

Media Contact: Aaron White – awhite@ppionline.org

Reconciling With Reality: The top priorities for building back better

Introduction

The White House and Congressional Democrats are at a pivotal moment in their long-running effort to turn President Biden’s ambitious “Build Back Better” vision into law. The bipartisan infrastructure bill passed by the U.S. Senate in August remains snagged by internal disagreements among Congressional Democrats about the size and cost of the follow-on social investment package party leaders hope to pass with reconciliation rules that are not subject to a Republican filibuster. Democrats will likely need to reach a compromise on the reconciliation package by October 31st so they can pass the infrastructure bill before funding for the nation’s highway program expires.

Though cast as a power struggle between the progressive left and the pragmatic center, what’s happening on Capitol Hill is actually a reconciliation with legislative reality. Democrats can only afford to lose three votes in the House of Representatives and have no margin of error in the Senate, where at least two Members, Sens. Joe Manchin, D-W. Va., and Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., already have made it clear they won’t support a $3.5 trillion bill. Many Democrats in the House have concerns as well. Accordingly, President Biden says negotiators are now aiming for a final package that will likely cost between $1.9 trillion and $2.3 trillion.

Some progressives are trying to make their whole wish list fit within this budget constraint by setting arbitrary dates for programs to expire, as Republicans did to disguise the true cost of their 2001, 2003, and 2017 tax cut bills. For example, rather than spend $225 billion every year in the 10-year window, the package envisioned by the left might spend $450 billion each year for five years before abruptly expiring.

But this approach would be deeply problematic. As Rep. Ron Kind, D-Wisc., noted in a recent op-ed, “funding programs for two to three years at a time only creates uncertainty and unnecessary fiscal cliffs.” In the worst-case scenario, a Republican Congress could allow programs to expire, which would upend the Biden legacy while pulling the rug out from people who planned their lives around new benefits.

Rep. Suzan DelBene, D-Wa., chair of the moderate New Democrat Coalition in the House, further explained why such a package wouldn’t alleviate the fiscal concerns of many pragmatic Democrats: “If you assume that you’re going to do something short term just to make it look like it’s going to fit in a particular budget window, for a particular piece of legislation, but you assume it’s going to be renewed later, then you aren’t really being honest about what your long-term budget goals are.”

Fortunately, Democrats can still deliver historic economic and social investments that the country needs by spending smarter, not just bigger. The goal should be a more focused and disciplined reconciliation bill that sets clear priorities and accomplishes a few big objectives well instead of haphazardly trying to do everything at once. Specifically, PPI believes that lawmakers should focus on delivering three urgent priorities effectively: supporting working families, combating climate change, and expanding access to affordable health care for those in need. As President Biden has promised, the package should also be fully paid-for with credible offsets.

There can be no doubt that a bill along these lines would constitute an enormous advance for progressive government. When combined with the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan and the $550 billion bipartisan infrastructure bill, this package would represent the third pillar of the largest and most progressive public investment since the Great Society over 50 years ago. These landmark legislative accomplishments would constitute a clear and indisputable victory for President Biden’s vision and a win for Democrats of all stripes.

Here’s what a roughly $2 trillion package should include:

 

Supporting Working Families ($975 billion)

The American Rescue Plan increased the value of the Child Tax Credit and made the full value of the credit available to low-income families for the first time ever. This policy change has helped cut child poverty in half for 2021 and directly empowered parents to support their children without having to rely on siloed and difficult-to-access welfare bureaucracies. PPI has previously proposed a framework for making the full expansion permanent that would cost just over $800 billion. However, Congress could adopt a smaller expansion of the CTC and redirect the funds for other programs that support working families. This approach is sensible because making the CTC fully available to low-income families both does more to reduce poverty and costs less than increasing the CTC’s total value.

In addition to permanently expanding the CTC, Democrats should invest in our children’s education by making preschool, which is shown to dramatically increase a child’s lifetime earnings, universally available to three- and four-year olds. The cost of universal preschool should be reduced by either means-testing it or requiring high-income school districts to help cover the cost of this program.

PPI also believes Washington should stop underinvesting in non-college workers by creating multiple pathways to middle-class jobs, including new investments in apprenticeships and “last mile” job training initiatives. Finally, lawmakers could offer new parents a flat paid parental leave benefit that future Congresses could expand into a full paid family and medical leave program if they are willing to consider a broader menu of offsets to pay for it.

Combating the Climate Crisis ($600 billion)

The bipartisan infrastructure bill that passed the Senate in August offered a strong down payment on tackling the climate crisis, including funding for public transit, energy grid modernization, and carbon capture demonstration projects, but far more needs to be done. The follow-up bill should include a package of well-designed tax credits similar to the one produced by the Senate Finance Committee that would encourage the adoption of affordable electric vehicles and other green technologies. It should also fund meaningful climate resilience projects and additional investments in breakthrough technologies such as carbon capture, hydrogen energy, geothermal energy, and advanced nuclear power.

Another top priority is the Clean Energy Payment Program (CEPP) that would provide subsidies for electric utilities that increase the share of clean energy they produce by 4% each year while charging smaller penalties for those that do not. These provisions could be responsible for almost two-thirds of the emissions reductions sought by President Biden. However, the CEPP has run into concerns from Sen. Manchin and it may run afoul of the Byrd rule that governs what policies can be passed through the reconciliation process that allows Democrats to circumvent a Republican filibuster.

Climate change poses a large and growing threat to our economy, so even if the CEPP cannot be included in the package, it must be replaced by another policy to accomplish the same objective. PPI has long advocated for a carbon tax, possibly paired with rebates to mitigate the burden on low- and middle-income families. Some portion of the revenue could also be earmarked for funding additional investments in research and development to promote innovation and technology growth.

Strengthening the Affordable Care Act ($425 billion)

Some progressives in Congress, led by Sen. Sanders (I-Vt.), insist that America’s top health care priority should be expanding Medicare to cover dental, hearing, and vision benefits, which would cost more than $800 billion in the 10-year period after being fully phased-in. But it hardly seems “progressive” to provide more generous coverage for Medicare beneficiaries when millions of Americans have no health coverage at all — especially considering that the majority of seniors already have coverage for these services through Medicare Advantage or supplemental Medigap plans.

Instead, PPI believes Democrats should back Speaker Pelosi’s call for building on the Affordable Care Act by making some share of the American Rescue Plan’s expansion of insurance subsidies for middle-income households permanent and by providing coverage to the more than 2.2 million uninsured people who should be eligible for Medicaid in the 12 states that have yet to expand the program. These provisions to expand coverage should also be paired with policies to address the out-of-control growth of health care costs, such as price caps or a national public option, to both reduce the net cost of these provisions and make health care more affordable for all Americans. Any expansion of Medicare should be fully financed by income-based premiums or dropped altogether so it does not draw critical resources away from the other priorities in this package.

Conclusion

In addition to the Sanders Medicare expansion, PPI’s reconciliation framework omits some major elements of Biden’s original Build Back Better blueprint, including more public support for child and elder care, community colleges, and more. Their absence here doesn’t necessarily mean these priorities are unworthy of Democrats’ support, but rather reflects the political imperative of fashioning a compromise package that can unite the party’s diverse coalition. It is also critical that lawmakers avoid the temptation to waste limited funds on other parochial priorities, such as cutting taxes for their rich constituents by weakening or repealing the SALT cap, when so many more-worthy priorities are left unfulfilled.

Passing both the infrastructure and social investment bills has become a critical test of Democrats’ ability to govern. We urge Democrats to compromise around a set of urgent priorities the American people can understand, develop a consensus plan to pay for it, and work in a radically pragmatic spirit to get this big progressive win across the finish line. That’s the best way to help President Biden and their party deliver for the American people.

Download the Report: 

 

About the Author:

Ben Ritz is the Director of PPI’s Center for Funding America’s Future. He previously staffed the Bipartisan Policy Center’s Economic Policy Project and served as Legislative Outreach Director for The Concord Coalition. Ben earned his Master’s of Public Policy Analysis and a Graduate Certificate of Public Finance from American University, where he also previously completed his undergraduate education. Follow him on Twitter: @BudgetBen

About the PPI Center for Funding America’s Future:

The PPI Center for Funding America’s Future works to promote a fiscally responsible public investment agenda that fosters robust and inclusive economic growth. We tackle issues of public finance in the United States and offer innovative proposals to strengthen the foundation of our economy and build shared prosperity.