From Prison to Business: Entrepreneurship as a Reentry Strategy

This paper is a collaboration between the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) and the Association for Enterprise Opportunity (AEO)

By Anh Nguyen, AEO; Sidney Gavel, AEO; and Manu Delgado-Medrano, AEO

Executive Summary

The United States has the highest incarceration rate in the world, and as many as a third of Americans have some type of criminal record. Upon reentry, individuals with a justice history, whom we refer to as returning citizens, face significant barriers to economic security and reintegration into their communities. Among the most formidable barriers to reentry are a disadvantaged living environment, low levels of education, mental health challenges, and stigma that excludes them from job opportunities and other resources.

All of these factors contribute to a high recidivism rate among returning citizens and make it harder for them to secure employment. An alternative yet underappreciated opportunity for returning citizens to circumvent these barriers is to work for themselves by launching their own businesses.

Entrepreneurship presents a promising pathway to economic security and reintegration into communities as it requires minimal formal schooling, provides additional income and control over their livelihoods, and has the potential to uplift the often-low-income communities to which these individuals return.

Additionally, a study in 2020 showed that entrepreneurship can reduce the likelihood of recidivism by 5.3%.3

While entrepreneurship has great potential to reduce recidivism and promote economic stability, returning citizens have to overcome several hurdles in their entrepreneurship endeavors, ranging from a lack of access to capital, collateral consequences of having a criminal record, a digital skills gap, and limited access to wraparound support services..

Read the Full Report.

 

PPI on the SOTU: The Workforce

Biden SOTU Must Recommit to American Workers in a New Way

Last year’s State of the Union emphasized the Biden Administration’s commitment to the American worker. In his remarks, the President discussed the need to grow our skilled talent in the U.S. and create new jobs that offer stronger paths to the middle class. As we reflect on the past year, President Biden has kept some of his promises. The economy has continued to grow, with the last jobs report showing unemployment continuing to edge down to 3.4% with over 500,000 jobs created. While this is good news, it does not mean the commitment ends here. This State of the Union, PPI looks to President Bident to recommit to American workers and confront current and future challenges facing our nation, hearing the Administration’s plan to:

1. Prepare people for jobs of the future
. Jobs will continue to change and be created through technological advancements. In addition, as America works to implement the recently passed CHIPS & Science Act, we need a workforce that is skilled at executing this policy’s vision and can grow America’s semiconductor industry.

2. Better support non-degree workers. To meet these skill needs, the Administration has continued to advocate for “college for all.” But most Americans don’t earn degrees, and a bachelor’s or advanced degree — which takes extensive time and resources — shouldn’t be the only path to a good, middle-class jobs. If the Administration truly wants to bolster America’s middle class, President Biden should stop discriminating against non-degree workers and commit to skill development strategies that work, are innovative and don’t promote college as the only postsecondary path.

3. Help eligible workers on the sidelines re-engage with the labor market. The last jobs report showed that our nation’s workforce participation rate, which represents the number of people working or actively looking for work, is at 62.4%, which is only one percentage point higher than it was at the start of the pandemic. This means roughly 37.6% of Americans that could be working are detached from the labor market because they believe there are no jobs available to them, or they are facing personal challenges that make it hard to retain employment. The Administration must address this phenomenon and commit not only to skill development efforts but to other supports, including policies around child care, family leave, and other services that can get American’s re-engaged with the labor market and reboot our nation’s workforce participation rate.

Looking to the next year of the Biden presidency, these issues must be a priority to ensure individuals are prepared for careers of the future, economic opportunity is shared and the U.S. remains competitive in the global economy.

This post is part of a series from PPI’s policy experts ahead of President Biden’s State of the Union address. Read more here

The Economic Performance of the Digital Sector Since the Pandemic Started

As we move into 2023, the digital sector still faces the key regulatory issues that dominated the previous year: Competition, privacy, and content moderation. But as the legislative, executive, and judicial branches tackle these critical questions, it is important to look back and assess the performance of the digital sector on the key economic metrics of job growth and inflation.

For clarity we split the digital sector into three subsectors:

  • E-commerce/retail (“movement of goods”)
  • Internet/content/broadband (“movement of data”)
  • Computer/communication manufacturing (“hardware”)

 

E-commerce/retail: To compete with e-commerce leaders such as Amazon, retailers with a large physical presence such as Walmart and Target have been scaling up their investment in online sales and fulfillment. At the same time, smaller retailers increasingly use online ordering, so the boundary between “brick-and-mortar” and e-commerce has become increasingly porous.  Moreover, privacy and content moderation issues such as accountability for user reviews impact all retailers. In addition to retail, this subsector also includes local delivery (NAICS 492) and fulfillment (NAICS 493).

Internet/content/broadband: With the advent of social networks and streaming, the line between content creation and content distribution has become blurry. Considerations of privacy and content moderation are high on the policy checklist. This subsector includes content creation and distribution (video, audio, print); broadband and broadcasting; wireless; software; internet publishing and search; and computer systems design.

Hardware: Especially with the funding from the CHIPS Act and the focus on export controls, this subsector is facing a different set of policy issues. We include computer and electronic equipment manufacturing, and related wholesaling.

Job Growth

(Note:These figures have been updated to account for the 2/3/23 revisions to the job data)

As of December 2022, the United States currently enjoys a 3.5% unemployment rate, the same as pre-pandemic February 2020. To a large extent, this strong labor market has been driven by job growth in the digital sector. In total the digital sector added 1.4 million net new jobs from 2019 to 2022,  accounting for 67% of net private sector job gains over the same period. Table 1 breaks down the pandemic job growth by digital subsector.

We see that the e-commerce/retail subsector accounted for net job growth of 926,000 jobs from 2019 to 2022, or 44% of private sector job growth, as consumers embraced online shopping during the pandemic, and retailers and third-party logistics companies built and staffed fulfillment centers.

The internet/content/broadband subsector created 472,000 jobs, accounting for 22% of private sector job growth. Altogether, the digital sector accounted for 67% of private sector job growth from 2019 to 2022.

The importance of the digital sector for job growth is emphasized when we look at production and nonsupervisory workers, who generally are less educated and lower-paid (Table 2). The digital sector has created 1.1 million net new production and nonsupervisory jobs from 2019 to 2022,  while the rest of the private sector has lost almost 500,000 production and nonsupervisory jobs.

In particular, the e-commerce/retail subsector has added 812,000 production and nonsupervisory jobs during the three pandemic years. That’s likely to reflect the growth of e-commerce fulfillment and delivery workers. This gain was essential to the recovery because the rest of the private sector has still not regained its pre-pandemic level of production and nonsupervisory employment.

From the perspective of policy, the current regulatory structure turned out to encourage strong job growth in a difficult economic environment. That’s not to say the current regulations cannot be improved, but we should be wary of making major changes without understanding the consequences for jobs.

Table 1. Digital Sector Drives Job Growth During Pandemic
2019-2022
Increase in jobs, thousands Share of private sector growth
Private sector 2,133
E-commerce/retail* 926 44%
Internet/content/broadband** 473 22%
Hardware*** 22 1%
Data: BLS, PPI calculations

 

 

Table 2. …Especially for Production and Nonsupervisory Jobs
2019- 2022
Increase in production and nonsupervisory jobs, thousands Share of private sector growth
Private sector 665
E-commerce/retail* 812 122%
Internet/content/broadband** 306 46%
Hardware*** 24 4%
Data: BLS, PPI calculations

 

Inflation

Before the pandemic, the digital sector had significantly lower inflation than the economy as a whole, whether measured by producer prices or consumer prices. During the pandemic period, overall consumer price inflation accelerated by approximately 3 percentage points, from roughly 1.5% annually in the pre-pandemic period (2012-2019) to roughly 4.5% annually during the pandemic years (2019-2022).

However, the acceleration of inflation was much smaller in the digital subsectors. For example, inflation in the internet/content/broadband subsector only accelerated by 0.3 percentage points when measured by producer prices, and 1.7 percentage points when measured by consumer prices.

Please note that the BLS does not publish a separate measure of e-commerce inflation for consumer goods and services, which is why that line is missing from Table 4. However, in a 2022 paper written for PPI’s Innovation Frontier Project, Marshall Reinsdorf wrote that “the pandemic greatly accelerated adoption of digital innovations such as e-commerce, so it’s reasonable to suspect that the price statistics are undercounting the impact of low digital inflation.”

From the perspective of policy, it’s reasonable to say that the current regulatory structure allowed digital companies to behave in a way that muted the pressure to increase prices. Especially given the inflationary bias in today’s economy, the government should be wary of making changes that impose large new costs on digital companies.

Table 3. Digital Producer Price Inflation Stays Low
Average annual price increase
2012-2019 2019-2022 Increase in inflation rate, percentage points
Final demand less food and energy 1.7% 4.7% 3.0%
Electronic and mail order shopping services* 1.5% 1.8% 0.3%
Internet/content/broadband** 0.7% 1.6% 0.9%
Hardware*** -1.0% 1.1% 2.1%

Based on median inflation for subsectors with multiple products or industries.

Data: BLS, PPI calculations

 

Table 4. Digital Consumer Price Inflation Stays Low
Average percentage price increase
2012-2019 2019-2022 Increase in inflation rate, percentage points
Consumer prices 1.5% 4.6% 3.1%
Internet/content/broadband** -0.4% 1.3% 1.7%
Hardware*** -7.6% -5.6% 1.9%

Based on median inflation for subsectors with multiple products or industries.

Data: BLS, PPI calculations


Appendix: Categories

In this section we define the three digital subsectors, and which statistical series we use to calculate jobs, producer price inflation, and consumer price inflation for each of them. Please note that for subsector inflation measures, we aggregate multiple price series using median inflation rather than weighted means.

*E-commerce/retail

In previous work, we distinguished between ecommerce and brick-and-mortar retail. That distinction is no longer appropriate, because retailers with large physical presence such as have also been building out their online ordering and fulfillment operations. Moreover, the latest NAICS codes do not break out electronic shopping as a separate industry anymore.

Employment data

  • Retail sector (including online ordering and fulfillment operations for single companies)
  • Couriers and messengers (including local delivery)
  • Warehousing and storage (including fulfillment centers)

 

Producer price inflation data

  • Electronic and mail order shopping services

 

** Internet/content/broadband

In earlier work, we used a narrower definition of tech. As barriers have become blurred between content and distribution, and various modes of distribution, it has become appropriate to broaden the definitions.

Employment data

  • Motion picture and sound recording industries
  • Publishing industries, including software
  • Broadcasting and content providers, including social networks and streaming services
  • Telecommunications
  • Computing infrastructure providers, data processing, and web hosting, including cloud computing
  • Web search portals, libraries, archives, and other information services.
  • Computer systems design and related services

 

Producer price inflation data

  • Bundled access services
  • Cable and other subscription programming
  • Data processing and related services
  • Internet access services
  • Internet publishing and web search portals (including advertising)
  • Software publishers
  • Video programming distribution
  • Wireless telecommunications carriers
  • Information technology (IT) technical support and consulting services (partial)

 

Consumer price inflation data

  • Wireless telecom services
  • Residential telecom services
  • Internet services and electronic information providers
  • Cable and satellite television service
  • Video discs and other media
  • Recorded music and music subscriptions

 

***Hardware

In previous work, we did not split out hardware. But the recent CHIPS legislation, and the focus on rebuilding the U.S. domestic semiconductor industry, means that it is appropriate to break out hardware separately. We note that the employment data includes relevant wholesalers, who may be “factoryless” firms designing and marketing digital products, but not actually manufacturing them.

Employment data

  • Computer and electronic product manufacturing
  • Computer and computer peripheral equipment and software merchant wholesalers

 

Producer price inflation data

  • Communications equipment manufacturing
  • Computer & peripheral equipment manufacturing
  • Semiconductor and other electronic component manufacturing

 

Consumer price inflation data

  • Computers and peripherals
  • Computer software
  • Telephone hardware, calculators, and other consumer information items
  • Televisions

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.

Why U.S. Policymakers Should Renew TAA (For Everyone)

What should the Biden administration and Congress do as Trade Adjustment Assistance expires? Consider a new approach: Renew it but drop the trade clause and reach more workers.

John F. Kennedy’s Trade Act of 1962 marked a watershed in U.S. trade policy, leading after a few years of negotiations to the largest single tariff cut in American negotiating history. It was also, though this is less well-remembered, a watershed in worker adjustment policy. The 1962 Act created the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) program, which helps workers losing jobs to import competition by offering benefits that went well beyond the support available for other displaced workers. Kennedy’s argument for it noted that reducing tariffs and opening foreign markets promotes growth, fights inflation, helps new industries grow, and raises consumer living standards; but can also increase competition and stress at home. To address this, he suggested a new federal support program:

“[C]ompanies, farmers and workers who suffer damage from increased foreign import competition [should] be assisted in their efforts to adjust to that competition. When considerations of national policy make it desirable to avoid higher tariffs, those injured by that competition should not be required to bear the full brunt of the impact. Rather, the burden of economic adjustment should be borne in part by the Federal Government. …  Just as the government met its obligation to assist industry in adjusting to war production and again to return to peacetime production, so there is an obligation to render assistance to those who suffer as a result of national trade policy.”

Over the six decades since, TAA has represented a liberal-internationalist bargain, blending trade liberalization and support for exporters with a commitment to vulnerable workers. As Kennedy and each of his Democratic successors recognized, openness to foreign trade helps to catalyze the U.S. economy but can also harm less competitive domestic companies and their workers. They also recognized the value of a federal commitment to an active labor market policy that helps displaced workers develop new skills and find career paths, enabling them to support families and continue their contribution to communities and to the nation’s economy. Congress has reauthorized TAA 18 times since. The renewals in 1974, 2002, 2011, and 2015 were particularly ambitious, with the 21st century renewals adding coverage for workers grappling with internet-based competition, workers displaced by plant shifts abroad, and farmers. The most recent iteration, completed in 2015, offered reemployment services including training (on the job training, academic training, and apprenticeship), income support for those enrolled in training, job search services, relocation, and transportation benefits as well as wage subsides for older workers.

TAA thus pledged that as the U.S. reduced trade barriers, those who lost their jobs due to shifts in production and foreign labor would be adequately supported by the government to find new and often better employment. In FY2021, for example, the Department of Labor certified 801 petitions for TAA support, providing help to over 107,000 displaced workers. A statistical snapshot drawn from the Labor Department’s most recent annual report finds that 80,000 of these beneficiaries or 75% of the cohort come from the manufacturing sector. Their median age is 51; half half high school degrees or GEDs, 31% some additional schooling, and 19% are college graduates.  By gender, two-thirds are male; by race and ethnicity, two-thirds are white, 13% African-American, 11% Hispanic, and 9% Asian-American.

However, in the past decade since the 2015 reauthorization, the program has changed little. Most recently, Congress left TAA out of the stimulus and recovery packages passed in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and likewise out of the recently passed CHIPS and Science Act. As a result, TAA officially expired at the beginning of July 2022, and workers displaced by trade competition or job shifts abroad no longer can receive its support.

Where to now? TAA often received criticism, sometimes on budget grounds and sometimes on efficacy grounds. Its critics claim that the program failed to reach eligible workers, due to lack of program awareness and hoops to access services. As Andrew Stettner of The Century Foundation observed in a 2021 appearance before the House Ways and Means Committee, “Workers can only qualify for TAA if a union, local government agency, or a group of three or more workers files a petition that proves that job losses at a specific facility/unit are directly tied to trade. This is a laborious process that takes an average of 61 days from the time a petition is filed (which itself may come after a plant is closed), and as a result many potentially qualified workers do not receive coverage.”

These critiques have some force. To Stettner’s point, TAA’s impact is inherently limited by its qualification rules: A worker seeking help must know first that a special program for trade-related job displacement exists, and then be able to show that trade or jobs abroad contributed to their job loss.

Nonetheless, bipartisan policy analysis shows that TAA has had some significant success over time. New York Fed economist Ben Hyman in 2018 after comparing employment outcomes for TAA beneficiaries with outcomes for non-beneficiaries in similar circumstances, found that “ten- years out, TAA-trained workers have $50,000 higher cumulative earnings, driven by both higher incomes and greater labor force participation,” though earnings converge after a decade.  An earlier Peterson Institute for International Economics paper  highlighted significant change for the better in the 2002 TAA renewal, including increased uptake in services sectors and increased participation in skill development opportunities by affected workers. On the center-right, a recent AEI report found that TAA generally has had long-term impact on earnings for workers receiving services, especially those that received the full benefit of skills training. Additionally, as part of the 2011 reauthorization, the TAACCCT grant program was created. This program encouraged partnerships between community colleges and the workforce system to develop accelerated pathways to careers for adult learners. And a report by New America found individuals that participated in TAACCCT-funded programs were more likely to complete their training, earn a relevant credential, and find in-demand employment.

Not only have multiple sources and research found that TAA has had considerable and valuable impact for trade-displaced workers, but TAA also has a potentially greater importance as a pioneer of generous benefits that other federal programs do not always consistently offer to displaced workers. These include the length of the training benefit (two years) for workers committed to developing new skills, wage subsidies for those in training or based on age eligibility, and the option for workers in particularly distressed areas to get financial support for relocation and job search elsewhere. This type of holistic approach is increasingly important to ensure people persist and complete in their training to prepare for in-demand opportunities. And it is a good model for a better, more active support program for workers generally.

This last point leads to a final, unsettling fact for advocates of the TAA program. TAA has by nature always included a troubling inequity, inherent in Kennedy’s original case for special support for workers displaced by import competition. That is, workers who lose jobs to trade competition can get more generous benefits than workers who lose jobs to recession or domestic competition.  Is there really a strong ethical case to distinguish between (say) a displaced clothing factory worker and a displaced waitress or gas station attendant, and view the former as more in need of benefits or more entitled to benefits than the latter?

So, we return to the expiration of the program this year, and potential next steps. By missing the opportunity to renew and update TAA at all, federal policymakers are yet again forgetting about working Americans and the policies that were designed for them specifically.  On the other hand, with the Biden administration so far not seeking to open new export markets and declining opportunities to liberalize the U.S. trade regime, does the historic liberal-internationalist bargain — more open markets, support for displaced workers — still apply?  And if it is less applicable in current circumstances, should we not therefore think about an opportunity to generalize the program, so that it supports not only trade-affected workers but other workers in industries that have been hard hit over the past two and a half years from the pandemic and technological advancement?

Looking ahead, here is our take: Since TAA is expired, Congress should take this time to think about ways we can do better. Here are three ideas that could address critiques to the program and make sure it better serves workers in our 21st century economy.

 

  • Expand Eligibility: Consider expanding services to reach a broader group of workers — perhaps any worker – facing dislocation, for international or domestic reasons beyond their control. This would still include trade-affected workers but would also open the benefits to those dislocated from industry decline based on automation, climate-related provisions (i.e., coal) and/or fallouts from the pandemic (i.e., retail & hospitality industries).
  • Market & Streamline Services: TAA Administrators must better ensure that eligible workers know the program exists and are able to access benefits. This means a more robust public relations campaign, better partnership with other systems (i.e., workforce boards, community colleges) and community-based organizations that are reaching people on the ground as well as collaboration with employers so they can accurately communicate opportunities to at risk employees.
  • Prioritize Skill Development: While reemployment services like job search are important, we need to do a better job of helping people prepare themselves for new in-demand jobs, which often means opportunities to up-skill. Skill development opportunities available through TAA are critical to make sure dislocated workers find employment that helps them find new and better jobs.

 

To make these changes work, policymakers also must think about the budgetary implications. In FY 2021, prior to expiring, TAA served a total of 107,000 workers with an appropriation of $633.6 million dollars.  The precise number of workers a generalized program would serve is unclear, but current statistics on TAA use and the universe of potential new beneficiaries can provide some guideposts.  On one hand, the 80,000 manufacturing workers in the FY2021 cohort is about 6% of total manufacturing-sector layoffs, and total layoffs in a year typically average about 1 million.  On the other, the most likely users are long-term unemployed workers unable to find new jobs quickly, and the total long-term unemployed population has varied in recent years between the current 1.2 million and 3 million.  Such figures suggest that a million displaced workers might be something of an upper bound.  To serve this many dislocated workers across an array of disrupted industries and the long-term unemployed, TAA’s budget would have to increase about ten-fold, reaching roughly $6 billion annually. However, that number shouldn’t alarm policymakers and probably can be reduced. Determining whether a particular worker’s layoff is ‘trade-related’ requires a significant investment in administrative overhead and costs. A more generalized program would reduce the time and money spent on proving eligibility. Additionally, with an expanded TAA, other federal workforce programs may be duplicative and unnecessary. This means programs could be consolidated or cut, which could also help reduce costs.

In sum, the TAA program is an important one, delivering valuable benefits to hundreds of thousands of workers each year. Congress should remember this impact and make sure it does not simply disappear.  It should also remember, though, that trade is far from the largest cause of job displacement, and all workers — especially those in lower-skilled jobs that are subject to increased disruptions as the economy changes — deserve support. With the program lapsed, federal policymakers should consider ways to improve and broaden it. An updated policy could focus beyond trade and international competition, and provide adjustment assistance for all economic disruption, would help empower working Americans to advance by giving them access to the skills and financial support necessary to find new and emerging in-demand work. This is critical to enhance workers’ confidence, broaden economic opportunity, and help our nation grow from the bottom up and middle out.

 

Remembering Why We Celebrate Labor Day and How We Keep Moving Forward

As Americans across the country celebrate their long weekend, marking the end of summer, PPI wants to remind everyone the reason for this holiday — American workers — and offer a new way for our government to celebrate them.

Labor Day became a federal holiday in 1894, to acknowledge the contributions and achievements of American workers. As the economy shifted from agriculture to manufacturing, workers pressed for better working conditions and higher pay, and the holiday commemorated that struggle.

While today, we applaud those who fought for progress, we also must acknowledge that we are living in a very different world than we were a century ago. Today, jobs are changing, and new jobs are being created due to technical advancements. As a result, workers, especially those in jobs at risk of being automated, need to learn new skills to remain relevant. On top of that, the nation is still recovering from a global pandemic which disrupted service industries that are critical to our nation’s tourism, health, and learning, including retail and hospitality industries as well as health care and teaching careers.

We need new policies that truly help American workers economically advance.

Yet federal policymakers have done little to support working Americans that have been hardest hit by these shifts. While stimulus dollars provided workers emergency assistance, there has been too little policy innovation aimed at getting people back to work in good jobs that offer new opportunities for upward mobility.

This neglect has affected workers returning to jobs that are facing severe labor shortages — changing hours and ways of operation (i.e., health care workers and teachers); workers that have been laid off and need re-skilling to find in-demand employment and workers that have left the workforce entirely due to personal and familial needs. These challenges are affecting workers across an array of careers, industries and circumstances— leaving more and more people feeling frustrated and forgotten.

This Labor Day, PPI urges our government, to recommit to workers across our nation. This recommitment does not mean pouring more dollars into the status quo, but focusing on quality skill development strategies — deploying new and innovative policies that work to solve persisting challenges facing workers.

Federal policymakers should continue to look at apprenticeship models, scaling these opportunities across an array of industries to ensure more Americans can access quality earn and learn programs. They should expand opportunities in the short-term — including more flexible postsecondary programs that better meet the needs of individuals, their families and businesses — and they should work to harness the power of private markets and innovations in technology to provide new ways of delivery learning that are tied to industry demand.

These approaches can help solve talent shortages in industries that are key to our health, education and safety; create opportunities for individuals to access skill development opportunities so they can prepare for the jobs of today and tomorrow and provide the necessary supports individuals need to retain employment while also supporting their families.

This is critical to ensure American workers are better off, can economically advance, and we avoid further leaving behind those that are working so hard to keep America thriving. If we could do that — now that would be something to celebrate.

How the Good Jobs Challenge provides opportunities and invests in workforce development

The past two years have caused unprecedented economic disruption. The pandemic resulted in the displacement of workers and changed the way we work forever, in addition to creating new jobs through technological advancement.

These transformations have had serious workforce implications — changing the skills workers need to be relevant, leaving employers with unfilled positions, and altering the makeup of regional economies. Yet for some time, there was little action from federal policymakers to address these challenges. While many states, local governments, community colleges, workforce boards, and other eligible entities used their flexible stimulus funding to prioritize workforce-related efforts, federal policymakers continued to ignore the importance of investment in workforce development to help displaced workers pursue in-demand employment and help current workers navigate the new world of work.

Finally, the focus shifted with the passing of the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA). As part of the bill, $3 billion was allocated to the Department of Commerce’s Economic Development Administration (EDA), providing funding to support community-led economic development efforts. EDA funding included the Good Jobs Challenge, a $500 million grant program to support workforce partnerships that provide education and training opportunities and comprehensive supports to jobseekers and workers while connecting employers with the talent they need to remain competitive.

Last week, the EDA announced the 32 awardees of the Good Jobs Challenge, representing diverse geographical regions across the country. The projects focus on 15 industries that grantees want to grow and support, including agriculture and food production, energy and resilience, health care, manufacturing, and information technology.

While this is an exciting investment, the money designated to this program pales in comparison to other COVID recovery efforts focused on colleges and college-bound students. Through higher education emergency relief efforts across two administrations and two sessions of Congress, about $77 billion was distributed to aid the nation’s higher education institutions. While this money was critical to support the basic needs of students, it also demonstrates the disparity between college and non-college opportunity in this nation.

The Good Jobs Challenge is a much-needed investment that finally gets money out the door to support the unique workforce needs of communities and options outside of traditional college. It also offers a new model of public investment that is flexible, encourages a comprehensive approach to skill development, and puts employers at the center of the equation.

None of this work can be done effectively without employers. The Good Jobs Challenge aims to bring industry together with training providers, community-based organizations, and other key stakeholders to build demand-driven pathways to good jobs. The project plans to do this through public-private partnerships, leveraging public investment to incentivize employers to participate in regional workforce efforts in a robust way. Awarded projects already have employer commitment to support curriculum development, co-delivery of training, mentorship, match investments, earn and learn opportunities, and hiring commitments. Projects also prioritize sector strategies, ensuring there is a collective approach to these workforce efforts within each industry. This helps small and midsize employers participate who often don’t have the resources or capacity to offer these opportunities on their own, but are vital to regional economies, especially in small towns and rural areas.

This grant program not only better supports employers, but also looks out for working Americans. For years, working Americans — specifically those without a college degree — have faced downward mobility. This trend has only worsened, requiring increased attention from federal policymakers. The Good Jobs Challenge is a step in the right direction. Awardees are not only developing critical talent development and career support strategies for these individuals, but they are also offering comprehensive wraparound services, prioritizing services like child care, transportation, language support, mentoring and career counseling. These are critical policies to ensure working Americans get the skills and support needed for economic advancement.

The Good Jobs announcement comes at a good time. With states and communities implementing the Investing in Infrastructure and Jobs Act (IIJA) and our nation still dealing with severe labor shortages across critical industries, communities need a plan to help Americans re-enter the workforce and advance in their careers. PPI is pleased to see a federal grant program that integrates industry throughout every step of the process while also supporting the holistic needs of jobseekers and workers. We are also happy to see a more flexible and modern approach to financing workforce development efforts, prioritizing public-private partnerships and innovative strategies that serve the unique economic needs of American communities

PPI looks forward to seeing what the Good Jobs grantees accomplish. We hope to see more equitable funding for workforce-related pathways in the future and to see federal policy replicate this pragmatic approach to public investment.

Low-inflation Railroads and Labor Negotiations

In a high-inflation environment, railroads are one of the few positive notes. Adjusting for the rising price of inputs like energy, so-called “value-added” prices of rail services are down by 2.6% over the last year. Meanwhile, value-added prices for air freight and passenger services are up by 20.5%, and value-added prices for trucking services are up by 33.4%, also adjusting for the price of inputs such as energy.

That’s why the current bargaining impasse in the railroad industry is distressing. The national railroads and rail labor unions are in a 30-day “cooling off period” that ends July 18. To avoid a strike or a lock-out, President Biden is likely to appoint a Presidential Emergency Board (PEB) to make settlement recommendations before a final cooling off period ends in mid-September.

While not directly part of the national negotiations, an important backdrop that the Tier 1 rail carriers have invested more than $11 billion in installing Positive Train Control (PTC), a system that makes rail movements much safer.  The carriers propose to use this new technology to operate more efficiently by redeploying many conductors out of trains to ground-based positions. The rail unions are resisting this change at the individual carrier level, while demanding higher wages at the national level.

To work their way through the complicated puzzle of technology, wages, and productivity, President Biden needs to appoint PEB members who understand the railroad industry, and who are experienced arbitrators. That is the best route towards achieving a fair outcome that doesn’t disrupt the economy and further fuel inflation.

 

 

Ensuring That Degrees Lead to Labor Market Success

Last week, the White House unveiled President Biden’s American Families Plan, which includes $109 billion for two years of free community college with the aim that more Americans have access to a degree or certification. Americans generally support making public colleges and universities tuition free, with the bulk of support coming from women, young people, and Black and Hispanic adults. Already, there are reports from states like Michigan, which launched a free community college program last year, and was inundated with applications and interest. However, policymakers need to ensure that we do not just increase the quantity of degrees, but their quality and how schools help match students with high-value, in-demand credentials linked to the labor market.

The package recognizes that access alone will not improve low completion rates, and alongside the community college expansion, it calls for a $62 billion investment in “evidence-based strategies to strengthen completion and retention rates at community colleges and institutions that serve students” who have historically been unlikely to complete a postsecondary degree. Many community college students do not complete their degrees or end up with credentials with “low labor market value” that can leave students with significant debt and set up to default on their loans.

For decades, community colleges have educated a significant portion of low- and middle-income Americans, yet have historically been underfunded and overlooked compared to public and private four-year colleges. For millions, community colleges have served as their pathway to the middle class and this proposal by the Administration is fulfilling President Biden’s campaign promise to expand economic opportunity for Americans across the distribution. Experts have suggested that with extra funding, community colleges could spur economic mobility if investments go toward career counselors, mental health resources, and academic coaching which would increase enrollment and completion of degrees.

Yet, completion rates alone should not be the measure of success. A key goal of community colleges, and postsecondary education generally, should be the labor market outcomes of their graduating classes. If there is to be an education expansion in community colleges, it should be paired with accountability systems that track outcomes and link funding to programs that are seeing results. Additionally, there needs to be more communication across the network of community colleges as to what practices are working so that evidence can be shared and disseminated widely.

Community colleges in particular are well-poised to build robust partnerships with local employers to place students in high-demand industries with good wages, such as healthcare and information technology. Programs that have apprenticeships, job training, or work-based learning as part of the curriculum have been shown to better set up students for economic success. The American Jobs Plan also proposes a $100 billion investment in workforce development to help connect workers to jobs in the ongoing post-pandemic recovery. These efforts should be coordinated to ensure that U.S. job training and placement programs work much more effectively and reach dislocated workers and those who stand to benefit the most, such as women and Black and Hispanic workers.

Lastly, schools and policymakers should also be thinking outside of the box for how to meet students where they are and community colleges are not always the answer for every student. Many students face challenges at home or at work that make it difficult for them to complete their degrees. New initiatives, such as Degrees of Freedom in Vermont, are experimenting with innovative models to reach low-income and first-generation college students with hybrid late high school, early college experiences. These capitalize on lessons learned from the pandemic, such as virtual learning experiences, to pioneer new approaches.

A college degree will also not be the path to a successful career for every American. In fact, among recent high school graduates ages 16 to 24, 30 percent do not enroll in any postsecondary education, and only 60 percent of students in two- or four-year programs graduate within six years. To that end, President Biden has repeatedly stated that 90 percent of the opportunities created by the American Jobs Plan, a major public investment in expanding apprenticeships and job training programs, do not require a college degree. These are proven non-college career pathways that give more students a path to the middle class. Policymakers will need to consider these in tandem with free community college if we are to offer options to a vast majority of America’s workers.

The Biden administration is right to call for major national investment in educating and training young workers, many of whom have lost a year of their lives to the pandemic. But now it’s time for the administration and Congress to think harder about how to maximize the impact of whatever lawmakers eventually pass. The kind of transformative change that the President is prioritizing requires that we think beyond the old systems of workforce development and education to a more diverse set of career pathways. The focus should be on effective, evidence-based approaches paired with innovation and accountability for results.

INTERVIEW: Veronica Goodman Interviews Stanford Professor Maya Rossin-Slater on Paid Family Leave

On Friday, April 23rd, PPI Director of Social Policy Veronica Goodman spoke with Professor Maya Rossin-Slater, a paid leave expert at Stanford University about her latest paper, The Impact of Paid Family Leave on Employers: Evidence from New York, co-authored with Ann P. Bartel, Christopher J. Ruhm, Meredith Slopen, and Jane Waldfogel. Watch the full interview below.

Read Professor Rossin-Slater and her co-author’s paper here: https://bit.ly/3t6kWa2

Amazon workers have spoken — are progressives listening?

Following a high-profile organizing campaign that drew international attention, workers at Amazon’s fulfillment center in Bessemer, Alabama, have voted overwhelming against joining a union. While National Labor Relations Board officials are still sifting through contested votes, the anti-union forces lead by almost a 3-1 margin.

The emphatic rejection was a bitter blow to the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, which launched the first-ever drive to organize an Amazon warehouse. Its fight to organize the largely African American workforce was likened to past civil rights struggles in Alabama and cast as a “David vs. Goliath” parable by sympathetic reporters.

But the blowout in Bessemer also is a rebuff to Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and the progressive left. They invested heavily in the organizing push as an opportunity to resuscitate the traditional union organizing model while also curbing the power of one of the Big Tech companies they love to hate.

The independent socialist from Vermont and a coterie of left-leaning lawmakers, Hollywood actors and social justice activists regularly descended upon Alabama to show solidarity with Bessemer’s supposedly downtrodden proletariat. “You’re prepared to stand up and say that every worker in this country deserves to have decent wages, decent working conditions, decent benefits, and to be treated with dignity, not as a robot,” Sanders thundered at a recent rally.

Evidently, however, Amazon’s workers weren’t feeling the Bern. It’s not hard to understand why, especially when we look past Sanders’s nostalgic class warfare tropes to the realities of the local economy.

Even before the pandemic hit, Jefferson County, where Bessemer is located, had not yet regained the jobs it lost in the 2008-2009 recession. Manufacturing jobs, in particular, never recovered.

The hard times, of course, intensified during the pandemic. When Amazon’s fulfillment center opened in March 2020, it was greeted as a godsend in Bessemer. With a poverty rate of about 30 percent, this city of 27,000 is among the poorest in the state.

The $325 million center originally was expected to employ 1,500 workers. However, as the pandemic took hold, and Amazon’s e-commerce and remote shopping business boomed, that number has swelled to almost 6,000 jobs.

All workers at the Bessemer center start at $15.30 an hour. That’s more than twice the federal minimum wage in Alabama ($7.25 an hour). Warehouse workers also get the same health plan that Amazon’s salaried employees have, as well as retirement and parental leave benefits.

Obviously, that Amazon was hiring in a struggling economy was a strong point in its favor for the union vote. But it was also paying entry-level wages competitive with many manufacturers in the area. For example, Royal Switchgear Manufacturing in Bessemer was advertising for an assembly worker for $13.50-$14.00 per hour. Airgas Southeast, a subsidiary of Airgas USA, LLC, the nation’s “leading distributor of industrial, medical and specialty gases and welding supplies,” was advertising for a plant operator position at its Bessemer plant, at pay starting from $15 per hour.

Looking at BLS data for the Birmingham-Hoover MSA, which includes Bessemer, also suggests that Amazon was paying competitive wages. For example, the median hourly wage for “emergency medical technicians and paramedics” in the area was $14.08 per hour, according to the BLS, while the median pay for dental assistants was $15.32 per hour. The median pay for the broad category of production occupations was $16.77 per hour.

In short, Amazon is doing exactly what you’d expect good businesses to do — create new jobs with decent pay and benefits in places that badly need them. But these realities don’t comport with the populist left’s cartoonish political narrative, in which working Americans are merely the passive playthings of rapacious capitalists, billionaires and tech barons — until unions and a beneficent government can step in to save them.

Bessemer’s workers, however, declined to play the victim. Nor in the end did union complaints about working conditions in the center – a grueling pace and high productivity targets that leave little time for breaks – get much traction with workers.

No doubt the union will try again, probably in a blue state more friendly to organized labor. But the setback in Bessemer should be a warning to Democrats that the left’s reflexive hostility to business and anti-capitalist posturing isn’t the way to win over working-class voters. On the contrary, it just reinforces how out of touch college-educated elites can be with the actual economic and social aspirations of working Americans.

Along with better wages and benefits, U.S. workers do want more voice and power in their workplaces. They want the dignity that hard and conscientious work of any kind should confer. It turns out that Amazon’s Bessemer workers don’t think they need a union to get these things.

The workers have had their say. Are progressives listening?

Will Marshall is president and founder of the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI).

You can also read this Op-Ed in The Hill. 

Preventing Failure to Launch: Creating More School-to-Work Pathways for Young Adults

Today’s high school students and young adults face a difficult job market. The Covid pandemic has been particularly hard on less educated workers without a college degree. The 10 million jobs lost by Americans at the pandemic’s onset disproportionally impacted young adults between the ages of 16 and 24, and especially Black and Hispanic workers. Some estimate that as many as 25 percent of our youth will neither be in school nor working when the pandemic ends. 

Research shows that employers are less likely to hire workers with little to no experience for the “first jobs” that many younger workers rely on to build their skills and credentials. Without those first jobs, many will face fewer paths to enter the workforce. To help the non-college-bound, our education system needs to create alternative pathways to careers.

The Biden administration and Congress have the opportunity to create a revamped system that addresses inequality by building continuous pathways between high school and work. As part of his Build Back Better plan, President Biden has called for grants to states to accelerate students’ attainment of quality credentials, degrees, and opportunities in job training programs. As we discuss in this paper, there are promising existing models to draw on in thinking about how to provide more job opportunities to young adults.

This paper reviews several case studies to provide evidence-based examples of how to better connect students to careers. We first address the need for broad-based pathways to careers and then focus on four key themes across school−to−career models, including: (1) the importance of work-based learning that connects students to employers; (2) curriculums that emphasize soft skills and social capital to prepare young adults for their first jobs; (3) the need for supportive or wraparound services to help students get across the finish line; and, (4) high schools that help students earn credits toward postsecondary education along the way to graduation.

Read the full report here

 

Five Ways the Americans Jobs Plan Gets Workforce Development Right

The Biden administration released its American Jobs Plan yesterday – a bold package with critical investments in infrastructure and America’s workers. Among its more ambitious aims is $100 billion set aside for workforce development. This includes a long overdue investment to diversify career pathways, through approaches such as apprenticeship programs, a focus on sector partnerships, and a new and robust program for dislocated workers. There is a lot to cheer for in the AJP—here are five ways it gets it right in pairing job creation with next-generation training programs.

  1. Investing in Workforce Development and Worker Protection. For decades, the United States has lagged other high-income countries in workforce development. The AJP calls for a $48 billion investment in workforce development and worker protection, which includes funding for registered apprenticeships and pre-apprenticeship programs. In total, this would create one to two million new registered apprenticeships. PPI has long-called for the U.S. to increase apprenticeships 10-fold and provide workers with career pathways that do not require a four-year degree. We’ve also advocated for two specific ways to modernize apprenticeships: Congress should formalize and incentivize intermediaries (public or private) by subsidizing them to create “outsourced” apprenticeships, and government at all levels should create public service apprenticeship opportunities and programs, including in industries such as information technology, accounting, and health care.
  2. Expanding Career and Technical Education. The plan recognizes the need for investments to expand career and technical education (CTE) and workforce-readiness programs for middle- and high-school students. The 10 million jobs lost by Americans at the pandemic’s onset disproportionally impacted young adults between the ages of 16 and 24, and some estimate that as many as 25 percent of our youth will neither be in school nor working when the pandemic ends. According to the U.S. Department of Education, high school students enrolled in programs with a CTE concentration are more likely to both graduate and earn higher median annual salaries than those who did not participate. These investments will set up students to be better prepared to enter the labor force upon graduation and gain their economic footing as they transition to adulthood.
  3. Addressing Inequities. Women and minorities have been disproportionately impacted by job losses during the pandemic and have historically been excluded from infrastructure jobs. Acknowledging these inequities, the plan calls for “strengthening the pipeline for more women and people of color to access apprenticeship opportunities,” such as through the Women in Apprenticeships in Non-Traditional Occupations program. Another option would be to increase training programs and increase apprenticeship slots in industries dominated by women that face worker shortages, such as early childhood education and care, and pair these jobs with competitive wages.
  4. Supporting Job Training with Smart, Evidence-Based Policies. The AJP acknowledges that we need forward-looking, evidence-based approaches to train the next generation of American workers and help those who might need to reskill or upskill, including laid off workers during the pandemic. The White House calls for a “a $40 billion investment in a new Dislocated Workers Program and sector-based training.” These funds would be allocated to help train workers get trained with skills in high-demand industries, such as clean energy, manufacturing, and caregiving. To ensure the success of such programs, the White House draws on evidence that completion rates are highest when workers are provided with wrap-around services, income supports, counseling, and case management to overcome the barriers to finishing their training.
  5. Empowering Workers and Unions. Lastly, the AJP emphasizes the important role of union jobs as the backbone of the American middle class. The proposed legislation includes important provisions for strengthening the rights of workers to organize and for making sure that employers who benefit from the plan adhere to appropriate labor standards and do not interfere with workers’ exercise of their rights. Enhancing the power of workers in our economy is critical to supporting good jobs and a strong middle class.

The Covid recession has left over 10 million Americans out of a job and millions of workers might not have a job to return to when the pandemic is over. For them, the AJP would create a diverse set of pathways to connect them with quality jobs offering livable wages. We hope that when Congress takes up this package in the coming months, they will pursue equity not just for underrepresented groups in workforce development, but also for those who lack a college degree yet make up a majority of the labor market. For them, access to pathways that do not require a four-year degree will be critical to help them regain their economic footing. Overall, the AJP meets the moment to address historic job losses and infrastructure in need of significant public investment.

To Build Back Better, Biden Must Invest in Modern Apprenticeship System

Now that the historic American Rescue Plan has been passed in Congress and signed into law, President Biden will turn to his Build Back Better plan to help the more than 10 million unemployed Americans return to the labor force. As part of this effort to lift the job prospects of laid-off workers and young Americans without college degrees, America needs to go big on investing in a modern apprenticeship system built for the needs of our 21st century workforce.

More than ever before, Americans – especially young adults – need pathways to careers that don’t require a traditional four-year college degree. While Millennials are the most educated generation in history, as of 2015, only about a third of Americans ages 25-to-34 were college graduates. That number is even lower for older Americans. Apprenticeships offer an on-ramp to well-paying careers for those who did not go to college. The average starting annual salary for registered apprentices is $60,000.

Even though most Americans don’t go to college, the U.S. has historically underutilized apprenticeships compared to European countries. European apprenticeships span a range of industries, including those on the cutting edge. For example, German biotechnology company BioNTech, which partnered with Pfizer on a COVID-19 vaccine, hires and trains large numbers of apprentices as part of its business model.

Read the full piece here.

PPI Applauds Passage of the Biden Administration’s American Rescue Plan Act

Washington, D.C. – Today, Congress passed the Biden Administration’s American Rescue Plan Act, a $1.9 trillion emergency pandemic relief package that will help ramp up COVID-19 vaccine production and distribution, support small businesses and workers, and provide the necessary resources to safely reopen schools and communities.

Will Marshall, President of the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI), released the following statement:

“Passage of the American Rescue Plan is a landmark achievement for President Biden and the new Democratic Congress – one that gives us reason to hope our government may not be broken after all.

It’s not a perfect bill, but after a long, grinding year of sickness, economic privation and social isolation, this isn’t the time to make the perfect the enemy of the good. Policy disagreements aside, President Biden has rightly gauged the magnitude of the nation’s health and economic emergency and responded resolutely. His decision to “go big” was right, as was his desire to avoid vilifying his political opponents and deepening the nation’s paralyzing cultural rifts.

That’s the way our democracy is supposed to work.

By clearing his first big hurdle, President Biden has dealt himself a strong political hand for the next one: Winning passage of his coming “Build Back Better” plan for building a more just, clean and resilient U.S. economy.”

The Progressive Policy Institute 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