• David Autor: Why Technological Innovation Could Increase Inequality

    Jul 21, 2014

    The Next American Economy project brought together 30 experts from various disciplines to envision tomorrow's economic and political challenges and develop today's solutions. In the debut entry in our new video speculation series, MIT economist David Autor talks about the future of economic polarization.

    The Next American Economy project brought together 30 experts from various disciplines to envision tomorrow's economic and political challenges and develop today's solutions. In the debut entry in our new video speculation series, MIT economist David Autor talks about the future of economic polarization.

    There is a long-running debate between those who worry robots are taking our jobs and those who scoff at that “lump of labor fallacy” as just another version of Luddite thinking. In the video below, Professor David Autor, the MIT economist famous for his description of how technology has helped hollow out the middle class, outlines the debate and describes how it might be possible that both sides are right.

    Professor Autor discusses a scenario in which technological innovation continues to reduce the need for low-skilled labor while increasing the demand for higher-skilled workers, thus increasing wages at the top while reducing wages at the bottom.

    Share This

  • What Will the American Economy Look Like 26 Years From Today?

    Jul 21, 2014Bo Cutter

    Earlier this summer, the Next American Economy project brought together 30 experts from various disciplines to envision tomorrow's economic and political challenges and develop today's solutions. Find out what they had to say.

    Participants in our recent convening speculated:

    Earlier this summer, the Next American Economy project brought together 30 experts from various disciplines to envision tomorrow's economic and political challenges and develop today's solutions. Find out what they had to say.

    Participants in our recent convening speculated:

    “The post-WWII model of full-time, permanent employment proved itself the historical aberration we predicted: in 2040, only 12 percent of the American workforce is directly employed by corporate enterprises or government departments, and the average length of time spent on any one job is under six months.”

    “New platforms and services will spring up to solve the problems of the micro-gig economy using distributed, peer-to-peer models of social insurance that will be hyper-local, but not based on geography. They will be based on the micro-niche identities that we build online -- accountants for bacon. Latinos who play Dungeons & Dragons. What have you.”  

    “In the late '20s, the Know Everything Party assumed their final national political victories of mandating every American household be limited to three robots, one 3D printer, and own a minimum of three guns would be enough to secede and be left alone. After 15 years of explosive growth in income and wealth inequality, unimaginable to us in 2014, it all came to a head in our second Civil War, or what historians are calling the Bloodless War.”

    Guided by the belief that we are on the precipice of fundamental and lasting economic change, the Next American Economy project gathered a group of 30 academics, business leaders, organizers, and technologists, and asked them to envision the long-term economic and political future of the United States. We gave our participants free rein to be bold in their speculations – to deviate from data, the conventional wisdom, or even their own expert opinions. The goal was not to predict the future, but to debate a series of critical questions: (a) Are we at an inflection point in the nature of innovation and technological change? (b) How will the rise of cities change the geography of economic activity? (c) How will economic trends alter the nature of work and employment? (d) Is the trend of widening income inequality likely to continue or stagnate?

    What followed was a series of prescient, thoughtful, and often hilarious three- to four-minute speculations on topics ranging from the gig economy to the future of finance, from imminent civil war to the transformation of Google into a car company, and many more. Each speculation on its own could foster a day of debate and a sea of responses. For this reason, we will release one video speculation a day for the next three weeks, starting with David Autor’s description of economic polarization.

    Our recent meeting was a first step toward our broader goal of identifying the trends likely to shape the future in order to identify the policy interventions needed to ensure the best possible outcome. The group identified key topics for further investigation and also found some areas of broad consensus.

    • 79 percent of participants believe “technological change will persist and will be big enough to disrupt business-as-usual."

    • 42 percent believe “a new paradigm of work is emerging and will change the nature of jobs for a large percentage of the population” and an additional 29 percent believe “a new paradigm has already emerged and you East Coast intellectuals are way behind the times.”

    • A total of 74 percent believe that even if an entrepreneurship booms leads to productivity growth it will not lead to job creation.

    • Nearly half (48 percent) believe that if inequality trends continue, the political backlash will be so extreme that our current system will change drastically in the next 25 years.

    You can learn more about our project and find our forthcoming research on our website.

    Roosevelt Institute Senior Fellow Bo Cutter is Director of the Next American Economy project. He was formerly a managing partner of Warburg Pincus, a major global private equity firm, and served as the leader of President Obama’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB) transition team. He has also served in senior roles in the White Houses of two Democratic Presidents.

    Share This

  • Fighting Bad Science in the Senate

    Jul 17, 2014Andrea Flynn

    The Senate hearing for the Women's Health Protection Act shows just how important it is for women's health advocates to push for the facts.

    The Senate hearing for the Women's Health Protection Act shows just how important it is for women's health advocates to push for the facts.

    The propensity of anti-choice advocates to eulogize false science was on full display on Tuesday’s Senate hearing on the Women’s Health Protection Act (WHPA). That bill is a bold measure that would counter the relentless barrage of anti-choice legislation that has made abortion – a constitutionally protected medical procedure – all together inaccessible for many U.S. women.

    The bill was introduced last year by Senators Richard Blumenthal and Tammy Baldwin and Representatives Judy Chu, Lois Frankel and Marcia Fudge. It prohibits states from applying regulations to reproductive health care centers and providers that do not also apply to other low-risk medical procedures. It would, essentially, remove politicians from decisions that – for every other medical issue – remain between individuals and their providers.

    The WHPA is long overdue. For the past three years, conservative lawmakers have used the guise of protecting women’s health to pass more than 200 state laws that have closed clinics, eliminated abortion services, and left women across the country without access to critical reproductive health care. The WHPA would reverse many of those policies and prevent others from being passed.

    Tuesday's hearing was representative of the broader debate over abortion rights. Those in favor of the bill argued that securing guaranteeing unfettered access to reproductive health care, including abortion, is critical to the health and lives of U.S. women and their families.

    Those in opposition used familiar canards about abortion to argue the law would be calamitous for U.S. women. Representative Diane Black of Tennessee had the gall to make the abortion-leads-to-breast cancer claim, one that has been disproven many times over. Others repeatedly cited the horrific cases of Kermit Gosnell, insinuating that all abortion providers (abortionists, in their lingo) are predatory and that late term abortions are a common occurrence. In fact, if women had access to safe, comprehensive and intimidation-free care, Kermit Gosnell would have never been in business. Given the opposition’s testimony, you’d never know that late term abortion is actually a rarity. According to the Centers for Disease Control, more than 90 percent of all abortions occur before 13 weeks gestation, with just over 1 percent taking place past 21 weeks.

    At one point Representative Black argued that abortion is actually not health care. The one in three U.S. women who have undergone the procedure would surely argue otherwise.

    Perhaps the most ironic testimony against the WHPA – and in favor of abortion restrictions – came from Senator Ted Cruz, who hails from Texas, a state with so many abortion restrictions that women are now risking their health and lives by self-inducing abortions or crossing the border to get care in Mexico. Senator Cruz attempted to validate U.S. abortion restrictions by referencing a handful of European countries with gestational restrictions on abortions. This was a popular argument during the hearing for Texas’ HB2 – the bill responsible for shuttering the majority of clinics in that state.

    Cruz wins the prize for cherry picking facts to best support his argument. When citing our European counterparts, he conveniently ignored that such abortion restrictions are entrenched in progressive public health systems that enable all individuals to access quality, affordable (often free) health care, including comprehensive reproductive healthcare. Senator Cruz and his colleagues have adamantly opposed similar policies in the U.S., particularly the Affordable Care Act’s provisions for contraceptive coverage and Medicaid expansion. On the one hand conservatives lean on European policies to argue for stricter abortion restrictions at home, and on the other they claim those policies are antithetical to the moral fabric of the United States.

    Would Cruz support France’s policies that enable women to be fully reimbursed for the cost of their abortion and that guarantees girls ages 15 to 18 free birth control? Or Belgium’s policy that enables young people to be reimbursed for the cost of emergency contraception? Or the broad exceptions both countries make for cases of rape, incest, and fetal impairment, to preserve woman’s physical or mental health, and for social or economic reasons? He absolutely would not.

    Given the House of Representatives seems to be more motivated by suing the President than by voting on – let alone passing – laws that will actually improve the health and lives of their constituents, it’s highly unlikely the WHPA will become law. But Tuesday's debate – and the bill itself – is significant and shows a willingness among pro-choice advocates to go on the offense after too many years of playing defense.

    Bills such as the WHPA – even if they face a slim chance of being passed by a gridlocked Congress – provide an opportunity to call out conservatives' use of bad science in their attempts to convince women that lawmakers know best when it comes to their personal medical decisions. And they allow us to remind lawmakers and citizens that despite all of the rhetoric to the contrary, abortion is a common, safe and constitutionally protected medical procedure, and that regulating it into extinction will only force women into back-alley practices like those run by Gosnell, costing them their health and their lives.

    Those in support of the WHPA showed anti-choice lawmakers that the days of make a sport of trampling women’s health and rights are numbered.

    Andrea Flynn is a Fellow at the Roosevelt Institute. Follow her on Twitter @dreaflynn.

    Share This

  • In Defense of Public Service: Roosevelt Honors Commitment to Common Good

    Jul 14, 2014Tim Price

    Honorees at the 2014 FDR Distinguished Public Service Awards felt vindicated -- but why does public service need vindicating?

    Honorees at the 2014 FDR Distinguished Public Service Awards felt vindicated -- but why does public service need vindicating?

    Outside of election night victory speeches, it’s rare to see America’s elected officials express much happiness in public. In a political culture dominated by partisan rancor, personal attacks, and donor-friendly positioning, governing seems a joyless affair. Nor are the American people pleased with their leaders’ performance; polls reflect widespread dissatisfaction with all levels of government. So it was inspiring, refreshing, and a little surprising to see the sense of pride and achievement on display last Thursday evening in Washington as the Roosevelt Institute honored Vice President Joe Biden, Congressman George Miller, Senator Tom Harkin, and Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro at the 2014 FDR Distinguished Public Service Awards.

    Presented annually, the Distinguished Public Service Awards recognize and celebrate individuals who carry forward the spirit of Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt by devoting their lives to the public good. During this year’s ceremony, the audience heard from the four honorees as well as presenters including Dr. Jill Biden, House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, Senator Al Franken, and former Senator Christopher Dodd. The speakers reflected on the honorees’ long list of policy achievements, from fighting for higher wages and paid family leave to passing the Americans with Disabilities Act. There was a smattering of amusing anecdotes (Senator Harkin’s ’70s-era polyester suits were evidently considered both an electoral liability and a fire hazard). And everyone who stood at the podium found a way to talk about their distinct but deeply felt personal connections to the Roosevelt legacy. Above all, they seemed genuinely moved to be celebrated rather than insulted for their work.

    The most striking speech of the night was delivered by Vice President Biden. He received the Roosevelt Institute’s highest honor, the Freedom Medal, for promoting the vision of worldwide democracy and human rights that FDR famously expressed in his 1941 Four Freedoms Address. The Vice President spoke of his award as a “vindication” of a career spent in public service; and about his long-held belief that, setting aside their individual political views and policy preferences, all elected leaders got to be where they are because their constituents “saw something good in them,” and because they in turn wanted to do some good for their constituents.

    It’s a nice thought. In practice, there is plenty of cause for cynicism, especially in light of the flawed or absent policy response to the Great Recession and the ongoing crisis of inequality in the U.S. And when politicians do fail to uphold the public good, they should be held accountable. But there is also no doubt that a great deal of America’s anti-government culture, and of the political dysfunction that keeps government from working effectively, has been created and nurtured by right-wing ideologues who view government as a problem in and of itself. If public servants as a category are in need of vindication, it is largely because of this conservative effort to denigrate the very idea of working through government to achieve common goals.

    Thursday’s awards were a welcome reminder that not everyone has given in to this cynicism – that the term “career politician” can be an affirmation and not just an epithet. It was obvious from listening to these men and women speak that they have felt a powerful call to serve, and have made a leap of faith that progress is possible through long years of hard work and dedication. That was what Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt believed as well, and they proved it with bold and ambitious New Deal programs that built the American middle class from the ground up, reshaping the U.S. forever. By honoring those who continue their work today, maybe we can encourage all Americans to make that leap once again.

    Tim Price is the Communications Manager for the Roosevelt Institute.

    Photos: (Top) Congressman Miller, Congresswoman DeLauro, and Senator Harkin with Roosevelt Institute Board Chair Anna E. Roosevelt. (Bottom) Vice President Biden accepting his award accompanied by wife Jill. Credit: Crystal Vander Weit.

    Share This