Daily Digest - February 19: Can Housing Reform Turn Back the Clock?

Feb 19, 2015Rachel Goldfarb

Click here to subscribe to Roosevelt First, our weekday morning email featuring the Daily Digest.

Set the Wayback Machine for Housing Finance Reform, But to When? (CLS Blue Sky Blog)

Click here to subscribe to Roosevelt First, our weekday morning email featuring the Daily Digest.

Set the Wayback Machine for Housing Finance Reform, But to When? (CLS Blue Sky Blog)

Roosevelt Institute Senior Fellow Brad Miller lays out the history of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to argue for a stronger government role in creating a safe and affordable mortgage market.

A Labor Dispute Slowed America’s Ports to a Halt. But There’s an Even Bigger Problem. (WaPo)

Lydia DePillis looks at the problems facing West Coast ports that go beyond current labor disputes. Increased traffic through the ports has also slowed everything down.

Fed Officials Sound Cautious Note on Raising Interest Rates (NYT)

Binyamin Appelbaum reports on the notes released from the Federal Reserve's January meeting, which acknowledge concerns about the fragility of economic growth.

Bernie Sanders, Mulling Presidential Run, Adopts Novel Stance on Deficit (AJAM)

Ned Resnikoff says that Senator Sanders's discussion of the deficit as an issue that includes unemployment and inequality draws on a less commonly accepted school of economic thought.

The Wrong Way to Revitalize a City (In These Times)

Rachel M. Cohen argues that ALEC's push against community benefit agreements, which create requirements for publicly-subsidized developers, is the opposite of community-building.

Why Do Americans Feel Entitled to Tell Poor People What to Eat? (The Nation)

Unlike other government programs that people benefit from, like student loans and mortgage deductions, EBT cards are highly visible, creating opportunities for judgment, writes Bryce Covert.

Share This

What Happens if Europe Cuts Off the Greek Banks?

Feb 10, 2015J.W. Mason

Over the past week, it's become clear that the real leverage the European authorities have over Greece is via the banking system. What does Greece need continued loans for? Not to pay for public expenditures, thanks to its primary surplus. Not to pay for imports — Greece has a (small) trade surplus. Not to service current debt, if it defaults. What does need to be financed is the flow of deposits out of Greek banks to the rest of Europe.

Over the past week, it's become clear that the real leverage the European authorities have over Greece is via the banking system. What does Greece need continued loans for? Not to pay for public expenditures, thanks to its primary surplus. Not to pay for imports — Greece has a (small) trade surplus. Not to service current debt, if it defaults. What does need to be financed is the flow of deposits out of Greek banks to the rest of Europe.

So what happens if that financing is cut off, as the European Central Bank is threatening? The usual answer is the collapse of the Greek banking system, followed immediately by Greece’s forced exit from the eurozone. But what concretely are the mechanics of this? What is the exact chain of events from an end to ECB financing to Greek exit from the euro? I don't know the answer to this, but the more I think about it, the less confident I am in the conventional wisdom.

What concretely does it mean that the ECB is providing liquidity support to Greek banks? As far as I can tell, it is this: When a holder of a deposit in a Greek bank wants to make a payment elsewhere, either to purchase a good or asset outside Greece or to move the deposit to a different bank, the Greek bank must transfer an equal quantity of settlement assets to the bank receiving the deposits. These settlement assets are normally acquired on the fly by issuing a new liability in the interbank market, but if other banks are unwilling to accept the liabilities of Geek banks, they can be borrowed directly from the ECB against suitable collateral. This is the lending that the ECB is threatening to cut off.

What if the Greek banks couldn't acquire settlement assets? Then other banks would not accept the deposits, and it would be impossible to use deposits in Greek banks to make payments. Depositors would find their accounts frozen and, in the normal course of events, the banks would be shut down by regulators.

But Greece still has a central bank. My understanding is that much of the day-to-day business of central banking in Europe is carried out by the national central banks. In principle, even if Greek banks couldn't acquire settlement assets by borrowing from the ECB, they could still borrow from the Greek central bank. This wouldn't help with payments to the rest of Europe, since reserve balances at the Greek central bank wouldn't be accepted elsewhere. But I don't see why the Greek central bank couldn't keep the payments system working within Greece itself.

If the Greek central bank is willing to provide liquidity on the same terms as the ECB, what's going to force the Greek banks to shut down? It's not as though there's any Europe-wide bank regulator that can do it.

In a sense, this would be a kind of soft exit, since there would now be a Greek euro that would not be freely convertible into a non-Greek euro. But I don't see why it would have to be catastrophic or irreversible. Transactions within Greece could continue as before. It might not make much difference for routine trade, either, since the majority of Greek imports come from outside the EU.

Where it would make a difference is precisely that it would prevent Greek depositors from moving their funds out of the country. (Greek banks would also presumably be limited in their ability to provide physical cash to depositors, but I don’t think this is important.) In effect, by cutting Greece off from the European interbank payment system, the ECB would be imposing capital controls on Greece's behalf. You could even say that, if the threat of cutting off liquidity support can trigger a run on Greek banks, actually doing so would ensure that there isn't one.

Now maybe I'm wrong about this. Maybe there is a good reason why the Greek central bank can't maintain the payment system within Greece. But I also think there's a larger point here. I'm thinking about the end of the gold standard in the 1930s, when breaking the link with gold was considered an unthinkable catastrophe. And yet the objective basis of the money system in gold turned out to be irrelevant. I think, in the same way, the current crisis may be revealing the reflexive, self-referential nature of money. On a certain level, the threat against Greece comes down to: "You must make your money payments, or we will deprive you of the means to make your money payments."

The rule of the money system requires that real productive activity be organized around the need for money. This in turn requires that money not be too freely available, but also that it not be too scarce. Think of Aunt Agatha in Daniel Davies' parable. Suppose her real goal is to run her nephew's life — to boss him around, have him at her beck and call, to know that he won't make any choices without asking if she approves. In that case, she always has to be threatening to cut him off, but she can't ever really do it. If he knows he's getting money from her, he won't care what she thinks — but if he knows he isn't, he won't care either. He has to be perpetually unsure. And in keeping with Davies' story, the only thing Jim actually needs the money for is to continue servicing his debt to Aunt Agatha. The only real power she has is a superstitious horror at the idea of unpaid debts.

In this way I've tentatively convinced myself that all Syriza needs to do is hold firm. The only way they can lose is if they lose their nerve. Conversely, the worst outcome for the ECB and its allies would be if they force Greece into default and everyone watches as the vengeful money-gods fail to appear.

UPDATE: It turns out that Daniel Davies is making a similar argument:

Capital controls are arguably what Greece needs right now - they have balanced the primary budget, and they need to stop capital flight. From the ECB's point of view, I'd agree that the move is political, but it also means that they are no longer financing capital flight.

There's a sensible negotiated solution here - with a lower primary surplus than the program (in which context I think Varoufakis' suggestion of 1.5% is not nearly ambitious enough), a return to the structural programs (the Port of Piraeus really does need to be taken out of the political sphere), and an agreement to kick the headline debt amount into the far future (in service of which aim I don't think all the funny financial engineering is helping).

The fall-back is a kind of soft exit, with capital controls. But the massive, massive advantage of capital controls over drachmaisation is that they  preserve foreign exchange. Greece imports fuel and food. With capital controls, it can be sure of financing vital imports.

The fact that Davies is thinking the same way makes me a lot more confident about the argument in this post.

J.W. Mason is a Fellow at the Roosevelt Institute.

Note: A version of this post originally appeared at The Slack Wire.

Share This

Daily Digest - February 5: Congratulations, Campus Network!

Feb 5, 2015Rachel Goldfarb

Click here to subscribe to Roosevelt First, our weekday morning email featuring the Daily Digest.

Winners of 2015 MacArthur Awards for Nonprofit Organizations (AP)

Click here to subscribe to Roosevelt First, our weekday morning email featuring the Daily Digest.

Winners of 2015 MacArthur Awards for Nonprofit Organizations (AP)

The Roosevelt Institute | Campus Network is among this year's recipients of the 2015 MacArthur Award for Creative and Effective Institutions.

The Internet Is Back to Solid Regulatory Ground (NYT)

Roosevelt Institute Fellow Susan Crawford says that by regulating Internet infrastructure as a utility, the Federal Communications Commission is going back to its roots of solid legal authority.

A Greek Morality Tale (Project Syndicate)

Roosevelt Institute Chief Economist Joseph Stiglitz says that the treatment of Greece's debt shows the need for reform in the eurozone to encourage growth-centered economic policy.

Rand Paul is Dead Wrong About Vaccines. But He Has a Point About the Federal Reserve. (The Week)

Jeff Spross says that Rand Paul is right that the Fed could use greater accountability – but the answer isn't an auditor. Roosevelt Institute Fellow Mike Konczal suggests better targeted goals as an alternative.

A Fair Day’s Wage (New Yorker)

In addition to raising wages for his lowest-paid workers, Aetna's CEO is reviving old labor relations rhetoric of fair pay and shared success, writes James Surowiecki.

America’s Recipe for Disaster: How New Corporate “Amnesty” Plan Could Doom the Economy (Salon)

Allowing corporations to pay a reduced tax rate on profits they've held overseas only encourages them to continue this pattern, writes David Dayen, which impacts tax revenues for years.

We're Jailing the Wrong People. We Need to Jail More of the Right Ones: Corporate Criminals (TAP)

Robert Kuttner says that misclassifying workers as contractors – or rather, payroll fraud – should be punished with jail time, just like other forms of deliberate fraud.

Share This

Daily Digest - February 2: Trade Shouldn't Mean Higher Drug Prices

Feb 2, 2015Rachel Goldfarb

Click here to subscribe to Roosevelt First, our weekday morning email featuring the Daily Digest.

Don't Trade Away Our Health (NYT)

Roosevelt Institute Chief Economist Joseph Stiglitz argues that the Trans-Pacific Partnership's intellectual property agreements will raise drug prices unnecessarily and slow innovation.

Click here to subscribe to Roosevelt First, our weekday morning email featuring the Daily Digest.

Don't Trade Away Our Health (NYT)

Roosevelt Institute Chief Economist Joseph Stiglitz argues that the Trans-Pacific Partnership's intellectual property agreements will raise drug prices unnecessarily and slow innovation.

Obama Veers Left (Politico)

Ben White speaks to Roosevelt Institute Fellow Mike Konczal about the president's budget. Konczal says this budget takes the focus off the deficit as a be-all,-end-all problem.

Obama's New Budget Proves the Grand Bargain is Finally Dead (Vox)

Matt Yglesias explains why the Obama administration has, in this budget, stopped playing to potential compromises and showdowns and focused on what the president actually wants to achieve.

A Simple Guide to Obama’s New Proposals for Spending and Taxes (WaPo)

Max Ehrenfreund breaks down the main points in the Obama budget and explains how taxes would change in order to pay for programs like funded preschool and investment in infrastructure.

U.S. Growth Rate Slips to 2.6% Raising Doubts About Strength of Economy (The Guardian)

Rupert Neate reports on the final numbers for the fourth quarter of 2014, which showed slower growth than economists had expected. Still, overall GDP growth for the year was higher than 2013.

How Tipping Helped Make Sexual Harassment the Norm for Female Servers (In These Times)

Jenny Brown says that workers who rely on tips often have no choice but to put up with harassment, as discussed in a new report from Restaurant Opportunities Centers United.

Uber and Lyft Drivers May Have Employee Status, Judge Says (Bloomberg)

In two different lawsuits, judges have indicated that they are unconvinced that drivers for these services are merely consumers of a software platform, reports Karen Gullo.

Share This

Daily Digest - January 9: Charity and Government Are Not Interchangeable

Jan 9, 2015Rachel Goldfarb

Click here to subscribe to Roosevelt First, our weekday morning email featuring the Daily Digest.

Mike Konczal and David Beito Debate Charity vs. Government (Stossel)

Roosevelt Institute Fellow Mike Konczal counters right-wing arguments that charity can take the place of government in protecting social welfare.

Click here to subscribe to Roosevelt First, our weekday morning email featuring the Daily Digest.

Mike Konczal and David Beito Debate Charity vs. Government (Stossel)

Roosevelt Institute Fellow Mike Konczal counters right-wing arguments that charity can take the place of government in protecting social welfare.

  • Roosevelt Take: Mike explained his argument on the "voluntarism fantasy" in greater depth in Democracy last year.

Europe’s Lapse of Reason (Project Syndicate)

Roosevelt Institute Chief Economist Joseph Stiglitz says that even as Europeans elect new leaders in their countries, their governments continue on a failed path of austerity, which must change.

House Democrats Swiftly Kill a Quiet Republican Plot to Protect Wall Street (The Guardian)

David Dayen says the work to stop this Republican anti-financial reform bill package demonstrates the Democratic strategy of making these economic fights very public.

Obama Plan Would Help Many Go to Community College Free (NYT)

The president's proposal would cover tuition for full- and half-time students who maintain a 2.5 GPA, report Julie Hirschfeld Davis and Tamar Lewin. It's a hard sell with a Republican Congress.

This Boehner/McConnell Obamacare 'Fix' Could Hurt Millions of Americans (LA Times)

Michael Hiltzik says readers shouldn't believe a GOP-authored op-ed's claims about changing the definition of full-time work under Obamacare. It's really a handout to employers.

America’s Workplaces Are Hostile to Families (The Nation)

Michelle Chen explores the ways that American employers make it difficult for workers to have children, as well as policy proposals that could fill the gaps.

Share This

Daily Digest - December 8: What Changes When China is the Largest Economy?

Dec 8, 2014Rachel Goldfarb

Click here to subscribe to Roosevelt First, our weekday morning email featuring the Daily Digest.

The Chinese Century (Vanity Fair)

Roosevelt Institute Chief Economist Joseph Stiglitz considers the implications of China becoming the world's largest economy, particularly as the U.S. system perpetuates so much inequality.

Click here to subscribe to Roosevelt First, our weekday morning email featuring the Daily Digest.

The Chinese Century (Vanity Fair)

Roosevelt Institute Chief Economist Joseph Stiglitz considers the implications of China becoming the world's largest economy, particularly as the U.S. system perpetuates so much inequality.

U.S. Jobs Report Beats Forecasts as 321,000 Positions Added in November (The Guardian)

Heidi Moore looks at the November jobs report, which surprised many economists with its strength. She emphasizes that many of the jobs created are low-wage.

Even at 321,000 Jobs a Month, It Will Be Nearly Two Years Before the Economy Looks Like 2007 (Working Economics)

Charting out scenarios for catching up with the jobs shortfall, Elise Gould points out that even a "good" jobs report like this one isn't indicative of a speedy recovery.

Recovery at Last? (NYT)

Paul Krugman considers what recent positive economic news means for our understanding of this recession. He thinks it's proof that government paralysis slowed the recovery.

Wall Street to Workers: Give Us Your Retirement Savings and Stop Asking Questions (In These Times)

David Sirota looks at current cases in which public officials have refused to release information about the fees paid to investment firms by public pension funds.

  • Roosevelt Take: Roosevelt Institute Fellow Saqib Bhatti explains how predatory municipal finance deals are harming taxpayers in his recent report.

Labor's New Reality -- It's Easier to Raise Wages for 100,000 Than to Unionize 4,000 (LA Times)

Harold Meyerson looks at the labor movement's shift toward focusing on issues that impact many workers who are not members, a project in which Los Angeles is at the center.

Elizabeth Warren Doesn't Like This Treasury Nominee. Here's Why. (Mother Jones)

Erika Eichelberger explains Senator Warren's opposition to Antonio Weiss's nomination, which is based on his lack of experience in banking regulation and coziness with the financial sector.

Share This

Daily Digest - October 30: The Economic Impact of Cities' Sister Act

Oct 30, 2014Rachel Goldfarb

Click here to subscribe to Roosevelt First, our weekday morning email featuring the Daily Digest.

Sister City Relationships Boost Business in Chicago, Phoenix and S.F. (Next City)

Click here to subscribe to Roosevelt First, our weekday morning email featuring the Daily Digest.

Sister City Relationships Boost Business in Chicago, Phoenix and S.F. (Next City)

Roosevelt Institute | Campus Network Senior Fellow for Defense and Diplomacy Nehemiah Rolle examines how these relationships allow cities to be power players in the global economy.

Why Millennials Can Fix Healthcare (Huffington Post)

Campus Network Senior Fellow for Health Care Emily Cerciello argues that Millennials' focus on how businesses can improve society could dramatically change the health industry.

Why Dems Are Winning on Minimum Wage (Politico)

Timothy Noah points at numerous races in which raising the minimum wage is proving the perfect wedge issue, and could help to boost Democratic turnout at the polls.

What Happens When People—Rather Than Politicians—Are Given the Chance to Vote for a Higher Minimum Wage? (The Nation)

Michelle Chen says economic justice advocates see these ballot initiatives as a far more straightforward way to improve people's lives than dealing with politicians.

Watchdog Slams Mortgage, Student Loan Servicers (The Hill)

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau says it has found a broad array of illegal practices, reports Benjamin Goad, but it won't be announcing which servicers are breaking the law.

New on Next New Deal

Election 2014: Women's Rights in the Balance

Roosevelt Institute Fellow Andrea Flynn introduces her series examining the ways that close-call races across the country could impact health care, economic issues, and more. The state-by-state analyses, published throughout today and tomorrow, can be found here.

We Need Pretrial Detention Reform in Massachusetts

Roosevelt Institute | Campus Network Senior Fellow for Equal Justice Jessica Morris says alternatives to bail would create a more just legal system in her state.

Share This

Threat of Ebola Highlights Problems in the U.S. Public Health System

Oct 15, 2014Emily Cerciello

It is likely that Ebola will be contained in the United States, but errors in Texas show we have room for improvement in responding to public health emergencies.

It is likely that Ebola will be contained in the United States, but errors in Texas show we have room for improvement in responding to public health emergencies.

On October 15, the second case of Ebola transmitted in the United States was confirmed in Texas between patient Thomas Eric Duncan and a health worker. Even more frightening, perhaps, is the sequence of events leading up to the transmission, and the many questions it generates about the preparedness of the U.S. in responding to public health emergencies.

Six days after Duncan arrived in the United States  – having passed a screening for fever at a Liberian airport – his symptoms progressed and he sought care at a Texas hospital, where he was promptly sent home with antibiotics.

The hospital claimed his early discharge was the fault of the electronic health record (EHR) for not communicating the patient’s travel history, but soon issued a correction saying his history was “available to the full care team…there was no flaw in the EHR.”

No matter who or what is at fault for letting Duncan fall through the cracks, we cannot let this huge breach in protocol happen again.

More than a week later, and several days after the patient was confirmed to have Ebola, the apartment at which he was staying with four individuals remained unsterilized. The quarantined family had the responsibility of arranging clean bedding until a waste management company agreed to clean the apartment. When they arrived, contractors wore no protective equipment and used power washers to sanitize – a practice which is likely not the most effective method of treating infectious surfaces.

And then, on October 12, the CDC confirmed that a nurse who had worn full protective gear while treating Duncan had contracted Ebola due to a yet unknown breach in protocol. On, October 15, another nurse who treated Duncan was confirmed to have the virus, showing symptoms just one day after boarding a commercial flight returning from Cleveland to Dallas.

These events point to several issues in the U.S. public health infrastructure: who is in charge when high-stakes infectious diseases spread? How should the U.S. prevent diseases originating in other countries? What can we learn from this case to prevent other errors in the system?

First, we need to decide who, or which agency, is in charge when a public health emergency occurs. Larry Copeland, a reporter at USA Todayagrees. Currently, the CDC provides assistance and guidelines to states and educates providers about how to prepare for Ebola. The choice to enact these protocols and successful operation of these procedures remains with the states. The CDC also issues guidelines to prohibit practitioners who have treated Ebola patients from boarding commercial flights. Separately, the Department of Homeland Security controls issues of air travel, including providing guidance to airlines and calling for symptom screenings at high-profile airports.

So there is no single entity leading the public health response to Ebola. While the CDC may fall into this role, it is up to individual hospitals and practitioners to respond promptly and effectively. Unfortunately, in Texas, several errors – including sending the patient home while infected, delaying sanitation of the patient's apartment, and developing two more confirmed cases – showcase how disorganization in public health can lead to unfavorable outcomes.

And how should the U.S. prevent diseases originating in other countries? Experts agree that closing borders of West African countries would worsen the crisis. Unfortunately, the issue of Ebola as it relates to air travel has become politicized by conservatives, prompting CDC Director Tom Frieden to speak out strongly against a travel banConservative Republicans have even attempted to relate Ebola to anti-immigration reform by claiming that migrants from Central America could bring Ebola through the southern U.S. border (despite the fact that no outbreak of Ebola has ever occurred in Latin America).

In a press conference, Dr. Frieden assured that strong core public health functions could stop the spread of Ebola. Although the CDC and public health workers successfully tracked close contacts of Duncan and isolated those at high risk, those steps could not stop the first incorrect diagnosis or the spread to front-line health workers – arguably the most important role in stopping the epidemic.

The implications of public health slipups cannot be understated. We need to start a conversation about the relationship between federal, state and local public health authorities. We need to simplify and communicate protocols to hospitals and ensure that providers and communities are enacting preparations for infectious diseases. Valuing the field of public health as much as we do individual appointment-based care is essential to stopping an epidemic. We need to organize authority and mobilize an informed and efficient workforce to improve the preparedness of the U.S. health system in responding to public health emergencies.

Emily Cerciello is the Roosevelt Institute | Campus Network Senior Fellow for Health Care, and a senior at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Share This

Daily Digest - August 27: The Known Unknowns of Unemployment

Aug 27, 2014Rachel Goldfarb

Click here to subscribe to Roosevelt First, our weekday morning email featuring the Daily Digest.

A New Reason to Question the Official Unemployment Rate (NYT)

Click here to subscribe to Roosevelt First, our weekday morning email featuring the Daily Digest.

A New Reason to Question the Official Unemployment Rate (NYT)

A new report says that unemployment data has become less accurate over the past 20 years, in part because of declining survey response rates, writes David Leonhardt.

Objecting to Austerity, French Style (New Yorker)

John Cassidy looks at the implosion of the French government this week, as three ministers, including the economy minister, have been pushed out for their objection to austerity policies.

Money for Nothing: Mincome Experiment Could Pay Dividends 40 Years On (AJAM)

Recently analyzed data from a 1970s Canadian experiment in guaranteed basic income shows far-reaching benefits in health and education, writes Benjamin Shingler.

Companies Say ‘No Way’ to ‘Say on Pay’ (WSJ)

Emily Chasan examines the companies that have repeatedly failed Say-on-Pay shareholder votes on their executives' pay packages, and what they have in common.

  • Roosevelt Take: Roosevelt Institute Fellow Susan Holmberg looks at how Say-on-Pay can curb sky-high executive compensation.

SEIU Wins Election To Represent Minnesota Home Care Workers (HuffPo)

Dave Jamieson says that yesterday's vote, which created Minnesota's largest public-sector bargaining unit in history, shows that unions are not letting Harris v. Quinn slow organizing.

Burger King’s Supremely American Habit (MSNBC)

Timothy Noah points out that Burger King, which might be planning an inversion to avoid U.S. corporate income taxes, already pushes as many costs as possible off its parent company.

Mayor Garcetti Pitching New Minimum Wage Plan to Business Groups (LA Times)

Catherine Saillant reports on business opposition to the Los Angeles mayor's plan, which would raise the city's minimum wage to $13.50 over three years and then tie it to local inflation.

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

Pages