Labor Day: How unions promote racial solidarity in the United States

""

Research consistently demonstrates that unions across the United States promote the enforcement of labor protections, increase pay for both union and nonunion members, and reduce income inequality. Importantly, labor organizations also help to institutionalize norms of fairness and equity and narrow pay divides along the lines of race and gender.

Amid this year’s Labor Day celebrations, a closer look is warranted at how unions can promote interracial solidarity. One telling outcome is that unionization also reduces racial animus among union members and highlights why increasing the bargaining power of all U.S. workers is key to creating a more equitable economy and a society better equipped to deal with institutional racism at work and in our communities.

In a 2021 paper, Paul Frymer at Princeton University and Jacob Grumbach at the University of Washington propose that in addition to upholding labor standards, boosting wages, and putting the brakes on economic inequality, unions temper racial resentment and foster support for public policies that benefit Black workers, families, and communities.

In their study, Frymer and Grumbach examine the relationship between falling union membership and rising White identity politics. The two political scientists develop a theory in which unions promote support for racial inclusion and equality by influencing the attitudes of their White members.

Indeed, the authors find that union membership not only reduces racial resentment but also results in White unionized workers becoming more likely to support affirmative action and government efforts to improve the social and economic standing of the Black community, compared to their nonunionized counterparts. As such, the steady decline in union membership rates since the late 1950s reflects the weakening of an institution that improves workers’ labor market outcomes and fosters support for civil rights and a stable democracy through its effect on White workers’ attitudes toward race.     

An array of complementary research supports their conclusions.

How unions influence political views and attitudes toward race

The power of unions has declined since the height of the labor movement in the mid-20th century, yet unions continue to play an important role both in promoting redistributive policies and in influencing the political views of their members. For one, labor unions are some of the largest civic organizations in the United States and currently represent 14.3 million workers—almost 11 percent of all U.S. wage and salary workers.

Moreover, as sites of democratic deliberation, political mobilization, and information sharing, unions can influence the policy landscape. Research finds, for example, that states with stronger unions tend to have more progressive tax codes and to spend more on public education and on their income support infrastructure.

In the case of attitudes toward race, over the past few decades, unions have had increasing ideological and strategic interests in fostering interracial solidarity. Bruce Western at Columbia University and Jake Rosenfeld at Washington University in Saint Louis call unions “pillars of the moral economy in modern labor markets.” As such, organized labor can be an important advocate for racial egalitarianism by promoting norms of equity, social solidarity, and advancing the interests of low-wage workers both inside and outside the workplace.

In addition, the U.S. labor movement has become more diverse in terms of its racial, ethnic, and gender composition at least since the early 1980s. This means union leaders have incentives to be inclusive of—and responsive to—the interests of workers of color in order to grow their organizations, secure union election victories, and successfully negotiate collective bargaining agreements.

Frymer and Grumbach primarily use two strategies to examine the relationship between union membership and racial resentment. Using data from the Cooperative Congressional Election Study’s Common Content—which is conducted twice a year during election years and contains a sample of about 30,000 respondents—they analyze differences in attitudes toward race. They find that among otherwise-similar White workers—that is, accounting for factors such as age, level of educational attainment, income, and gender—those who are unionized are less racially resentful and report greater support for affirmative action than those who are not.

To further tease out whether unions have an effect on racial attitudes or whether White workers who are more likely to value racial equity self-select into unions, the authors use data from the Voter Study Group—which surveyed the same 8,000 respondents during the 2012 election cycle and then again during the 2016 election cycle—to follow the evolution of their racial attitudes over time. Consistent with the former findings, the authors find that becoming a union member substantially reduced racial animus among White workers.

In addition, they find that union membership is also associated with greater support for government action that advances the social and economic position of the Black community and promotes fair treatment when it comes to hiring.  

Labor unions have a complicated history of both racism and racial solidarity

The history of the labor movement is certainly not without instances of systemic racism. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Frymer and Grumbach note, unions regularly engaged in discriminatory practices, pushed back against integration, and even mobilized in support of the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882—a restrictive and racist policy which suspended the immigration of Chinese workers and was the first law in U.S. history to ban a group of people on the basis of their race or nationality. Even when not outright segregationist, unions—and craft unions in particular—could be hostile to the enforcement of anti-discrimination measures.  

Union leaders have made alliances with civil rights organizations since the advent of the New Deal in the 1930s, and many labor organizations have been proactive in fostering racial equity and advancing the economic standing of Black workers during the Civil Rights era and since then. But others continued to engage in discriminatory practices, were reluctant to integrate, crowded Black workers into lower-paying jobs, and pushed back against affirmative action policies even in the post-Civil Rights era of the late 1960s and 1970s up to today.  

As such, Frymer and Grumbach point out that their “theory is contextually and institutionally bounded.” In other words, the observed negative relationship between union membership and racial resentment needs to be understood as specific to the current context—one in which labor unions have egalitarian convictions and strategic incentives to foster interracial solidarity. Likewise, the implications of these findings are especially important in the context of the rising nationalism and racism many nations are facing today.

A strong labor movement today can promote social well-being and broadly shared economic growth

Unions not only play an important role in improving the labor market outcomes of their members and serve as a mechanism to help achieve a more dynamic and inclusive economy, but also act as a buffer against White identity politics. A strong labor movement today can therefore push back against racism and longstanding trends of rising income inequality—both of which can be deeply destabilizing for an interracial democracy. While the authors do not test this hypothesis empirically, they argue that the same mechanisms that temper racial resentment toward the Black community are also likely to reduce White union members’ resentment against immigrants and other marginalized groups.

In finding that union membership reduces racial resentment, Frymer and Grumbach’s research highlights one of the most compelling benefits of promoting workers’ bargaining power, as well as the importance of making it easier for more workers to join and form unions through policies such as the Protecting Right to Organize, or PRO, Act. Research demonstrates that bargaining power is a critical component of reducing income inequality and ensuring that U.S. workers receive income equal to the value they create. In this way, worker power actually helps achieve efficient outcomes like those that would exist in a dynamic and competitive economy.

Black workers tend to face persistent wage disparities, and those lower earnings reflect centuries of structural racism. That’s why exercising power at work is core to being paid fairly. Giving workers more tools to exercise their voice at work, promoting policies and political attitudes that advance racial equality, and balancing power in the U.S. labor market would ensure that the economic growth is more broadly shared.

Posted in Uncategorized

Completing the unfinished New Deal to overcome 21st century U.S. economic inequality

""

President Joe Biden wants Congress to enact his two signature legislative packages—the $1 trillion bipartisan physical infrastructure plan passed by the U.S. Senate earlier in August and a $3.5 trillion social infrastructure package currently being crafted by Democratic congressional leaders. President Biden argues that these investments are needed to ensure the U.S. economy “builds back better” as it recovers from the coronavirus recession.

But even President Biden’s “big” rhetoric doesn’t fully capture the scope of his policy ambitions. He wants nothing less than to complete the unfinished business of President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s 1930s-era New Deal, once again rejecting fiscal austerity while correcting for racist carve-outs, filling in the holes in our social and care infrastructure, and investing to abate the increasingly dire consequences of climate change. And he wants to demonstrate that the federal government—and the democratic processes undergirding it—can deliver for everyday workers and their families in the United States.

Congress too has embraced this “unfinished New Deal” rhetoric, even going so far as to establish a Select Committee in the House of Representatives explicitly modeled on the FDR-era Temporary National Economic Committee, which was launched in 1938 to study the deleterious effects of overly concentrated economic power. The new House Select Committee on Economic Disparity and Fairness in Growth, chaired by Rep. Jim Himes (D-CT), promises to “develop solutions to the key economic issue of our time: the yawning prosperity gap between wealthy Americans and everyone else.”

Of course, the government programs that were first set up by the New Deal nearly a century ago—the Social Security Act turned 86 earlier this month—need a thorough update to address today’s different economic challenges and help the types of workers who were left behind by President Roosevelt.

Take, for example, infrastructure investment. The ringing success of the Tennessee Valley Authority—designed explicitly to bring electricity and economic development to one of the nation’s poorest regions of the early 20th century—baked into our policymaking the idea that the federal government has a wide-ranging obligation to provide for the overall public good through large investments in infrastructure. This is likely one reason why the physical infrastructure bill, which includes $550 billion in new investments in transportation, water systems, broadband networks, and electricity grids, won bipartisan support in the Senate. Unlike during the New Deal, though, these investments are, in many cases, specifically designed to provide Black, Latinx, and Indigenous communities with affordable transportation to jobs, safe drinking water, and reliable broadband access, addressing our country’s continuing racial inequities.

Similarly, President Biden’s proposals include investments in a range of job-creating projects to mitigate the effects of climate change, harkening back to President Roosevelt’s commitment to provide good-paying jobs to the many unemployed men laid low by the Great Depression. Today, of course, many U.S. industrial workers—men and women alike—are struggling in our post-industrial economy.

One group that President Roosevelt’s programs left out, though, were domestic service workers, mostly women and especially women of color. They were denied the benefits of the New Deal because of the opposition of racist politicians in the president’s Democratic congressional coalition and due to societal expectations at the time that men were the appropriate sole breadwinners for families. President Biden’s Build Back Better plans attempt to counteract these explicitly racist and sexist New Deal shortcomings by recognizing the role of women in the workforce and in caregiving, especially women of color, and investing accordingly.

The initial physical infrastructure plan, for example, included investments in long-term care services and long-term care workers, a large majority of whom are underpaid women of color. Those provisions were dropped by the Senate, but there is still a chance that the authors of the social infrastructure package take up the fight and begin to right those New Deal wrongs.

The social infrastructure package also could include a multibillion-dollar investment in child care—an investment that research demonstrates can boost parents’ labor force participation. That’s also why President Biden’s concomitant call for investment in universal pre-Kindergarten would, as academic research shows, create good-paying jobs and boost women’s labor force participation. 

But President Biden, like President Roosevelt before him, sees these multitrillion-dollar investments over the remainder of this decade as far more than the sum of their parts. Back in the 1920s and 1930s, the United States faced political challenges from right-wing populists and fascist demagogues at home and abroad who sought nondemocratic means to “fix” the deep and severe economic problems of that era. FDR saw in his New Deal programs the means to respond to these challenges by having the federal government invest directly and sweepingly in the U.S. economy to demonstrate the superiority of progressive democratic values.

It worked, of course, helping to cement the 20th century as the “American Century.”  

Fast forward to 2021. President Biden’s pitch is all about creating the economic and social conditions under which Americans of all races, ethnicities, and genders can prosper. This, in turn, could well turn back the dangerous and demagogic anti-democratic trends in our nation and shine a light anew on why completing the unfinished business of the New Deal to meet the challenges of a 21st century economy will ensure this century, too, remains an American Century.

Equitable Growth announces record $1.39 million in research grants for scholars examining economic inequality and growth

'''

The Washington Center for Equitable Growth today announced its 2021 research grants, with funding of $1,392,795—a record-breaking level—awarded to 62 researchers. These scholars are studying the various channels through which economic inequality, in all its forms, impacts economic growth and stability.

For the past 8 years, Equitable Growth has funded economists and social scientists in various stages of their careers, including faculty members, postdoctoral students, and Ph.D. candidates at U.S. colleges and universities. This year’s cohort of scholars makes up the largest group of annual grantees in Equitable Growth history, with 48 academic and 14 doctoral grantees.

“The advances from every research grant will be invaluable to broadening our knowledge of the challenges and opportunities present in the U.S. economy for today’s workers and families, across race, ethnicity, gender, and class,” said Equitable Growth’s incoming President and CEO Michelle Holder in a press release announcing the grants.

Equitable Growth grants fall into four overarching categories: human capital and well-being, the labor market, macroeconomics and inequality, and market structure. The awards emphasize Equitable Growth’s commitment to funding cutting-edge research that addresses pressing policy concerns and will inform the policy debate in the months and years to come.

Equitable Growth’s 2021 Request for Proposals highlighted the importance of dimensions and intersections of inequality, particularly along the lines of race and ethnicity, in recognition of the fact that research on the consequences of structural racism is essential to understanding and identifying the drivers of U.S. income and wealth inequality, and how these inequalities are a drag on growth. Several funded projects will examine a number of issues related to structural racism and racial inequality, and also offer potential policy solutions.

  • Yao Lu will examine the source of racial and ethnic inequality among the highly educated workforce in the United States by looking at how educational credentials translate into labor market outcomes. She will look at which dimensions of mismatches in the labor market and which processes of the employment relationship drive racial and ethnic inequality.
  • Christopher Wimer, Zachary Parolin, and Ronald Mincy will study the effect of social infrastructure on racial differences in the intergenerational transmission of poverty. The researchers will look into whether policy changes and introduction of specific income support programs such as the Earned Income Tax Credit, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families reduce racial disparities in poverty rates across generations.
  • Using three major empirical techniques, Janice Fine, Daniel Galvin, Jenn Round, and Hana Shepherd seek to understand the relationship between geographic region, race, labor standards enforcement, and minimum wage violations in the United States. Their research also aims to better understand the role of federalism in creating and maintaining Black-White racial wage disparities in the U.S. economy.
  • Luca Perdoni will estimate the effects of redlining and other discriminatory property assessment practices on home values, income composition, and residential segregation over both the short and long terms.
  • Examining the racial divide in U.S. homeownership rates, Cherrie Nicole Bucknor will determine the impact of extended-family wealth on the ability of renters to transition to owning their homes. Her research will contribute to the literature on intergenerational transmission of wealth and the impact of structural racism, as well as propose policy ideas that could address persistent racial wealth inequality in the United States.
  • Recognizing that surveillance is ubiquitous in the lives of the formerly incarcerated, Brandon Alston will examine the effect that a criminal record has on upward mobility and work opportunities among Black men. He will explore whether surveillance reproduces inequality, including by mediating access to vital economic institutions and supports.

Equitable Growth not only deepened our previous commitment to support research on the roots and effects of structural racism and discrimination, but also sought, for the first time, to fund studies on the economic effects of climate change.

  • Mark Curtis and Ioana Marinescu will study the distributional implications for U.S. workers in a low-carbon economy. They will look at the effects of reducing dependence on carbon-intensive industries and increasing investment in green and renewable industries on opportunities and wages for workers, as well as which workers benefit from such changes.
  • Moving away from standard climate-economy models, Gregory Casey, Stephie Fried, and Matthew Gibson aim to capture how vulnerability to climate change differs between consumption and investment sectors of the economy and how this difference evolves over time. It will build on previous research by considering climate change a determinant of productivity and taking a more disaggregated look at the economy.
  • Jonathan Colmer and John Voorheis will examine the unequal effects of hurricanes in the United States on disadvantaged and advantaged populations. They seek to provide a deeper understanding of the consequences of and responses to hurricanes and differences across socioeconomic and demographic groups.

Another first-of-its-kind development for Equitable Growth’s grant program this year were the investments made in research focused solely on child care, the importance of which for the smooth functioning of the economy the coronavirus pandemic has underscored.

  • Julia Henly and David Alexander will look at the effects of the coronavirus pandemic on inequities in subsidized child care and provide policy suggestions to strengthen the home-based child care sector, which tends to be more affordable and accessible, especially for Black, Latinx, low-income, and rural families.
  • In interviews with licensed and unlicensed child care providers, Corey Shdaimah, Bweikia Steen, and Elizabeth Palley seek to better understand how informal, home-based child care providers can be supported in their efforts to increase access to early childhood care in the United States. The researchers will identify challenges these child care providers face in delivering high-quality, affordable care options to families that need it.
  • Jonathan Borowsky will explore racial disparities in access to family child care centers—those located within an operator’s home—by looking at homeownership rates and disparities in homeownership by race. Borowsky poses that areas with lower rates of homeownership may lack access to this type of child care facility, considering that family child care centers face licensing obstacles in rental properties.

Three grantees in this year’s cycle will study large, national firms and the effects of employer power on workers’ wages and labor market dynamics in the United States.

  • Focusing on monopsony power and dignity at work, Arindrajit Dube will research how nonwage amenities, such as control over one’s schedule, contribute to workplace power. He will survey Walmart workers in an effort to uncover the level of monopsony present in the U.S. labor market and the role that these amenities play in monopsony circumstances.
  • Binyamin Kleinman will look at the relationship between rising regional inequality and the increasing dominance of large employers. He will study where these “superstar” firms create high-paying, high-skill jobs versus low-wage jobs, and how that contributes to regional inequalities and unequal demand for skills across geographic areas.
  • Justin Wiltshire will study the effect of Walmart supercenters on local labor markets and wages. He will compare aggregate employment and earnings in areas where a supercenter opened to those in areas where Walmart tried but did not succeed in opening a supercenter.

Other labor market studies include:

  • Research by Matthew Johnson and David Levine into the effect of government safety regulations enforcement on individual workers’ earnings. Johnson and Levine will compare the wage trajectories of establishments (and workers at those establishments) randomly selected for inspection by the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration with those eligible but not selected for OSHA inspection.
  • A study by Ashvin Gandhi and Krista Ruffini on minimum wage reforms and firms’ occupational composition, distribution of hours, and scheduling practices. Using the nursing home sector—a major employer of low-wage workers—as a case study, the researchers will examine wage policies in the industry and their impact on workers’ economic well-being, as well as racial and gender pay divides.
  • Research by Ihsaan Bassier on sectoral bargaining in monopsonistic labor markets. Bassier will use data from South Africa, where 40 percent of workers in the formal sector are covered by industry-region sectoral bargaining, to determine the impact on worker power and whether these agreements mitigate the effects of monopsony.

Much like our previous grant cycles, Equitable Growth this year will fund a number of compelling studies on market concentration and competition, including in the healthcare, agriculture, and Big Tech sectors.

  • Following decades of mergers in agribusiness, Matthew Weinberg, Nathan Miller, Francisco Garrido, and Minji Kim seek to learn the effects of increasing buyer concentration in the beef industry. They will determine the effects of this oligopsony power and how it has changed in the past two decades.
  • Paul Eliason, Ryan McDevitt, and James Roberts will examine the impact of joint ventures between physicians and dialysis facilities on patient referrals, spending, and outcomes by building a first-of-its-kind dataset tracking the ownership of dialysis facilities, including whether physicians have an ownership stake.
  • Adam Jorring and Greg Buchak will study the impact of local concentration of mortgage lenders on household credit access and homeownership. They will build off preliminary results showing that in areas with higher concentration, lenders charge higher fees, mortgage applications are rejected more often, and the pool of originated mortgages is less risky.
  • Florian Ederer, Mireia Giné, Bruno Pellegrino, and Martin Schmalz plan to study the welfare effects of common ownership. Their study, performed in four parts, will link executive compensation and measures of common ownership, examine the impact of common ownership on innovation, and collect data on common ownership outside the United States.
  • Diving into Amazon.com Inc.’s platform, German Gutierrez will look at the evolution, market power, and welfare implications of the Big Tech giant and whether its actions and behavior have anticompetitive results.
  • Kritika Goel will answer two main questions in her research: What are the welfare effects of third-degree price discrimination, and what are the effects of third-degree price discrimination on the take-up of newer and better technologies? Using defibrillators as a case study, she will estimate a model of supply and demand, and conduct a counterfactual analysis in which third-degree price discrimination is banned.

Likewise, research projects centered around the macroeconomy and taxation, mobility, and human capital and well-being received funding to further develop our understanding of how these areas are connected to rising economic inequality.

  • Loujaina Abdelwahed and Jacob Robbins will track inequality in real time amid the coronavirus pandemic and ensuing recession. They will measure consumer spending inequality in the United States to determine the impact of the pandemic on consumption inequality along the income distribution, as well as the impact of government stimulus payments and other income support programs on spending and consumption patterns.
  • Cristobal Young will focus on the implications for progressive taxation of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act’s cap on state and local tax deductions. Young seeks to determine whether the rich are more likely to move when their tax rates are high, whether the TCJA tax differential led to greater migration, and whether the TCJA increased the likelihood that, if rich people moved, they went to lower-tax destinations.
  • Building on existing research on the effects of monetary policy on income inequality, Louphou Coulibaly and Javier Bianchi will look specifically at macroprudential regulation and redistribution. They will research how the effectiveness of prudential capital controls as a financial stability tool are affected by the distribution of income, and what the distributional implications are of prudential regulations.
  • Wendy Morrison will examine how increasing labor market polarization affects the transmission of monetary policy. Morrison’s research looks into whether investment spurred by monetary policy will have muted effects on aggregate consumption if workers whose labor is complementary with capital have lower marginal propensities to consume.
  • Basil Halperin and Daniele Caratelli will build a realistic model of price stickiness to help inform central bank policies around inflation targeting. They will explore whether central banks should use nominal income targeting rather than inflation targeting, and whether this change in policy would mean that central banks do not have to tighten policy in response to strong wage growth.
  • Looking at the manufacturing industry after World War II, Andrew Garin and Jonathan Rothbaum will dive into the relationship between high-paying, stable manufacturing jobs and upward mobility among the less-educated workforce in the United States. They will examine how public investment in manufacturing facilities amid the war’s industrial mobilization effort created high-wage employment and how that investment contributed to upward mobility in the long term.
  • Meredith Slopen will study the impact of paid sick leave mandates on women’s employment, income, and economic security, assessing whether paid sick leave reduces short-term income volatility and increases long-term economic security.

This year’s applicants responded, as in years past, to Equitable Growth’s annual Request for Proposals and were selected in an extremely competitive process that included vetting by staff and a panel of external academic experts, along with review and approval by the Equitable Growth Steering Committee. As our 2021 grantees finalize and publish their research, we will ensure that policymakers and the public are aware of the latest evidence on these important questions about economic inequality and growth, continuing to serve as a bridge between the academic and policymaking communities.

Posted in Uncategorized

Weekend reading: Income support programs reduce poverty and boost earnings for U.S. low-wage workers

This is a post we publish each Friday with links to articles that touch on economic inequality and growth. The first section is a round-up of what Equitable Growth published this week and the second is relevant and interesting articles we’re highlighting from elsewhere. We won’t be the first to share these articles, but we hope by taking a look back at the whole week, we can put them in context.

Equitable Growth round-up

Policymakers expanded investments in critical social infrastructure after the onset of the coronavirus pandemic and ensuring recession, expanding access and funding for programs such as Unemployment Insurance and the Child Tax Credit. These expansions have helped millions of U.S. families and workers but are only temporary, meaning policymakers are now debating whether to make these measures permanent. Michael A. Schultz urges policymakers to do so, detailing his recent working paper on poverty and low-wage workers’ mobility into higher wages. His research finds that 30 percent of low-wage workers who experience poverty in the previous year move to better wages within 2 years, compared to 45 percent of low-wage workers who did not experience poverty. A significant explainer of the difference comes down to household resources—which are bolstered by programs that provide income support, buffering the effects of falling into poverty. Schultz concludes by making several policy recommendations, including permanently expanding these social infrastructure programs, removing complexity and confusion around applying for them, and providing bank accounts to every American to ensure they are able to easily receive benefits.

Research published earlier this year looks into the effect of coronavirus disruptions in family caregiving and highlights the importance of investments in care infrastructure and paid leave. Yulya Truskinovsky details the findings of her co-authored working paper, which studied the mental health effects for family caregivers of added or changed caregiving responsibilities as a result of COVID-19. Truskinovsky and her co-authors show that those who experienced such disruptions were more likely to screen positive for depression, anxiety, and loneliness than either noncaregivers or those caregivers who did not face disruptions. This, she explains, underscores the essential nature of investments in care infrastructure and programs such as paid leave to support both caregivers and workers who take on caregiving responsibilities for loved ones. These programs are all the more vital considering that the U.S. workforce is aging, and as such, family caregivers will play an increasingly central role in the nation’s healthcare system.

Equitable Growth’s 2021 policy conference, “Equitable Growth 2021: Evidence for a Stronger Economic Future,” is coming up in a few weeks. This biennial event highlights our role as a connector of the academic and policymaking communities, bringing together experts and leaders across issue areas and disciplines to discuss policy solutions for the most pressing issues facing the United States. As speakers continue to be announced for this year’s virtual meeting, Christian Edlagan, Maria Monroe, and I look back at the incredible contributions and expertise of participants from our 2019 policy conference, in this month’s installment of Expert Focus. (And click here to register for this year’s event, on September 20 and 21.)

Links from around the web

Unemployment Insurance benefits helped a larger share of U.S. workers during the coronavirus pandemic and ensuing recession than during the Great Recession of 2007–2009, reports Yahoo!Money’s Denitsa Tsekova. A study by the Federal Reserve Board finds that 52 percent of UI recipients whose 2020 earnings dropped by 10 percent or more received to buffer their income loss, compared to 19 percent of recipients in 2009. Considering that around the same percentage of workers lost more than 10 percent of their income in 2020 and in the Great Recession—around 33 percent—the financial outcomes for workers during this economic downturn were much better thanks to the coronavirus aid packages that expanded unemployment benefits and provided stimulus payments. Tsekova details the differences in UI benefits between the coronavirus recession and the Great Recession and explains how the pandemic response was more supportive for those workers in need.

The climate crisis is increasingly at risk of becoming an economic crisis, writes The New York TimesNeil Irwin. With rising global temperatures comes added economic and financial problems alongside humanitarian crises. The current Fed Chair Jerome Powell has taken a more moderate approach to dealing with climate change, much to activists’ dismay. But, Irwin explains, perhaps one of the most important things the Fed can do to fight climate change is to maintain a stable, strong economy. Irwin details the research behind public opinion, climate politics, and the economy, explaining that if the U.S. economy is steady then there may be more political appetite and opportunity for bold climate action.

Friday figure

Share of low-wage workers who experienced mobility to higher wages through each year, by years it took them to move to higher wages and household poverty status

Figure is from Equitable Growth’s “Income support programs boost earnings for low-wage workers by reducing household poverty in the United States,” by Michael A. Schultz.

Income support programs boost earnings for low-wage workers by reducing household poverty in the United States

""

The U.S. government expanded Unemployment Insurance and support for families with children amid the coronavirus pandemic to a degree unprecedented in recent history. Preliminary estimates of these expansions show their positive impacts on U.S. households. These income support programs are, among other things, reducing child poverty by almost 50 percent and ensuring parents who lose their jobs through no fault of their own can keep paying for everyday necessities such as rent and groceries.

Yet the expansion of Unemployment Insurance and the Child Tax Credit are only temporary. Congress will soon begin debating whether to make these measures permanent. As policymakers consider the implications of permanently improving our nation’s social infrastructure, they should look at the impact of income support on wages and poverty across the U.S. workforce.

My new working paper finds that broader accessibility to household income support leads to positive labor market outcomes for workers. Some think expanding income support will increase the likelihood of low-wage workers choosing unemployment over work. My research, however, finds the opposite: Low-wage workers in households falling into poverty who receive greater income support are more likely to not only remain employed, but also start earning higher wages.

Household poverty and low-wage workers’ upward mobility

Although 80 percent of low-wage workers are not in poverty, low-wage work and poverty are often conflated. The low-wage labor market encompasses those workers earning less than $14 per day in 2021 dollars, using the international standard definition. This is currently about 25 percent of all workers in the United States and has remained a relatively stable share of the labor force for at least the past 50 years. (See Figure 1.)

Figure 1

The percent of U.S. workers in low-wage jobs, U.S. individuals in poverty, and U.S. workers both in low-wage jobs and in poverty, 1968–2015

It’s important to note that poverty is a household economic situation, not a permanent status. Most households in poverty are in poverty for only a year. Consequently, low-wage workers in poverty and not in poverty are similar in terms of education, work experience, jobs, and demographic characteristics, such as age, race, and gender. This also helps explain why, as Figure 1 shows, only about 20 percent of low-wage workers are in households in poverty in any given year, using the international standard definition of the poverty rate.1  

My research sheds light on the interaction between low-wage work and poverty. I estimate what economists call “individual wage mobility”—the movement of low-wage workers up and down the lower rungs of the earnings ladder—for households in and not in poverty in the previous year.

Using a nationally representative survey called the Panel Study of Income Dynamics that follows U.S. households and the individuals within them over time, I find that about 30 percent of low-wage workers who experienced poverty in the previous year move to better wages within 2 years, compared to 45 percent of low-wage workers who did not experience poverty in the previous year. (See Figure 2.)

Figure 2

Share of low-wage workers who experienced mobility to higher wages through each year, by years it took them to move to higher wages and household poverty status

Simply put, falling into poverty disrupts households. Household disruptions make it more difficult for workers to search for alternative jobs. Finding alternative jobs is one of the primary ways workers in the U.S. labor market gain a wage increase. Disrupted households must divert more resources, such as time and money, to address the disruptions, limiting the ability to search for new jobs.

Households falling into poverty face the challenge of greater disruption with fewer resources to manage that disruption. Greater losses of household income when falling into poverty are an approximation of greater household disruption. Consistent with this explanation, I find that low-wage workers whose households lose a greater share of their household income when falling into poverty have lower rates of mobility out of low-wage work. (See Figure 3.)

Figure 3

Decline in workers' likelihood of moving on to higher wages by percent drop in household income for households that fell into poverty

I also find that workers in households experiencing longer poverty spells—of 3 or more years—are much less likely to move out of low-wage work than those workers in households in the first 2 years of poverty. Income support keeps households from falling deeper into poverty and helps shorten the time a household remains in poverty.

My study then estimates how other characteristics explain why workers in poverty households are less upwardly mobile. I find that human capital factors, such as education and work experience, explain just 20 percent of the difference in mobility outcomes among workers in households either experiencing or not experiencing poverty. Much more significant is a household’s resources, such as household savings and average income across the previous 3 years, which explains 60 percent of the poverty gap in mobility.

Improving U.S. social infrastructure helps workers find dignity at work

Policymakers should permanently expand social infrastructure programs, such as Unemployment Insurance and the Child Tax Credit. This can help boost workers’ wages and reduce household poverty by providing timely income support to families in need. Timeliness means the income comes to households before or as they need it, which buffers the household disruptions of falling into poverty and helps workers in these households find better jobs.

Removing the complexity and confusion surrounding the application for these programs will improve workers’ outcomes. Burdensome paperwork and reporting requirements tax the limited resources of low-income households, reducing workers’ resources to search for new jobs and move to better wages. The catastrophic failure of the joint federal and state Unemployment Insurance system to deliver timely aid in many states since the onset of the coronavirus pandemic is the exemplar of trying to target benefits gone wrong. Reform is needed.

The newly expanded Child Tax Credit presents a potential path forward in terms of the structure of our nation’s income support delivery infrastructure. CTC payments are deposited directly to families’ bank accounts every month. This allows households to use these resources to meet pressing needs and more easily resolve the disruptions associated with living on a low income and working in a precarious labor market.

Congress should consider providing a free bank account to every American. My data reveal that about 20 percent of workers starting a low-wage job in recent years do not have a checking or savings account. Among those entrants in poverty in the previous year, 40 percent are unbanked. This is consistent with national estimates of the unbanked. Programs such as the Child Tax Credit are ineffective if the benefits never reach those who need them most.

Responsive social infrastructure made up of timely income support programs can help workers avoid poverty spells and move to better-paying jobs. Higher wages help put these workers and their families on a more secure income trajectory. This strengthens the labor force and bolsters the overall economy. It also provides these workers and their families with the dignity that comes with better-wage jobs. Higher-paying employment is more stable and more likely to provide benefits such as health insurance and further training.

Easing access to income support programs and making the recent expansions permanent would have wide-ranging impacts across the U.S. economy and society. Not only would it boost wages for workers and lower the poverty rate, but it would also reduce economic inequality in the United States.

Posted in Uncategorized

Expert Focus: Bridging the gap between policymakers and academics at our biennial policy conference

""

Equitable Growth is committed to building a community of scholars working to understand how inequality affects broadly shared growth and stability. To that end, we have created the monthly series, “Expert Focus.” This series highlights scholars in the Equitable Growth network and beyond who are at the frontier of social science research. We encourage you to learn more about both the researchers featured below and our broader network of experts.

Since our founding, Equitable Growth has sought to serve as a bridge between academia and the policymaking community in order to advance evidence-backed policy ideas that foster strong, stable, and broad-based economic growth. Part of our work in this area is reflected in our biennial policy conference, which brings together policymakers, academics, advocates, and thought leaders across issue areas and disciplines to discuss and share the best research-backed ideas for ensuring equitable growth across the U.S. economy.

On September 20 and 21, Equitable Growth is excited to host “Equitable Growth 2021: Evidence for a Stronger Economic Future,” a virtual event centered on using this unique moment in government to enact long-overdue structural changes. Not only has the coronavirus pandemic and ensuing recession exposed deep economic and societal fragilities in the United States—including along racial and gender lines—but policymakers also have a remarkable opportunity to address these longstanding challenges and create an economy that works for all Americans. As speakers continue to be confirmed for this year’s event, including U.S. Secretary of Labor Marty Walsh and U.S. Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), we take a look at the incredible contributions and expertise of participants from past conferences. This month’s installment of Expert Focus highlights speakers from the 2019 policy conference, “Vision 2020: Evidence for a Stronger Economy,” all of whom have vast experience in the policy, academic, and nonprofit sectors.

Equitable Growth 2021: Evidence for a Stronger Economic Future

Learn More

Byron Auguste

Opportunity@Work

Byron Auguste is the CEO and co-founder of Opportunity@Work, a nonprofit social enterprise that seeks to expand access to career opportunities so all Americans can work, learn, and earn to their full potential. In 2020, he co-authored a working paper that explores the extent to which workers who are skilled through alternative routes, or STARs, can help fill the skills gap—and how STARs are often left out of the high-wage workforce due to the increasing weight placed on (often unnecessary) higher education credentials, exacerbating wage inequality and reducing upward mobility. Auguste was previously deputy assistant to the president for economic policy and deputy director of the National Economic Council during the Obama administration, where he focused on job creation, labor markets, investments, and infrastructure, among other areas. He recently joined Equitable Growth’s Steering Committee to advise on the academic grants program and strengthen connections within its scholarly community as a leading voice on U.S. economic inequality and labor market outcomes. Learn more about Auguste’s work and his take on structural racism in the economy from his panel, split into two parts, at Equitable Growth’s 2019 policy conference.

Quote from Byron Auguste on the skills gap

Arindrajit Dube

University of Massachusetts Amherst

Arindrajit Dube is a professor of economics at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. He is also a research associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research and a research fellow at the Institute for the Study of Labor. His work focuses on labor and health economics, public finance, and political economy, including research on competition and wage-setting in the U.S. labor market, monopsony, the impact of unions, fairness concerns in the workplace, and the role of unemployment insurance. He received an Equitable Growth grant in 2018 and has been a contributing author on several Equitable Growth projects, many of which focus on studying the effects of the minimum wage. Dube is currently a member of Equitable Growth’s Research Advisory Board, which provides critical support to the organization’s grantmaking and academic engagement. Learn more about Dube’s work and his take on monopsony power in the labor market via this fireside chat at Equitable Growth’s 2019 conference and his subsequent Vision 2020 essay.

Quote from Arin Dube on monopsony power

Karen Dynan

Harvard University

Karen Dynan is a professor of the practice of economics at Harvard University. She has previously held roles in the federal government and at nonprofits, having served as assistant secretary for economic policy and chief economist at the U.S. Department of the Treasury during the Obama administration, as vice president and co-director of the economic studies program at the Brookings Institution, and in senior roles at the Federal Reserve Board. Dynan’s research centers on macroeconomic and fiscal policy, consumer behavior, and household finances, and her focus on consumption and savings patterns shaped her approach to economic analysis and policymaking in the aftermath of the Great Recession of 2007–2009. Her breadth of experience across sectors is an asset to Equitable Growth’s Steering Committee, where Dynan not only supports the next generation of scholars but also guides the organization’s efforts to study economic inequality and to ensure strong and stable growth through informed policy choices. Learn more about Dynan’s work and her perspective on the effects of inequality on macroeconomics from Equitable Growth’s 2019 conference, broken into two parts.

Quote from Karen Dynan on households struggling to save

Bradley Hardy

Georgetown University

Bradley Hardy is an associate professor in the McCourt School of Public Policy at Georgetown University. He is also a nonresident senior fellow in economic studies at the Brookings Institution and a research fellow with the Center for Household Financial Stability at the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, as well as an elected member of the National Academy of Social Insurance. Hardy’s research interests lie in labor economics, income volatility trends, and racial economic inequality, among other areas. He received an Equitable Growth grant in 2017 to study the long-term effects of racial segregation on human capital and upward mobility in the United States, and co-authored a chapter for Equitable Growth’s Vision 2020 series of essays on race and the lack of U.S. intergenerational mobility. Hardy also recently discussed his work on anti-poverty policy, socioeconomic outcomes, and neighborhood economic development within the United States at an Equitable Growth virtual event on addressing regional inequalities. Learn more about Hardy’s work on race, intergenerational mobility, and the need for structural change in the United States from his panel at Equitable Growth’s 2019 policy conference, split into two parts.

Quote from Bradley Hardy on economic inequality and low mobility

Cecilia Muñoz

New America

Cecilia Muñoz is a senior advisor at New America, an organization dedicated to confronting the challenges caused by rapid technological and social change and seizing the opportunities those changes create. She is also a senior fellow at Results for America, a nonprofit that works to advance the use of data and evidence in policymaking. Previously, she served on President Barack Obama’s senior staff as the first Latinx director of the Domestic Policy Council and director of Intergovernmental Affairs. Prior to her time in the executive branch, Muñoz spent 20 years at the National Council of La Raza (now UNIDOS US), the largest Hispanic policy and advocacy organization in the United States. Muñoz has written about the importance of diversity and the challenges many women and people of color face in fields historically dominated by men and White people, as well as the importance of recognizing the economic contributions of immigrants in the United States. Learn more about Muñoz’s experience working with questions around technology and the future of work, as well as the structural changes necessary to ensure the U.S. economy works for all workers, from her panel at Equitable Growth’s 2019 policy conference, divided into two parts.

Quote from Cecilia Munoz on policymaking with input from target communities

Interested in learning more about our biennial policy conference?

For information about “Equitable Growth 2021: Evidence for a Stronger Economic Future,” click here. To register to attend the event on September 20 and 21, click here.

To watch more sessions and highlights from Equitable Growth’s “Vision 2020: Evidence for a Stronger Economy,” click here.

Equitable Growth is building a network of experts across disciplines and at various stages in their career who can exchange ideas and ensure that research on inequality and broadly shared growth is relevant, accessible, and informative to both the policymaking process and future research agendas. Explore the ways you can connect with our network or take advantage of the support we offer here. 

Coronavirus disruptions in family caregiving highlight the importance of investments in U.S. care infrastructure and paid leave

""

Most workers in the United States at some point over the course of their lives will take on multiple unpaid caregiving responsibilities, be it caring for a child, an elderly parent, or an ailing relative. This can be highly rewarding and meaningful work, but it also can be incredibly challenging, particularly for those trying to balance these responsibilities with paid work.

The coronavirus pandemic highlights anew some of these work-life challenges, particularly as relates to working parents, especially mothers, who have had to piece together child care arrangements in the midst of school and day care closures or leave the labor force altogether. But much less is known about how the pandemic affects other family care arrangements or the consequences of these disruptions on caregivers’ mental health and employment status.

A working paper I co-authored earlier this year with Jessica Finlay and Lindsay Kobayashi of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor explores this less-studied area of caregiving amid the pandemic. We look at how family caregivers ages 55 and older dealt with sudden disruptions in caregiving arrangements due to the coronavirus and COVID-19, the disease caused by the virus, in the in the spring of 2020.

Family caregivers are those people who provide care for a spouse, elderly parent, or other relative with a long-term illness or disability, as well as grandparents who care for their grandchildren and those providing unpaid care to recipients without a formal kinship relationship, such as a friend or a neighbor. Family caregiving typically does not include parents caring for their own children. We decided to study those ages 55 and up because this group typically provides family caregiving while also facing age-based elevated risks for COVID-19 morbidity and mortality.

Using data collected between April 17 and May 15, 2020 from the COVID-19 Coping Survey, an online questionnaire, our study measures the mental health and employment outcomes for a national sample of around 2,500 respondents, of whom 535—or more than 1 in 5—were family caregivers. We find that the coronavirus pandemic disrupted more than half of family caregiving arrangements, with more than 30 percent of caregivers reporting additional or new care responsibilities as a result of the crisis. Another 20 percent of caregivers reported that they were providing less care than usual, likely due to social distancing measures and concerns about their health or the health of their loved ones.

Troublingly, we also find that these disruptions were associated with negative mental health outcomes, such as increased depression, anxiety, and loneliness. Those respondents whose care arrangements were disrupted were 18.1 percentage points more likely to screen positive for depression, 19.5 percentage points more likely to screen positive for anxiety, and 16.1 percentage points more likely to screen positive for loneliness than either noncaregivers or those caregivers who did not face similar disruptions. Notably, mental health outcomes vary only slightly depending on whether disruptions resulted in caregivers providing more care than usual, or no care or less care than usual. (See Figure 1.)

Figure 1

Association between types of COVID-19-related caregiving disruptions and metal health in U.S. caregivers ages 55 and older, April 17-May15, 2020

Caregivers who experienced disruptions due to COVID-19 were not only more likely to report negative mental health effects but also 13.9 percentage points more likely to report employment disruptions. And those caregivers who provided more care because of the pandemic—disproportionately women and people of color—were almost 19 percentage points more likely than noncaregivers to report an impact on their employment, typically in the form of a job loss, furlough, or transition to working from home.

These findings confirm research that highlights the importance of investments in care infrastructure, not just for caregivers and their loved ones but also for the broader U.S. economy. Our research also emphasizes the need for policymakers to finally enact a nationwide paid leave program.

Turnover in the professional caregiving industry has long been high due to low wages and poor working conditions, a trend that the coronavirus pandemic has not curbed. These workers—whose daily efforts make it possible for the rest of us to do our jobs effectively and for our loved ones to live with dignity and grace—should be compensated at a level that is commensurate with the contributions they make to the economy.

Investing in the care economy to make these jobs attractive and well-paid would help workers who have left the labor force due to caregiving responsibilities over the course of the pandemic go back to work and would boost worker productivity. These actions would reverberate across the U.S. economy, bolstering the economic and labor market recovery from the coronavirus recession.

But more must be done. Given the piecemeal structure of the U.S. long-term care system, caregiving routines will always be subject to disruptions, meaning working family members are likely to require time off from their jobs to cover their loved ones’ care needs as new arrangements are made. A nationwide paid leave policy would ensure that workers do not have to make the impossible choice between caring for their ill family members and paying their bills or putting food on the table. As of now, only six states and the District of Columbia have paid leave policies for workers needing to care for ailing family members. These policies must be extended nationally to cover all family caregiving needs and situations.

Expanding paid leave also would work to address some of the racial and gender inequalities that arise as a result of caregiving responsibilities. Our study shows that caregivers who were more vulnerable to disruptions were disproportionately female, Black, and Hispanic, and that those who experienced disruptions were more likely to report negative mental health and employment outcomes. These trends were not brought about by the pandemic but have nevertheless been exacerbated in its wake. Policymakers cannot allow these inequalities to fester or worsen. (See Figure 2.)

Figure 2

Demographics of family caregivers, Ages 55 and older, during the pandemic, by disruption experience, April 17-May15 2020

As the U.S. population ages, family caregivers will increasingly play a central role in the national healthcare system. And while it is still too early to know for sure, the chaos and heartbreaking scenes of sickness and death in nursing homes over the past year may induce even more families to choose home- and community-based care for their loved ones.

These trends mean that good working conditions for professional caregivers and programs such as paid leave for all workers are all the more essential. Now is the time for policymakers to ensure these vital players in the U.S. economy and labor market have the support and infrastructure they need to take care of themselves and balance their caregiving responsibilities with their jobs. The benefits will extend beyond those directly impacted to the broader economy.

Weekend reading: The unchecked growth of U.S. workplace surveillance edition

This is a post we publish each Friday with links to articles that touch on economic inequality and growth. The first section is a round-up of what Equitable Growth published this week and the second is relevant and interesting articles we’re highlighting from elsewhere. We won’t be the first to share these articles, but we hope by taking a look back at the whole week, we can put them in context.

Equitable Growth round-up

Workplace surveillance is not new, but the types of monitoring that employers utilize to track workers’ movements, behavior, and productivity has expanded, largely unchecked, due to declining worker power and lack of legal protections or regulations on these behaviors. The coronavirus pandemic also contributes to this growth in invasive and exploitative surveillance practices, as up to 50 percent of workers have shifted to remote work in 2020 and employers have implemented new, cheap, and easy forms of monitoring as a result. Kathryn Zickuhr explains how worker surveillance shifts the balance of power in favor of employers, driving inequality and harming employees via increased discriminatory practices, stress, and de-skilling or misclassification of work. Workplace surveillance also hampers worker organizing, she continues, further weakening worker power. Zickuhr details the various forms of workplace surveillance that are commonplace across the U.S. labor force, examines how COVID-19 exacerbates these issues (and likely will continue to do so even after the pandemic has abated), and concludes with policy recommendations for addressing the future of workplace surveillance.

Last week, Reps. Ro Khanna (D-CA) and Dean Phillips (D-MN) in the U.S. House of Representatives and Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Michael Bennet (D-CO) in the Senate introduced the CBO FAIR Scoring Act. This proposed law would direct the Congressional Budget Office to prepare distribution analyses for all legislation, estimating the impact of laws by race and income groups. Corey Husak details why the CBO Fair Scoring Act would dramatically improve the way policymakers evaluate how their proposals could impact various groups of beneficiaries. Husak then walks through the specific instances in which distribution analysis would be helpful for legislators and explains the academic history of distribution analysis.

In a recent installment of Equitable Growth in Conversation, Director of Markets and Competition Policy Michael Kades speaks with Michelle Meagher, a senior policy fellow at the University College London Centre for Law, Economics and Society and co-founder of the Balanced Economy Project, which is building a global anti-monopoly movement. They discuss what’s missing from antitrust policy, the problem with worshipping competition, the broader impact of failing competition on the environment, and more. Meagher also discusses her most recent book, Competition Is Killing Us, which covers corporate power and accountability and the myths embedded in free market capitalism and shareholder primacy. Her book is also the subject of a recent Equitable Growth post by Raksha Kopparam, who discusses Meagher’s suggested six myths surrounding free markets and competition, and their impact on humanity and the planet.

The American Sociological Association held its annual conference from August 6 to 10, virtually gathering scholars to discuss research and findings around the theme of “Emancipatory Sociology: Rising to the Du Boisian Challenge.” Aixa Alemán-Díaz details Equitable Growth’s expanded participation this year, including a session on grant-writing she organized in collaboration with Academic Programs Director Korin Davis. Alemán-Díaz also highlights some of the ASA sessions that featured our academic network members and grantees.

Links from around the web

In a recent opinion piece for The New York Times, Josh Bivens and Stuart A. Thompson provide 179 reasons that fears and panic about inflation are probably overblown. They use graphics to detail recent price increases in commodities, from gasoline and cars to airfare and hotels. They also look at commodities in which prices are falling or stable, including computer software, medical equipment, and cosmetics. In analyzing these trends, they explain the possible outcomes of the recent uptick in daily costs and compare the current state of the U.S. economy with that of the 1970s, when there were widespread fears of inflation and stagflation. They conclude that, for now, inflation should not be of major concern and recommend the Federal Reserve keep an eye on it but not yet act rashly to counter the trends.

If anyone was looking for proof that poverty is a policy choice, the unprecedented government investment in social infrastructure over the past 18 months is a good indication. Vox’s Dylan Matthews examines the drop in poverty since the onset of the coronavirus pandemic. He shows how increased spending on programs from Unemployment Insurance to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, along with the eviction moratorium and stimulus checks, all worked to reduce the number of Americans living below the poverty line. Matthews provides an explanation of how we currently measure poverty—a complex and not-uncontroversial topic—and details recent research on the impact of coronavirus relief programs, as well as the counterfactual of what poverty in the United States would be if the aid packages had not been passed. He then explains the implications of these findings—namely, that policymakers have the tools to reduce poverty and usually simply choose not to use them.

Many employers have taken advantage of the circumstances surrounding the pandemic and ensuing recession to adopt new technologies, such as robotics and artificial intelligence. This trend, paired with rebounding government investment in infrastructure, could pave the way for a big productivity boom in the U.S. economy, writes The Washington Post’s Heather Long. According to data released by the U.S. Labor Department, worker productivity already rose 4.3 percent in the first quarter of 2021, and while it slowed to 2.3 percent in the second quarter, that’s still double the 1.2 percent average during the decade after the Great Recession of 2007–2009, Long explains. This leads some economists to hope for a coming productivity boom that could rival that of the late 1990s, when worker productivity averaged 3.1 percent thanks to a rise in computing capabilities. While it’s too soon to know for sure, Long concludes, many are optimistic, even for just a small boost in productivity.

Friday figure

Median household wealth by race/ethnicity of respondent, 1989–2019

Figure is from Equitable Growth’s “Congress needs distribution analyses to make informed, equitable policy choices, and the CBO FAIR Scoring Act would deliver it” by Corey Husak.

American Sociological Association 2021 conference centered on inequality and structural racism in the U.S. economy and society

""

The American Sociological Association last week held its annual meeting, virtually gathering scholars with the goal of making sociology “relevant to positive social transformation.” Over 5 days, attendees met and discussed research findings and implications on a range of topics relevant to the year’s theme of “Emancipatory Sociology: Rising to the Du Boisian Challenge.”

This frame centered the event’s sessions and discussion on some of the most pressing socioeconomic issues facing the United States, from addressing inequalities along the lines of race, gender, and socioeconomic status in education, healthcare, and the labor market, to the politics of enacting climate change policy and mitigating other environmental crises. Addressing these issues is key to Equitable Growth’s mission of advancing evidence-backed policies that promote strong, stable, and broadly shared economic growth in the United States—which is why we were so thrilled to expand our participation and attendance this year.

Over the years, approximately 12 percent of Equitable Growth’s grantees have come from sociology backgrounds. As such, this conference offered a key opportunity for Equitable Growth to broaden our network of scholars in fields beyond economics and attract interdisciplinary research around inequality in the United States. Equitable Growth grantees and members of our broader academic community were featured in at least 19 different panels, roundtables, and paper sessions at this year’s ASA conference. A few highlights:

  • Equitable Growth grantee Daniel Schneider of Harvard University presented research done with Allison Logan of the University of California, Berkeley on the effects of parents’ schedule instability on their children’s sleep quality, in a session on family and work.
  • In a session on economic inequality, Equitable Growth grantee Nathan Wilmer of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology presented research on organizational social capital and income inequality, which finds that the distribution of social capital across firms in the labor market explains part of within-industry inequality in wage premiums.
  • In a session on critical approaches to portraying Indigenous peoples in social science research, Equitable Growth grantee Randy Akee discussed challenges for researchers studying Native Hawaiian, American Indian, and Alaska Native populations, particularly as relates to the lack of data collection efforts and disaggregating data from large national surveys.
  • In a session on racial discrimination and stratification in U.S. labor markets, Janet Xu, a Ph.D. candidate in sociology at Princeton University and an Equitable Growth grantee, presented funded research on race and the reputational effects of diversity scholarships in the labor market, finding that Black diversity scholarship winners are treated more similarly to Black applicants without scholarships than Black applicants with nondiversity merit scholarships.
  • During a panel session exploring the call for reparations for descendants of enslaved Americans, Equitable Growth grantee Trevon Logan, the Hazel C. Youngberg Trustees distinguished professor of economics at The Ohio State University, discussed the violent economics undergirding American slavery. Logan, along with other speakers, also provided historical perspectives on racial wealth inequality and the wealth redistribution policies that previously were enacted by the U.S. federal government.
  • Equitable Growth grantee Siwei Cheng, assistant professor of sociology at New York University, organized a paper session on various aspects of social class, socioeconomic status attainment, inequality, and mobility using the Panel Study of Income Dynamics, or PSID.
  • A session on artificial intelligence, machine learning, and inequality featured a paper presentation by Equitable Growth grantee Steve Viscelli at the University of Pennsylvania, in which he discussed his research comparing legacy delivery systems used by United Parcel Service Inc., FedEx Corp., and the U.S. Postal Service to those systems created by Amazon.com Inc. that reflect gig-economy trends.

In addition to attending the above and other sessions at this year’s virtual event, Equitable Growth staff had various roles in this year’s conference. Director of Family Economic Security Alix Gould-Werth joined a team presenting research on poverty trends and mechanisms about research on transportation insecurity in the United States and its contribution to poverty and inequality. The session also covered research on the effects of childhood poverty on racial differences in economic opportunity in young adulthood; on late-career precarious employment’s effect on and implications for late-life poverty; and on understanding the ethnic and racial differences in poverty in the United States.

For the first time, Equitable Growth staff also organized a professional development workshop on best practices for writing successful grant proposals for research on inequality, which was a collaboration between Engagement Project Manager Aixa Alemán-Díaz and Director of Academic Programs Korin Davis. The session featured Elisabeth Jacobs, deputy director of WorkRise at the Urban Institute (and formerly a director at Equitable Growth), and a panel discussion with Equitable Growth grantees Wilmer of MIT and Harvard’s Schneider. The workshop elevated how different funding opportunities around inequality research provide a host of benefits—monetary and nonmonetary—that range from networking to writing for different audiences and other opportunities with media and policymakers.

This year’s ASA event allowed Equitable Growth staff to not only learn about cutting-edge research that will almost certainly inform our policy work in the coming months, but also raise awareness among a different audience about our work and research network. We were able to engage with and promote scholars at various stages of their careers, from underrepresented and diverse backgrounds, and across the social sciences. Following Equitable Growth’s participation in this year’s annual conference, we look forward to exploring opportunities for further collaboration with ASA sections and members, including at future annual conferences and other events.

Posted in Uncategorized

Brad DeLong: Worthy reads on equitable growth, August 10-16, 2021

Worthy reads from Equitable Growth:

1. Back when I worked at the U.S. Department of the Treasury during the Clinton administration, it was completely and totally routine for us to have distribution tables by income—not by race, but the ones by income were not an unreasonable proxy. It was a problem that distributional tables were not very good. To make them good would’ve required a significant staff boost. The same will be true for the Congressional Budget Office. That’s why the CBO budget needs a substantial boost to do a good job of carrying out this increase in its mission. Read Corey Husak, “Congress needs distribution analyses to make informed, equitable policy choices and the CBO FAIR Scoring Act would deliver it,” in which he writes: “Before voting on legislation, members of Congress usually receive a cost estimate, or score, for that legislation from the Congressional Budget Office. This score provides nonpartisan CBO analysts’ best estimate of how the legislation will affect the federal budget deficit. A cost estimate … represents only one side of the equation. … Members of Congress rarely receive analysis to assess who will benefit from bills and by how much. … Reps. Ro Khanna (D-CA) and Dean Phillips (D-MN) in the U.S. House of Representatives and Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Michael Bennet (D-CO) in the Senate introduced the CBO FAIR Scoring Act … directing the Congressional Budget Office to prepare distribution analyses by race and income for all legislation with substantial budgetary effects … provid[ing] members … with CBO analysts’ best estimate of how the legislation would affect different groups of people—critical information for evaluating who would benefit.”

2. Michelle Meagher is a truly impressive economist and policy analyst, and this is one of the most insightful and interesting interview sessions I have seen this year. Read Michael Kades “In Conversation with Michelle Meagher,” in which they discuss: “The Balanced Economy Project and the missing infrastructure of antitrust policy. … The global monopoly problem. … The problem with worshiping competition. … The broader impact of failing competition on the environment and society. … The monopoly problem with global supply chains. … The problem of monopoly power in global economic development. … The big antitrust and competition research questions.”

3. I hoisted this still very relevant column by Leah Stokes and Matto Mildenburger from February of last year. I would say that it is not so much that the coronavirus recession increased income or wealth inequality but rather that it has very much sharpened the stakes. Differences that you could say were differences between convenience and inconvenience before are now differences that are matters of health and sickness, and within the limit of life and death. Read their “A plan for equitable climate policy in the United States,” in which they write: “This crisis will increasingly and dramatically exacerbate economic inequality in the United States. Low- and middle-income Americans have minimal safety net protections from the impact of climate change. These communities are more vulnerable to health-related risks, don’t have the financial resources to recover from climate disasters, and are more vulnerable to climate-related hazards in the first instance. And U.S. workers and communities who may face economic costs from the energy transition to a more clean economy don’t have guaranteed access to healthcare, pensions, and the necessary assistance to maintain their dignity and quality of life. Already, insurers are declining coverage for housing against growing climate risks such as flooding and wildfires. Without equitable climate policies in place, low-income Americans will have to face a double threat. They will be more likely to die in heatwaves, struggle to recover from hurricanes and wildfires, and, without health insurance, face greater burdens from diseases pushing into new ranges as the planet warms. At the same time, they will struggle the most to pay for the costs associated with preventing even worse climate change impacts. … Equitable climate policy is both good economic policy and good politics.”

Worthy reads not from Equitable Growth:

1. As I predicted. Read Matthew C. Klein, “U.S. Inflation Is Normalizing,” in which he writes: “The temporary acceleration in price increases is already fading. But keep an eye on a few consumer services dependent on low-wage workers. … Prices that were depressed during the pandemic continue to normalize and as consumer demand for motor vehicles continues to moderate. The Consumer Price Index in July was 0.47 percent higher than in June on a seasonally adjusted basis. That’s the slowest monthly CPI inflation rate since February 2021 (0.35 percent) and significantly slower than in June (0.90 percent). Inflation is currently running just 1.1 standard deviations faster than the January 1995-February 2020 average, compared to 2.7 standard deviations faster in June.”

2. I think this is painting things a bit too rosy. Whether it is true will ultimately depend on the shape the congressional budget reconciliation bill takes, and whether it passes. And it may not pass at all, not in any form. Read Noah Smith, “Score 2 for Bidenomics,” in which he writes: “The bipartisan infrastructure bill is a solid success for the new economic paradigm. … It’s a very rare thing for Republicans to pass legislation that helps the country while a Democrat is President; if Dems act too triumphant about the bill, it could cause the GOP to lose face, since that would mean they handed Biden a partisan victory. Instead, they have to wail and moan, both to allow Republicans to say “Hey look, we got away with stiffing the Dems,” and to leave no doubt in the Dems’ mind that they’ll be letting their voters down if the reconciliation bill gets watered down. In fact, the bill is a major success for the Bidenomics agenda, even if Biden himself ends up reaping only modest political rewards. Remember that government investment is a core element of Biden’s program. Government investment has been falling as a percent of GDP for decades, even as private investment has mostly held up. … Cleaning up lead is an amazing landmark initiative, and of course electric vehicles are great, but I’d have probably skipped the rural broadband (as the technology threatens to be obsolete soon). But you know what? These kinds of spending initiatives are highly encouraging, because they suggest that our leaders have at least some small smidgen of vision for a country that doesn’t just look like a patched-up version of 1985. I mean, come on—we just got Republicans to vote to replace all the lead pipes in the nation. How cool is that??”

Posted in Uncategorized