Gudetama Stripet Pen Pouch Shop By Category Klær T-skjorter Tank Tops amp T-skjorter Polos amp Knapp-Ups Womenaposs Topper Kjoler Amp Skjørt Gensere Ampere Cardigans Hoodies Jakker amputer Overtøy Activewear Ampere Badetøy Robes Sleepwear Leggings Stokker Ampere Undertøy Baby Amp Kids Kostyme Ampere Cosplay Apparel Tilbehør Fottøy Vesker Ampere Nøkkelringer Hatter ampere Hår Slips ampere Mansjettknapper Belter Ampere Suspenders Skjerf Kosmetikk amp Lommelykter amp Vesker Ryggsekker amp Messenger Messenger Vesker Annet Tilbehør Charm Perler Armbånd Ringer Leker Armbånd Ringer Leker Ampere Spill Handling Taller Kostymer Amp Cosplay Tilbehør RC Leker Board Games Ampere Kort Puslespill Plysj Kontor Pranks Amp Cube Warfare DIY amp Voksen Leker Andre Geeky Leker Collectibles Vinyl Tall Skala Figurer Amp Statuer Prop Replicas Pins Samling Sett Forordninger Andre Samleobjekter Hjem Amp Kontor Tepper, Tepper Ampere Håndklær Lys Ampere Klokker Kalendere, Posters Amp Dekaler Baderom Kjøkken Kaffe Kopper Amp Travel Mug s Glassware Ampere Drikkevarer Food Amp Koffein Kontor Pranks Amp Cube Warfare Geeky Kontorrekvisita Vesker, Ryggsekker Ampere Bagasjebøker Verktøy, Utendørs Amp Overlevelses Kniver, Sverd Amp Aks Survival Amp Camping Gear Geek Verktøy Utendørs Ampter Bakgård Fun Car Gadgets Amp Tilbehør Elektronikk Amp Gadgets Computer Ampere PC Gaming Tilbehør Console amp Portable Gaming Kamera, Foto amp Video Høyttalere, Hodetelefoner Amp Audio Lights Amp Lasere Spy amp Sikkerhet USB Hubs, Driver amp Tilbehør Musikk Utstyr Bil Gadgets Amp Tilbehør Tilbehør Laptop Vesker Amp Backpacker iPhone Amp Smartphone Tilbehør iPad Amp Tablet Tilbehør Batterier, Ladere amp Kabler Geek Kids Nyfødt amp Infant Toddler 3-7 år 7-13 år Klærbutikk etter interesse TV, filmer amp Bøker Eventyr Tid Alien Attack on Titan Avengers Tilbake til fremtiden Big Bang Theory Breaking Bad Captain America DC Comics Deadpool Doctor Who Firefly ampere Serenity Game of Thrones Guardians of the Galaxy Harry Potter Marvel My Little Pony Outlander Rick and Morty Sherlock Star Trek Star Wars Steven Universe Selvmordspanadiet Tolkien The Walking Dead Videospill Assassinaposs Creed Borderlands Dota 2 Drakealder Eldre Scrolls Fallout Halvleversjon Halo Legenden om Zelda Masseffekt Mega Man Minecraft Nintendo Overvåkning Pac-Man Pokeacutemon Portal 2 Space Invaders Super Mario Tetris Warcraft Andre interesser Anime amp Manga Bok elskere Bygg murstein Kattelskere Charm armbånd Fargebøker Cookie cutters Kule Retro Dungeons amp Drager og Tabletop RPG Everyday Carry Frustreringer Gaming Geek Labs Geek Party Grillin og Chillin Gudetama Hennes Universe Uregelmessig Valg Mad Scientist Nixon Watches Pop Vinyl Starstuff Steampunk Superheroes Tacticool ThinkGeek Eksklusiv Reise Unicorns Zombies Gaver Gaver til Dads Gaver til Graduering Gaver til hennes gaver til ham Gaver til barn Gaver til mamma Gaver til studenter Gaver til teknikere, utviklere, forsterkere Sysadmins Andre nyttige koblinger kopiere 1999-2017 ThinkGeek, Inc . Alle rettigheter forbeholdtReady for New Econo Min Du trykker på knappen, vi gjør resten. Det slagordet kunne ha kommet fra Apple i 2015, men det er fra Kodak i 1888, året var navnet sitt varemerket. 1 I over et århundre var Kodak et av de mest avanserte teknologibedrifter i verden. I 1922 produserte Kodak 147 000 miles av filmfilm. 2 I 1975 ble det bygget et av de første digitale kameraene. 3 I 1976 sto det for 90 av film og 85 av kamerasalg i Amerika. 4 I 1988 ansatt 145.000 personer. 5 I 1997 var selskapet verdt 30 milliarder kroner. 6 Men i 2013 jobbet Kodak praktisk talt ingen, var verdt nesten ingenting, og hadde blitt erstattet av iPhones og apps fra Instagram til Snapchat. Denne radikale dynamikken er den avgjørende egenskapen til den fremvoksende globale digitale tidsalderen, og plasserer USA bare i begynnelsen av en lang periode med dyp økonomisk endring. Det politiske partiet som taler ærlig og overbevisende om disse nye realiteter og tilbyr en agenda som utnytter disse trendene til fordel for alle amerikanere vil ha det beste skuddet ved å gjenopprette felles velstand og dermed vinne politiske majoriteter. I avsnitt 1 i dette dokumentet hevder vi at utfordringen mot middelklassen er mindre om grunnleggende økonomisk urettferdighet, men grunnleggende endringer på grunn av globalisering og teknologi kombinert med et land, en arbeidsstyrke og et sett av institusjoner som ikke er klare for dette ny økonomi. Videre viser vi at beretningen om rettferdighet har påvist å mislykkes med velgere, med tre påfølgende tapende forestillinger med middelklasslagende demokrater med de færre antall kontorinnehavere siden 1928. I avsnitt 2 foreslår vi en ambisiøs og handlingsbar demokratisk agenda som vil generere økonomisk vekst som direkte fordeler mellomklassen gjennom over 70 politiske ideer som skaper flere ferdigheter, flere jobber og mer besparelser. Seksjon 1: Argumentet mellom 1950 og 2000 økte USAs økonomi med en gjennomsnittlig årlig rate på 3,7. 7 Det var en vekstrate sterk nok til å bygge og opprettholde verdens største middelklasse. I 2000 stod gjennomsnittlig husstandsinntekt i Amerika på 57 730 i 2014 dollar hele tiden høy. 8 Men i 2001 begynte den amerikanske økonomiske veksten å krympe til en gjennomsnittlig årlig rente på 1,9. På bare to av de siste 14 årene har veksten overgått 3 og ikke en gang siden 2005. Dette er den lengste perioden med langsom langsom vekst i minst et århundre. Innen 2014 var gjennomsnittlig husstandsinntekt på 53,900a 5,9 nedgang fra toppen. 9 Sakte vekst og synkende mellomklasse lønninger har ført til en kraftig økonomisk diskusjon i Washingtonone som hadde blitt satt på vent i det første tiåret av 2000-tallet. Etter bommen på 1990-tallet ble politisk lederskap forbrukt av tvillingkrisen i islamsk terrorisme og et nærøkonomisk sammenbrudd. I tillegg okkuperte argumenter over Affordable Care Act (ACA) begge parter. Dette gjør 2016 til det første presidentvalget siden det nye årtusenet, hvor en visjon for en amerikansk økonomi i det 21. århundre kan diskuteres i fravær, enten en eksistensiell krise eller stasjonen for å fullføre oppdraget fra det 20. århundre til å samle grunnleggende sikkerhetsnett og arbeidstakerbeskyttelse. I denne livlige og viktige intraparty-samtalen er det bred anerkjennelse blant demokrater at denne nye visjonen må sitte på å gjenopprette velstanden til nasjonen og middelklassen. I år foreslo Ron. Ron Kind (D-WI) og de moderate House New Democrats en amerikansk velstandsagenda. Den mer liberale senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) og representant Elijah Cummings (D-MD) tilbød et middelklassen Prosperity Project. Presidentkandidat Hillary Clinton snakker ofte om varig velstand. Og andre kandidat-senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) krever helse, velstand, sikkerhet og glede. 10 Således er de to vingene i Det demokratiske partiet forenet i målet: velstand for hverdagslige mennesker. Men hvor demokratene er forskjellige internt, er over årsaken til vår nåværende økonomiske ulykke. Og som demokrater er forskjellige i sak, så er de også forskjellige på løsninger. Til venstre er synderen et fundamentalt urettferdig økonomisk system som stabler dekk til fordel for de rike og mektige. Slagordet 1 oppsummerer ofte lefts anklaget for det amerikanske økonomiske systemet, og deres hovedmål er å dele opp kaken mye jevnere. I 2010 oppnådde de øverste 1 av inntektene 13 inntekter etter skatt, arbeidsgiverfordeler og statlige overføringer. Dette er en svak nedgang fra 2000, men det er nesten dobbelt så stor andel av inntektene som de første 1 hevdet i 1979. 11 Vedvarende inntekt og formueforskjeller har utløst en nasjonal debatt om emnet med president Obama som i desember 2013 erklærer at ulikhet i inntekt er den avgjørende utfordringen i vår tid. 12 Det har også fått utbredt offentlig interesta Google søk på 1 gir 303 millioner oppføringer. 13 Dette synspunktet har absolutt fortjeneste. Inntektsendret kan måles på mange forskjellige måter, men forskjellen eksisterer i alle dem. 14 Det er også ulikheter i vårt politiske system, inkludert givere både på venstre og høyre som bidrar med pengebeløp så store at det ville være en skikk å tro at det ikke kommer til å ha stor innflytelse. Og noen selskaper har uten tvil gjort mer for aksjonærer enn for ansatte. Imidlertid, mens fortidene i middelklassen og den amerikanske økonomien har endret seg drastisk siden 2000, har inntektsfordelingen i Amerika ikke. Topp 5 av husstandsinntektene fanget 22,1 av samlet inntekt i 2000 og 21,9 i 2014, ifølge Census Bureau. De tre tre kvintilene tok 46,7 av samlet inntekt i 2000 og 45,7 i 2014. 15 Forutsatt at det har vært nylige svingninger i ulik inntekt, skjedde forskjellen faktisk mellom 2007 og 2013, da økonom Stephen Rose dokumenterte ved hjelp av Congressional Budget Office (CBO) data som tar hensyn til skatt og statlige overføringer. 16 Inntektsforskjellighet er ikke nødvendigvis korrelert med stagnerende mellomklasselønninger. Fra 1970 til 2000, da inntektsøkningen i Amerika økte, hoppet mellomklasseinntektene fortsatt 22,8 i ekte dollar. 17 Fra 1980 til 2010 er inntektsgevinster (etter skatt og statlige overføringer inkludert) favorisert de rike, men var fortsatt spredt over alle inntektsgrupper: en økning på 53 prosent for bunnen quintile en 41 økning for de neste to en 49 økning for 4. og en 90 økning for den rikeste femte. 18 Selv om ulikhet i inntektene kan fornærme vår rettsfølelse, kan den faktiske effekten på middelklassen være liten. Med et unikt fokus på ulik inntekt er lefts hovedløsninger større omfordeling og en omskrivning av reglene for å avhjelpe systemet. Men, men vel motiverte, noen av de største ideene som de styrer sin energi ikke fjernt, adresserer den underliggende Kodak-konvensjonen, finner amerikanere sin plass i en verden med rask forandring. Faktisk ville noen faktisk gjøre oppdraget å øke delstatenes velstand betydelig hardere. Ta for eksempel en politikk som er championed av senator Bernie Sanders og andre som er i fare for å bli en topp progressiv lakmusprøve for demokratisk ekspanderende trygdeordninger for alle, uavhengig av inntekt. Den ledende Husversjonen av denne ideen gir skatt på hver arbeidsgiver og arbeidsgiver. 19 Det tar trillioner av dollar fra arbeidsalderen og overfører det til de eldre som ikke trenger det. Faktisk er de som vil få størst nytte av nye skatter, godt å gjøre forsteder for eldre par. 20 I mellomtiden vil denne store skatteøkningen ikke gjøre noe for å fremme nye investeringer i barn, skoler, forskning eller innovasjonsinvesteringer som har satt seg tilbake til rettigheter. En annen populistisk politikk ville bruke 15 billioner for å skape en enkeltbetaler, det offentliggjorte helsesystemet 21 en enorm mengde, spesielt når vi nettopp har fullført den største utvidelsen av det sosiale sikkerhetsnettet i flere tiår med vedtaket av rimelig omsorgslov (som vi støtter sterkt). En-betaleren vil bli finansiert med en stor lønnsskattøkning på alle som jobber, ifølge planen som tilbys av Senator Sanders. Som med forslaget om å utvide sosial sikkerhet for både rike og fattige, ville det avlede penger vekk fra jobbsøkende offentlige investeringer som kreftforskning, broreparasjon og skolebygging. Videre har fortellingen om rettferdighet og ulikhet, for å si det mildt, mislyktes til å opphisse velgere. I hver av de tre siste valgsyklusene mistet demokratisk selvstendige parti i middelklasshagen middelklassen med i gjennomsnitt syv poeng, en kombinasjonsmargin på 20,4 millioner stemmer. 22 I 2014 var denne marginen 11 poeng, 23 som igjen viser at rettferdighetsdagsordenen og fortellende demokrater som tilbød, ikke var godt knyttet til mellominntektsvelgerne. Mellom 2008 og 2013, falt registreringsregistrering for demokrater (-428 687) som uavhengig registrering økte (2,5 millioner). 24 Og på underpresidentnivå er demokratene i sitt dypeste hull i nesten et århundre. Demokrater har i dag færre hus-, senat - og guvernørkontorer enn noen gang siden 1930. Når statlige lovgivende organer er inkludert, har demokratene nå det minste antall lovgivningsmessige majoriteter siden gjenoppbyggingen. Disse trendene bør tvinge partiet til å stille spørsmålstegn ved valgverdien av dagens populistiske agenda. I motsetning til de politiske moderatene ser erosjonen av den amerikanske drømmen som mindre om urettferdighet og mer om dynamikken i den nye økonomien der vi nå konkurrerer om jobber med alle overalt, og digitalisering og robotikk forstyrrer nesten alt. Bare 28 av moderat føler at dekket er stablet mot meg. 25 Med en 67-27-margin vil moderatene heller se Washington fokus på økonomisk vekst i forhold til inntektsforskjell. 26 Og i en serie av 2015-fokusgrupper presset swing voters tilbake mot en fortelling om urettferdighet og uttalte at begrepet dekk som ble stablet, viser pessimisme, forbannet, en sannsynlighet for suksess som er slank til ingen, og mangel på håper på forandring. 27 I stedet for å bli konsumert med populistisk sinne, uttrykte moderate en annen følelse: økonomisk angst. De følte at de hadde overlevd lavkonjunkturen ikke på grunn av regjeringens intervensjon, men fordi de gjorde de riktige tingene på egen hånd, strammet belter, holdt ut av gjeld, utsett luksus og tok på seg ekstra arbeid. 28 Men selv om de har definert nedover hva det betyr å komme frem, uttrykker de fremdeles bekymring for å nå selv den lavere suksessbaren. De er bekymret for at når økonomien går gjennom disse store endringene, kan de beste dagene for dem, deres barn, deres samfunn og deres land være i fortiden. Og i den grad de er sint, er deres sinne rettet mot en polarisert regjering som lar dem ned, en Washington som bickers, og et politisk klima som forbrukes av min vei eller motorvei, opprettholde, selvinteresse og mangel på respekt for andres synspunkter. Vi har en ny økonomi, og jeg synes ikke det er bra å komme seg til det samme stedet vi var før. Ting er forskjellige og forandret, og det skal også tenke på enkeltpersoner, bedrifter og regjeringen. Vi må finne løsninger som tilpasser seg denne nye økonomien og ikke lever i fortiden og leter etter hvordan ting var. Tusenårig kvinnefokusgruppeaktør, juli 2015 29 Så hva må demokrater gjøre for å tilby en fortelling og dagsorden som kan gjenopprette bred velstand og hjelpe festen til å gjøre det bedre i stemmeseddelen på lang sikt. De må begynne med å innse at mens denne overgangen til En global digital økonomi er et paradigmeskifte som er sammenlignbart i omfang og omfanget til å flytte fra en agrar til industriell økonomi2015 er rett og slett ikke 1915. Stor regjering var fraværende for 100 år siden i dag, er det samlede offentlige utgifter mer enn en tredjedel av økonomien. 30 Det var ikke noe sikkerhetsnett tilbake da dagens sosiale sikkerhetsnett nå rangerer 2. i sosiale utgifter og subsidier blant velstående nasjoner, ifølge Organisasjonen for økonomisk samarbeid og utvikling (OECD). 31 Vi hadde få regler og arbeidstakerbeskyttelse og lite juridisk infrastruktur for å håndheve dem. Vi har nå mange regler og en omfattende håndhevelse. Den øverste skattesatsen var 7 et århundre siden 32 det er 42 i dag og er blant de mest progressive skattekoder i verden. 33 Fra klimaforskrifter til den kritiske Dodd-Frank-reformlovgivningen har vi kommet langt i det siste tiåret. Det er ikke å si at sikkerhetsnettet fremdeles ikke kan styrkes, forskrifter hevet, håndhevelse styrket og beskatning gjort mer rettferdig. Men dette århundret krever dramatisk forskjellige prioriteringer. Dette inkluderer 39,6 marginal skattesats pluss 1,45 Medicare tilleggsavgift fra 1993 budsjett avtale og 0,9 tilleggsavgift fra ACA i 2010. Kodak, med sine 145.000 ansatte, ble ikke utelatt av økonomisk urettferdighet, men ved digital fotografering og det faktum at folk kan ta bilder med sine telefoner. For ni år siden hadde Borders Books mer enn 1000 butikker og over 35.000 ansatte. 34 For fire år siden ble det likvidert. Dette skjedde ikke på grunn av en stablet dekk i Washington, men på grunn av Kindle og Amazon. Tower Records falt til iTunes. Radio Shacks mer enn 7.000 murstein-og-mørtel butikker var dårlig egnet for internett salg. 35 Airbnb eksisterte ikke for ti år siden neste år, det vil tjene flere reisende enn den største hotellkjeden i verden 36, og likevel vil det bare ansette 1600 personer 37 omtrent det samme antallet ansatte som hotellbureauer i Nord-Dakota . 38 Likeledes, Lyft og Uber werent selv tenkelige bare for åtte år siden nå blir de i økende grad brukt som et alternativ til den høyt regulerte taxiindustrien. Den daglige virkeligheten for mange arbeids - og mellominntektsvalgere er mindre om å bli behandlet urettferdig og mer om å finne en måte å lykkes i en økonomi der endring skjer i svimlende tempo. Mest poignantly for demokratiske politimenn, mens velgerne forsøker å navigere disse økonomiske tidevannene, føler de at våre offentlige politikker og institusjoner ikke har blitt modernisert for denne globale informasjonsalderen. De er bekymret for at de og deres familier er alene på denne reisen, og at de grunnleggende mellomstore bargainwork hardt, spiller etter reglene, oppnår den amerikanske Dreamhas fallet i dis-repair. Kjøring av denne angsten er dyp skepsis om effektiviteten av regjeringen, spesielt som et kjøretøy for å hjelpe dem med å lykkes. Å sitere bare en statistikk: I en Gallup-undersøkelse fra 2013, sa 72 av velgerne stor regjering som den største trusselen mot landet, mens bare 21 navngitte store bedrifter. 39 Dette følelsen er en sterk indikator på vår nasjonale mangel på å forestille seg, mye mindre reform ikke bare utvide regjeringsinstitusjoner, regelverk og politikk for å bedre passe denne nye tiden. For å sikre at Amerika og amerikanerne er klare for dette Kodak-øyeblikket, bør en moderne demokratisk økonomisk agenda organiseres rundt ett overordnet mål: Vedvarende økonomisk vekst i den private sektoren som utvides og til stor nytte for middelklassen. Og gitt den eksisterende dynamikken i virkelig global økonomi, en kontinuerlig teknologirevolusjon og en allerede ekspansiv regjering som den mest effektive formelen for å oppnå det, vil det være en som fokuserer ubarmhjertig på den dydige syklusen som vil drive stor velstand i det 21. århundre: flere ferdigheter, flere jobber , og flere besparelser. Ferdigheter: Gone er de dagene da man fikk et videregående diplom var nok til å sikre en middelklass livsstil. Å oppnå og holde en rekke faste betalende jobber, krever nå langt mer kunnskapsoppkjøp og midtkarriere læring. Likevel er vårt K-12-system mired i middelmådighet, høyere utdanning koster for mye og leverer for lite, og det er ingen enkle veier å holde ferdighetene skarpe i flere tiår. Resultatet er en massiv feilmatch mellom ferdigheter og tilgjengelige mellominntektsjobber som sannsynligvis bare vil vokse. Jobber: Bedrifter trenger ikke lenger å lokalisere, utvide og leie i USA. Globalisering og digitalisering har forvandlet hvor og hvordan jobber skapes. Demokrater for ofte spiller innspill i denne nye økonomien, uten å gjenkjenne regelverk, skattekoden, RampD-investeringen, småbedriftsfremmende, eksportpolitikk og utenlandske direkte investeringer for best mulig å skape jobbsøking i den private sektoren. Sparing: Med rett til å bruke allerede på en uholdbar bane, lønnene presses, og definerte ytelser planlegger stadig mer relikvier, må vi fokusere på nye strategier for å øke besparelsene, noe som gir jobbhopping amerikanere et bedre skudd på økonomisk trygghet for sine familier. Bill Clinton begynte samtalen om økonomisk modernisering i roligere og velstående 1990-tallet President Obama fortsatte det ved å gjøre helsevesenet bærbart og sikkert, oppdatere Wall Street-reglene, kutte budsjettunderskuddet og forfølge den største eksportavtalen noensinne. Men når den globale økonomien utvikler seg, må også det demokratiske partiet. Dette er en diskusjon som Demokratiske Partiet vil ha i flere tiår framover, da det søker et materielt og politisk resonansrespons til den økonomiske gåten i vår tid: hvordan å gjenopprette middelklasses velvære på måter som forsøker å gripe, ikke kvele krefter som fremdriver vårt globale, digitaliserte århundre. Ved å bygge ut det analytiske og fortellende skiftet som ble lagt fram så langt i denne rapporten, slår vi ved siden av å utforske de store trender i ferdigheter, jobber og besparelser. Vi foreslår deretter et sett med ideer som kan danne grunnlaget for en moderne demokratisk økonomisk vekstagenda som viser at demokratene kan styre og gir den beste muligheten til å generere langsiktig felles velstand og gjenopprette det tidløse og viktige amerikanske løftet: hvis du jobber hardt og spiller etter reglene, vil suksess bli din. Seksjon 2: Agendaoversikten: I denne delen krever vi en ambisiøs og handlingsbar demokratisk økonomisk agenda organisert rundt ett overordnet mål: vedvarende økonomisk vekst som utvider og fordeler middelklassen. Vi foreslår mer enn 70 politiske ideer for å skape flere ferdigheter, flere jobber og flere besparelser. Disse budsjettneutrale retningslinjene gir mer enn 1 milliard i nye investeringer i jobber, vekst, utdanning og mennesker. Og agendaen gjenoppretter det kvintessige amerikanske løftet: Hvis du jobber hardt og spiller etter reglene, blir suksessen din. Start en ferdighetsrevolusjon Vi skisserer tre store trender som har dype effekter på hvordan amerikanere oppnår og beholder ferdigheter fra barndom gjennom karrieren deres: Stalling Schools, College Wall og Adult Atrophy. Vi kaller da en ferdighetsrevolusjon gjennom hele læringslivet fra alderen 4 til 64 slik at langt flere amerikanere har ferdighetene til å få og holde 21st århundre i middelklassen jobber. Politikk Stillbilde Gjør Pre-K saken for de som trenger det mest. Omfattende, toppkvalitet pre-K for hver lav og moderat inntekt tre - og fireårig i nasjonen. Moderniser læreryrket. Robust lån tilgivelse, forbedret lærer sertifisering programmer, en overhaling av måten vi betaler og fremme lærere, og nasjonale lærerakademier. Konstruer en ny College Compact. Hold høgskoler ansvarlig for å forbedre opplæringen, øker unormal oppgradering priser, og forbedrer student utfall, slik at en familys største investering i fremtiden lønner seg. Mid-karriere Prep for suksess akademier. Gratis, høykvalitets prep kurs for voksne å finpusse grunnleggende ferdigheter, slik at de deretter kan lykkes i samfunnskollegier eller arbeidstaker treningsprogrammer. Link jobttrening til sysselsetting. Belønningsopplæringsprogrammer som aktivt engasjerer lokal virksomhet, bruker arbeidsmarkedsdata og jobberprognoser for å skreddersy opplæring, og gi åpenhet til arbeidsmarkedet. Bli en global ferdighetsmagnet. Et nytt kall for omfattende innvandringsreform som prioriterer ferdighetsbasert innvandring, skaper en vei for midlertidige arbeidstakere, og bringer uokumenterte innvandrere inn i den juridiske økonomien. Endre Jobs Equation Vi beskriver tre store trender som omformer hvor og hvordan jobber skapes: Upside Down Økonomien, hvor som helst økonomien og den underernærte økonomien. Vi viser deretter hvordan du kan øke privat sektor jobber ved å få bedrifter til å lokalisere, utvide og leie i USA. Policy Snapshot Etablere et 400 milliarder strategisk investeringsinitiativ. En helt kompensert infusjon av ny kapital for føderale investeringer i infrastruktur, forskning, vitenskap, energi og avansert produksjon som direkte skaper privat sektor jobber. Øk den amerikanske årlige eksporten med 1 milliard i 2025. TPP og TTIP-handel, personlig eksportassistanse for små og mellomstore bedrifter og strømlinjeformet eksportbyråkrati. Slip det fulle potensialet av kvinner i vår økonomi. Mer tilgjengelig og rimelig barnehage, et fasedato-arbeidsalternativ for nye foreldre, og mer kapital til kvinnelige eide bedrifter. Moderniser skattekoden. Inntekts nøytral skattereform som senker skattesatsene, bredder basen, eliminerer smutthull, og gjør USA mer attraktivt for bedrifter å lokalisere og utvide innenfor våre grenser. Opprett et mobilitetsfond for å bringe arbeidsplasser til lavinntektsarealer. Øk hovedkapitalgevinsten med 5 poeng og søk 80 milliarder kroner i besparelser til et mobilitetsfond som utnytter og tiltrekker seg over 700 milliarder kroner i privat kapital for å gjenopprette lavinntektsområder med bærekraftig jobb og næringsliv. Rewire kompensasjon for å øke besparelser og lønninger Vi beskriver fire store trender som omformerer arbeidsplassen og arbeidstakerutligningen: Hopscotch Workforce, nikkel-og-dimensjonert arbeidsstyrke, Asset-Starved Workforce, og D. I.Y. Arbeidsstyrke. Vi foreslår derfor en rekke retningslinjer for å øke besparelsene, noe som gir jobbhopping amerikanere et bedre skudd mot økonomisk sikkerhet. Politisk stillbilde En minimumspensjon som lukker rikdomskløpet. En minimumspensjon på 50 en time, utover dagens lønn, for å hjelpe alle arbeidende amerikanere med å bygge eiendeler, supplere sosial sikkerhet og garantere en komfortabel og verdig pensjon. Home Equity Vouchers for 12 millioner familier. Et 500 årlig tilpasningsbidrag for ekstra hovedbetalinger over et familys nåværende månedlige boliglån for å bidra til å bygge hjem egenkapital, lette gjeldsbelastningen og tilpasse insentiver i boliglånsmarkedet. Riksbygger Bidrag til 90 millioner middelklassearbeidere. Et årlig bidrag på 500 som kan rettes til pensjonisttilværelse, høyskolebesparelser, studielån eller et boliglån. En mellomklasse lønnsvekst gjennom trimning av kostnaden for ikke-lønnsfordeler. Femten politikk som ville redusere både føderale offentlige helsetjenester utgifter og helsevesenet kostnader til arbeidsgivere og staffmaking mye trengte rom for økt lønn. En regional minimumslønne tur. Øk til 10-12 innen 2020 basert på gjennomsnittlig timelønn og regionale kostnadsvariasjoner, med justeringer hvert tredje år. Lansere en ferdighetsrevolusjon I 2011, med USAs arbeidsledighet på 9, fant en undersøkelse på 2.000 amerikanske selskaper at 600 stillinger var åpne i over seks måneder som de ikke kunne fylle. 40 Selv for de selskapene som kan ansette mellommenneskelige ansatte, som Markle Foundation definerer som de som krever litt etterutdanning, og betaler nord for 40 000 manglende ferdigheter, øker produktiviteten for en av de to produsentene, en av tre helsevesen og en av fem detaljhandelsselskaper. 41 Et videregående diplom og en vilje til å jobbe hardt pleide å være nok til å rimelig sikre en mellomklasse jobb og livsstil. For førti år siden ble det bare 28 jobber som ble holdt av de med utdannelse. 42 Og at videregående diplom gikk videre, da de store billettene for å komme inn i middelklassen fra boliger til høyskole til helsevesenet langt billigere enn de er i dag. Men som MIT-økonom, forteller David Autor, mens jobber på toppen av ferdighetsstigeprofessional, teknisk og ledelsesmessig yrkesgrep enda raskere mellom 1980 og 2010, gikk dyktige arbeidskraftsobjekter raskt, og de sårbare produksjonsjobene i informasjonsalderen skiftet kraftig tilbake . 43 Autor er blant mange fremtredende økonomer som mener at Amerika er klar til å skape flere mellomklassjobber som krever mellomkunnskaper, men han advarer om en åpenbar fangst: Det amerikanske opplærings - og yrkesopplæringssystems evne til å produsere slags arbeidere hvem vil trives i fremtidsmidlene i fremtiden. En rapport fra OECD bærer denne frykten, og konkluderer med at ferdighetsnivået til den amerikanske arbeidsstyrken ikke bare glir i forhold til det som er av jevnaldrende i verden, det har falt farlig bak. 44 Menneskelig kapitalinvestering må være kjernen i en langsiktig strategi for å produsere ferdigheter som suppleres av snarere enn erstattet av teknologisk forandring, men Autor advarer som en postscript til hans prediksjon om fremtidig vekst i jobben. 45 Dette understreker ferdighetsgapet som er ekte, følgelig, og spenner over et stort antall sektorer og yrker. Derfor, for at beslutningstakerne effektivt skal ta opp den første søylen i middelklassen, skal velstanden øke individuell ferdighet, og det må derfor godtas at lønnsløse jobber nå krever langt mer formell utdanning og mellomkarriere enn tidligere. Arbeidets skiftende natur, rask utvikling av teknologi og uunngåelige globale strømninger har fundamentalt endret sett med ferdigheter som er nødvendige for å opprettholde levestandarden vi en gang visste. Likevel er vårt K-12-system mired i middelmådighet, høyere utdanning koster for mye og leverer for lite, og det er ingen enkle veier å holde ferdigheter skarpe i flere tiår. Alt dette etterlater en enorm mismatch mellom ferdigheter og tilgjengelige mellominntektsjobber. Ifølge Samfunnet for menneskelig ressursforvaltning fortsetter arbeidsgivere og HR-fagfolk å opprettholde vedvarende gap mellom ferdighetene til det eksisterende arbeidsbassenget og de ferdighetene som arbeidsgiverne søker å fylle bestemte stillinger. En av to organisasjoner rapporterte vanskeligheter med å rekruttere for heltidsposisjoner i løpet av det siste året. Halvparten av disse organisasjonene krevde mangel på arbeidserfaring, mangel på de rette tekniske ferdigheter eller konkurranse fra andre arbeidsgivere som en primær grunn til vanskeligheter med å ansette kvalifiserte kandidater. 46 Nedenfor skisserer vi tre store trender som har dype effekter på hvordan amerikanere oppnår og beholder ferdigheter fra barndom gjennom karrieren deres: Stalling Schools, College Wall og Adult Atrophy. Vi argumenterer for en ferdighetsrevolusjon som gjør justeringer gjennom hele læringslivet fra 4 til 64 år og foreslår måter våre institusjoner og offentlige politikk må moderniseres, slik at langt flere amerikanere har ferdighetene til å få og holde 21st århundre mellomklassearbeid. Stalling Schools Siden en Nation at Risk ble utstedt i 1983, har amerikanske offentlige skoler vist noen forbedringer. Den ansvarlige epoken som ble etablert under No Child Left Behind (NCLB) bidro til å gi målbare gevinster for studenter over hele linja, innsnevring av prestasjonsgapene for studenter av farge, engelskspråklige elever og studenter med funksjonshemninger. Spesielt har testpoengene steget forsiktig da niåringer har gått fra en nesten flat 0,1 poeng årlig forbedring i lesing i løpet av 70-, 80- og 90-tallet, til en beskjeden nipunktsforbedring mellom 1999 og 2012. Resultatene er like i matte som ni-åringer forbedret med bare to poeng gjennom 90-tallet og har oppnådd en årlig forbedring hvert år siden. 47 Fallefrekvensene har falt, og graderingsgraden har blitt høyere blant både gutter og jenter. Sammen med nye tiltak for å skape høyere standarder gjennom Common Core, forventer vi at studentenes læring fortsetter å utvikle seg i riktig retning. Men det er klart at de beskjedne forbedringene i skoleprestasjonen har gått langt unna den massive oppgaven med å forberede den fremtidige arbeidsstyrken til en 21. århundre økonomi. Høgskolenes opptaksprøvepoeng har drevet lavere over det siste tiåret på tvers av alle tre SAT-seksjoner (lesing, skriving og matte). 49 Den gjennomsnittlige ACT-poengsum for 2015-videregående opplæringstester økte resultatene å gå tilbake et tiår, ifølge The Washington Post. 50 Math scores have fallen since 2012, and one-third of test takers scored below academic readiness in all four areas of math, English, reading, and science. 51 It should be noted that test takers take the ACT voluntarily and that the universe of test takers changes over time which could have an effect on scoring trends. Internationally, we are lagging behind competitor nations. According to the 2012 Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA)a test that measures student aptitude in 34 highly-developed economiesthe United States ranks 27th in mathematics and 19th in science. 52 Korea is first and fourth, respectively. 53 Moreover, the Department of Education reports that only 16 of American high school seniors are proficient in mathematics and interested in STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) subjects. And only about half of STEM majors end up pursuing a career in the field. 54 Many STEM jobs pay double the average salary, and the Department of Commerce predicts STEM positions will increase by more than 17 by 2018. 55 There are many factors contributing to lackluster K-12 performance that are beyond the control of schools, such as poverty, family pressures, substance abuse, and domestic and neighborhood violence. Each of these needs to be addressed, and we do not wish to diminish these factors in any way. However, in this report, we focus on what many studies say is the single most important in-school factor for determining student success: getting the best out of our classroom teachers. 56 In short, our antiquated model for teaching needs to evolve so that it becomes an attractive 21st century profession. Third Ways Tamara Hiler and Lanae Erickson Hatalsky noted in a previous paper that while other sectors, such as nursing, law, and medicine, have embraced major changes over the years to overhaul the way they train, promote, and compensate their employees, the teaching profession has failed to conduct a similar internal review or make the necessary course correction. 57 This reluctance to modernize discourages high-achieving college graduates from pursuing the profession and creates disincentives to keep excellent teachers from staying. In a 2013 survey of high-achieving 4-year college students, those embarking on the teaching profession were described as nice (50), patient (46), and selfless (43), butdespite the importance of the profession and the dedication of many in the fieldthe attributes of smart (35), ambitious (24), or curious (27) scored far lower. 58 For those who do choose teaching, a survey by the American Federation of Teachers found that less than half of new teachers described their training as very good, with one in three feeling unprepared for the first day of school. 59 One of the major causes is the variable quality of teacher preparation programs and a lack of standardization in the credentialing process across states. As a result, teachers are often held to grossly different standards of entry into the profession, with programs offering varying timelines and degrees of rigor depending on where they are located. The major teachers unions agree that we should raise the bar. As a recent report from the National Education Association says, The first step in transforming our profession is to strengthen and maintain strong and uniform standards for preparation and admission. 60 Source: American Federation of Teachers. Further, the infrastructure for advancement and geographic mobility in teaching is not set up for a modern economy. Advancement opportunities for teachers are limited at best, leaving excellent teachers with little recourse to get raises or take on additional roles and responsibilities. Compensation does little to reward or incentivize great talent to stay. Nine out of ten school districts use a step-and-ladder compensation structure that only looks at teacher tenure and educational attainmentnot quality, innovation, or excellence. 61 And long vesting times and a lack of portability in teacher pension systems penalize young, successful teachers who may choose to enter another profession or move across state lines. Over the next decade, America is expected to need to hire up to three million new teachers to fill classrooms. 62 How can we expect our kids to be ready for the new economy when our country has an old-economy teaching profession model that is ill-suited to best attract, retain, or reward talent The high school credential has slipped a notch in value. In 2013, a high school graduate earned 22 per week less than a high school drop-out did in 1979, in inflation-adjusted dollars. 63 A person with some college or an Associates degree earned a 50 per week less in 2013 than a high school graduate in 1979. 64 This is how much the vast changes in the economy have affected those without a four-year degree. The College Wall This September, 1.2 million students began as full-time freshmen at a four-year college. 65 By May of 2022six school years laterjust 700,000 will earn a degree. A staggering 500,000 will not. 66 A recent study by Harvard labor economist Lawrence Katz found that a college degree provides four times the income benefit to a family than magically erasing the excess gains of the top 1 since 1979 and distributing them to everyone else. 67 But college degree attainment, particularly among men, has stalled in America. A recent OECD report showed that only 30 of working age Americans have achieved a higher level of education than their parents, a showing that ranks 20th out of 23 OECD nations. 68 In 1977, 27 of men age 25 to 29 possessed a college degree 35 years later in 2012, 29.8 of men age 25 to 29 possessed a degreea miniscule improvement. 69 Women have done much better, but less than 40 of women over 25 hold a 4-year degree. 70 The bottom line is that even though a two - or four-year college degree is the surest ticket to the middle class, not enough young adults are earning them. A huge factor in stalled college attainment is that many of those that start degrees wont make it through. Just 59 of those who begin four-year colleges as full-time freshmen graduate within six years. At two-year programs, just 31 receive a credential within three years. 71 Public community colleges have the lowest success rate with just 20 graduating in this timespan. 72 For those who do make it through, the quality they are getting for their often huge investment may not be sufficient. A shocking 36 will demonstrate no meaningful gains in critical thinking, 44 will not find work that requires a four-year degree (though this is certainly partly affected by the recession), and 25 will graduate with over 30,000 in debt. 73 Employers are unimpressed with the workforce readiness of new graduatespolling by Gallup and the Lumina Foundation found that a mere 33 of industry leaders agree that new graduates have the skills necessary to meet business needs. 74 America has accepted failure rates at 4-year colleges that approach 40 and at 2-year colleges in the neighborhood of 70 for too long. In an era where innovative companies must evolve to survive and thrive, why should colleges be any different The productivity revolution that has changed so many aspects of our economy seems to have completely missed many of our nations colleges and universities. While Democrats have focused on going after unscrupulous for-profit universities and lowering student debt, thats simply not enough. Increasing the quality of college education, improving college instruction, holding colleges more accountable for successes and failures, achieving greater value for tuition dollars, holding down student debt burdens, and ultimately graduating more students is a must for the economy and for families seeking a solid foundation in the middle class. The Adult Atrophy During the recession, Michigan launched No Worker Left Behind, an initiative to train 100,000 workers between 2007 and 2010. Michiganders flocked to the program, but it turned out that one in three working-age adults were deficient in basic skills, and a stunning 44 of all Michigan adults read below a sixth-grade level. Its tragic, said Margaret Williamson, executive director of ProLiteracy Detroit. You see them, they come in to us after theyve been to Work First and theyre so dejected because they cannot even get into a job training program. 75 Economists Frank Levy and Richard Murname note that, looking ahead, the human labor market will center on three kinds of work: solving unstructured problems, working with new information, and carrying out non-routine manual tasks. 76 Much of the rest of the work Computers and low-wage workers. David Autor adds that workers are more likely to benefit directly from automation if they supply tasks that are complemented by automation, but not if they primarily (or exclusively) supply tasks that are substituted. 77 Researchers at Oxford University predict that 47 of U. S. jobs could be automated within the next few decades. 78 These technological and global changes mean that companies have a greater opportunity to hire from anywhere in the world, and Americans will be required to compete more fiercely for high-wage careers that demand continuously adaptive skill sets. If someones brain is more wired toward things that are hands-on mechanical and there are fewer and fewer jobs for that skill, they have fewer opportunities to be employed, even though they have a skill. That skill just does not have the value it may have had previously. Millennial female focus group participant, July 2015 79 Yet there are 46.5 million Americans in the workforce today who have no more education than a high school diploma. 80 These and future workers who possess only a high school diploma must have an opportunity to increase their skills in order to secure jobs that allow them to enjoy a middle class life. Meanwhile, the Survey of Adult Skills (an international assessment that tests numeracy, literacy and problem solving in the worlds 20 most advanced economies) found that U. S. adults are far behind our international competitors: 81 In literacy, the United States ranked 14th out of 20 In numeracy, the United States ranked 18th out of 20 and, In problem solving, the United States came in 15th out of 17. Not all countries administered the test measuring problem solving. Acquiring new skills as an adult has become more self-directed than in the past as companies have decreased their training budgets. Between the years 1996 and 2008, the percentage of workers receiving training paid for by their employer decreased from 19.4 to 11.2 and the percentage of workers receiving on the job training also declined, from 13.1 to 8.4. 82 Source: Council of Economic Advisors. Many adults in the workforce with only a high school diploma, or even some college, find that their skills have atrophied. They are not prepared for the next step in a career where a new job opportunity may require know-how they do not possess. They need a way to keep their skills fresh and sharp while theyre in the workforce. So where does the Democratic Party go from here As a result of these three 21st century realities, we need a skills revolution that transforms the entire pipeline of learningfrom the youngest learners through college and adulthoodso that far more Americans possess the skills to get and hold 21st century middle class jobs. Below, we lay out numerous ideas on how to do that, starting from the youngest learners to the oldest. To pay for these ideas, we allocate 130 billion over 10 years through savings in mandatory spendingspecifically, as detailed later in the report, by reducing waste and inefficiencies in health care, none of which reduce, harm, or increase the cost of benefits. 1. Make Pre-K matter for those who need it most (35 billion). Pre-K doesnt need to be universal: higher-income children face fewer barriers to mobility and less stress in their daily lives than low - and moderate-income children and, thus, get fewer benefits from pre-K services. Low-income children who attend pre-K, however, are more likely to graduate from high school, be employed as adults, and earn higher wages. 83 Thus, we recommend that the federal government provide funding for comprehensive, peak-quality pre-K for every low - and moderate-income three - and four-year-old in the nationthe kids who need it the most and are the least likely to get it. 84 Funding should be predicated on the use of evidence-based curricula that builds important non-cognitive skills like grit and a growth mindsetskills that lead to more successful students as well as adult success. Resources should also be made available for wraparound services that help low - and moderate-income families with child care, home visits, parenting skills, and mental and physical health. One great example of high-quality early education for these families is Head Start, which has provided a stepping stone to opportunity for over 50 years. Our proposals to strengthen this crucial federal program include maximizing the number of home visits, expanding emotional well-being services, eliminating the arbitrary funding division between Head Start and Early Head Start, and incentivizing early enrollment. Quality early childhood educationlike that provided by Head Start programs nationwideis crucial to getting low - and moderate-income children ready to learn in school and helping ensure their homes are conducive learning environments. 2. Take the teaching profession out of the suffragette age (40 billion). We have an antiquated professional model leftover from a time when ambitious, intelligent, career-oriented women had a paucity of choices where they could employ their highly developed skills. Even today, male teachers constitute just 2.3 of pre-K and kindergarten teachers, 18.3 of the elementary and middle school teacher population, and 42 of the high school level teaching staff, according to the Association of American Educators. 85 Today, highly ambitious young women have myriad career choices and men still generally eschew the teaching profession. This calls for a re-think of a profession that expects entrants to stay for a 30-year career and punishes those who dont. The system should be overhauled to incentivize top students to seek out the profession, provide those who excel in it with continuous opportunities to earn more responsibility and greater pay without making them leave the classroom, and allow qualified teachers to move to the next state or across the country without having to start from scratch. This could be done through the following steps: Boost teacher earnings through a total overhaul of student loan forgiveness programs. Federal student loan assistance fails teachers and does nothing to attract young people into the classroom. The TEACH grant program is so poorly designed that the federal government actually makes money off of college students who accept TEACH grants and are later penalized when those grants convert into loans. We call for making teacher loan assistance programs simple and real. Every teacher in a high-needs school or subject should receive a monthly loan payment from the federal government from the moment he or she steps in the classroom. Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT), along with Senator Mark Warner (D-VA), Representative Derek Kilmer (D-WA), and Representative Richard Hanna (R-NY) have proposed legislation (the Teacher Loan Repayment Act of 2015) that would do just that. For the typical teacher with student loans, this would add 5,148 to their yearly pay. 86 Make teacher certification more rigorous and portable. The entryway into teaching is both unwieldy and undemanding. Each state sets its own (historically very low) bar for licensure, creating a jumbled patchwork of requirements that make it difficult for teachers to transfer their credentials from state to state. But young and modern professionals do not want to be geographically limited by the careers they choose. We call for the creation of a common application for teacher licensure that would allow teachers who demonstrate mastery of rigorous entry standards to move their credentials freely across state lines. Not only would this give states the ability to recruit excellent teachers from all over the country, it would also allow teachers to participate in a profession that better meets the needs of a 21st century mobile economy for the first time. Treat teachers like professionals. Today, nearly nine in 10 teachers are paid via step-and-ladder salary scales that only acknowledge their years in the classroom and number of degrees they hold. 87 We must modernize the way we pay and promote teachers by expanding career ladder structures that no longer see teachers as interchangeable widgets, but recognize and reward excellence with additional leadership opportunities, increased pay, and more autonomy. One such career ladder model is the Leadership Initiative for Teachers (LIFT) system used in District of Columbia Public Schools, which offers increased compensation to teachers who help their students achieve academic growth and take on additional responsibilities within the school, like mentoring novice teachers or leading trainings for their peers. Delawares Committee to Advance Educator Compensation and Careers has also recommended offering base salary supplements for educators taking on leadership responsibilities in addition to their core roles. 88 The government can also leverage philanthropic capital by providing one-time, 50 matching funds for school districts that attract private, charitable funding to modernize their career ladders. 89 Instill more teachers with STEM skills. The No Child Left Behind Act required states to ensure that all of their students were proficient in the critical skills of math and reading. Because of this, many districts spent less time focusing on other important subject areas, such as science, technology, and engineering. However, the proposed reauthorization of that billthe Every Child Achieves Act alleviates some of this problem through two key initiatives. First, an effort by Senators Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), the Innovative Technology Expands Childrens Horizons (ITECH) program, would increase access to technology and provide teachers with the training needed to best use these new tools. Another effort from Senators Patty Murray (D-WA), Al Franken (D-MN), and Mark Kirk (R-IL) would provide states with the support needed to establish partnerships between schools, businesses, and non-profit organizationsall with the goal of improving student learning through STEM activities, including teacher training in the STEM fields. Establish four national teaching service academies. The U. S. military academies are widely respected institutions, which attract and inspire the brightest, hardest-working 18-year olds and provide them a free, top-flight education in exchange for five years of active duty in service of their country. We recommend establishing national teaching academies that would replicate this model with the aim of building the next generation of outstanding teachers. The teaching academies should be located in a diverse range of U. S. cities in need of a K-12 Renaissance. The academies would provide free, rigorous liberal arts education and national board certification. They would use innovative approaches to train graduates as student-teachers and place them in key districts across the country for a minimum of five years of national service. Not only would the academies help fight the achievement gap, but they would also provide an infusion of economic activity and human capital into these cities. 3. Link K-12 and college. College readiness is a big problem among high school graduates. This stems, in part, from a historic lack of alignment between the K-12 and higher education systems, and from the honesty gap that has allowed states to label students as proficient even when they are not. 90 The recent implementation of the Common Core State Standards has been an important first step in providing students with the high-level math and reading skills they need to be successful in college however, we have more to do to ensure that all students can directly transfer that knowledge to a higher education setting. One way to strengthen this connection is to increase high school students exposure to college-level material, whether through expanded access to Advanced Placement classes or greater investments in early college high schools that allow students to simultaneously earn both an associate degree and high school diploma. In addition, recent efforts by the College Board to mail informational packets to all high-school seniors deemed college-ready, including information on application fee waivers, with follow ups by high school guidance counselors and state officials, should be duplicated in all states as a way to increase understanding of college options at a young age. 91 Particular attention should be paid to enticing high-performing, low-income students to dream big and attend college. For example, Pell Grants should be modified to strengthen the link to college. Currently, Pell Grants are only offered to college students who have already obtained a high school diplomanot to high school students enrolled in early college courses. Making Pell Grants available to these students would encourage earlier college degree attainment. Senators Rob Portman (R-OH) and Mark Warner (D-VA) recently introduced legislation that would do just this. The Go to High School, Go to College Act, would incentivize high schools to offer college courses to students by allowing them to be funded by Pell Grants. 4. Establish a Consumers Report for online learning. In 2009, 1.8 million K-12 students were enrolled in an online or distance learning course. 92 That doesnt include the millions of students who use online learning programs at home to supplement in-class teaching, or the 6.7 million college students who took at least one online course in 2011. 93 But as Peggy Clements of the Education Development Center notes, educators not only dont know whether online courses work or do not work, but under what circumstances they work, for what purposes they work, and what types of supportfrom online teachers, school staff, and even other studentsbenefit students when theyre participating in an online course. 94 We need a Consumers Report for online learning that harnesses technology to improve K-12 education, as called for by economists Aaron Chatterji and Benjamin Jones in a 2012 Hamilton Project paper. 95 They propose the creation of a non-profit entity to evaluate education technologies using rigorous randomized methods, to rate education technology products, and to disseminate that information to the nations 13,754 school districts. 96 We would expand this idea to include evaluation of college-level courses to help students throughout their learning career. This Consumers Report for online learning can be established within a government agency, for example the Department of Education or the Federal Trade Commission (which has broad authority to prevent false advertising to consumers). 5. Construct a new College Compact (35 billion). We need a new compact with Americas colleges that will restore the promise of higher educationa top notch education at an affordable price: Make teaching and student learning the top priority for colleges. By 2020, every college in America that receives federal loans or grants should be required to have a transparent system in place to measure student learning, as well as an actionable plan to improve teaching quality. The goal of this would be to ensure that students are actually increasing their skills and knowledge and, therefore, getting a good value for their money. To help colleges with this, the federal government can provide funding to help colleges design the best ways to evaluate student learning outcomes. Congress should also ensure that a minimum of 1 of total federal funding on research and instruction is spent every year on improving teaching quality, either by helping to raise the prestige of highly-effective professors, incentivizing institutions to focus on the pedagogical development of its educators, or providing students with greater protections around the quality of instruction they receive. A Right-to-Know Law for college consumers. Earlier this year, we called for increasing transparency so parents and students can have far more expansive quality information to make better-informed choices about where to make their college investment. Since then, the Obama Administration has begun to take steps to allow parents and students to link institution-level college prices, debt levels, and graduate employment earnings through their College Scorecardbut families deserve the ability to access more customized data broken down by demographics, college majors, and employment levels so that they can make sure college is truly worth the cost. 97 Using the leverage of the federal government to ensure that valuable student-unit level consumer data is made public (data can easily be anonymized to protect individual privacy) would allow the media, researchers, and consumers themselves to see how schools are performing for all types of students in order to make more educated choices about where to make their college investment. Ensure colleges have skin in the game for student non-payment of loans. Colleges largely get a free pass if their students earn too little to meet their monthly loan payments. A new system of accountability should be designedbased not on defaults, but on the percentage of students who are unable to make at least a one-dollar reduction in their principal balance over the course of a year. This new system should also be coupled with a monetary bonus for schools that enroll a high percentage of Pell Grant recipients, so institutions arent given the incentive to raise admissions standards to weed out individuals who they fear may be less likely to succeed. If crafted correctly, this new system would force schools to bear some of the risk that now entirely rests with students. Senators Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) and Orrin Hatch (R-UT) have introduced legislation, The Student Protection and Success Act, which would take this important step toward increased accountability. Penalize colleges for credit inflation. According to the Department of Education, the average college student accumulates 138 credits upon graduationthough most schools only require 120. These additional 18 credits tack on an extra semester, and cost around 6,500 per student. 98 Schools that accept federal aid should be required to pay a penalty up to half of the cost of additional credits if a high percentage of their students earn more credits than it takes to graduate. 6. Mid-career Prep for Success academies (19 billion). Millions of adults need to upgrade their skills or earn a new credential, but their academic foundation has diminished since high school. From parents wanting to re-enter the workforce after raising a child to someone looking to make a career jump, this lack of readiness affects an individuals potential to qualify for or succeed in a training program, community college, or 4-year school. We propose free, high-quality Prep for Success courses for adults to hone basic skills so they can then succeed in community colleges or worker training programs, preferably before they lose their jobs and need re-training. This would be offered free-of-charge to all adults whether or not they are currently employed. The federal government would work with private employers and unions to disseminate information about these courses to their workers. Classes would be delivered via blended learningmeaning that students could learn from home, through their union, or even while on a break from work. Ultimately, this program would provide crucial worker training in the most convenient, efficient, and effective way possible. 7. Connect military service to middle class jobs (2 billion). According to the Department of Labor, eight in 10 veterans leave military service without a job lined up, one in four veterans were underemployed and earning below-poverty wages, and the spouses of service members report 90 unemployment or underemployment. 99 To link service members, their spouses, reservists, and members of the National Guard to middle class jobs, we call for training centers to be established at each military base to guide individuals through state licensing procedures and certification processes as well as to connect them with necessary training and relevant employers. Additionally, these centers could be used to help active duty members find and participate in externships with private sector companies in fields related to their expertise. This would allow these individuals to remain connected to the civilian labor force and maintain the competitive skills necessary for non-military employment while also enhancing the knowledge and skills that they bring to their military occupations 8. Link job training to employment. Vice President Joe Biden noted that We have to be prepared for a 21st century worldIts not just preparing for the jobs that exist, its preparing for the jobs you know are going to be coming. 100 To meet this goal, we call on Washington to commit resourcesfrom federal grant programs to other supportwill incent and reward workforce training programs that effectively give Americans the skills necessary to prosper in the future. As we have previously written, effective workforce programs exhibit an identifiable series of characteristics. 101 They must actively engage local business so that training is designed to meet the specific needs of employers. They use labor market data and job projections to tailor training to growing industries and eliminate irrelevant programs. They bring transparency to the job market and build career tracksall while providing wrap-around services to help job seekers facing difficult circumstances. Efforts should start by modernizing the Perkins Career and Technical Education Program, which is a federal program for career and technical education (CTE). A large and diverse coalition of industry leaders, community colleges, state agencies, and nonprofits have called for an overhaul of the program so that CTE programs align with local labor markets, increase collaboration between schools and employers, and increase industry partnerships and credentials. The sheer number of competing workforce programs also needs to be overhauledthere are currently 20 workforce programs housed in five separate federal departments. The Center for American Progress has proposed the creation of a national Workforce Investment Bank, which would streamline the various programs, align their goals, and house them under one roof. 102 A simplified, more targeted workforce development system would allow the federal government to use its resources more efficiently to better reach those with the greatest needs. 9. Become a global skills magnet. Immigrants were central to the first 240 years of Americas economic success, and they will be central to the next 240 years. Our immigration system must explicitly attract the worlds best talent to increase the productivity of our overall workforce. Comprehensive immigration reform should prioritize skills-based immigration, eliminate arbitrary immigration caps that keep skilled workers out of the country, retain the talented foreign students we educate, create a path for the temporary workers our economy relies on, andof coursebring the 11 million undocumented immigrants already here out of the shadows and into the legal economy. This is exactly what the bipartisan Gang of Eight bill that passed the Senate last Congress would do. Change the Jobs Equation When Fortune Magazine first unveiled its list of the 500 largest global companies in 1990, 167 were headquartered in the United States. 103 By 2014, that number had dropped to 128, with another 98 of the Fortune Global 500 now headquartered in China. 104 Of the top 10 global companies last year, just two (WalMart and Exxon) were American while three were Chinese. 105 According to Fortune . these 500 companies were spread out among 36 countries, generated 31.2 trillion of revenue (roughly twice the size of the U. S. economy), made 1.7 trillion in profit, and employed 65 million people. 106 Looking ahead, a McKinsey Global Institute report predicts that the share of Fortune Global 500 companies from emerging economies will probably jump to more than 45 by 2025, up from just 5 in 2000. 107 McKinsey estimates that of the next 7,000 firms to clear the threshold of one billion dollars in annual revenue, 5,000 will be located in emerging market countries. 108 While corporate giants are getting more global, what about the new kids on the block Harvard Business Schools 2015 Survey on U. S. Competitiveness found that the startup rate of new businesses has been dropping since the 1980s. They found that firms in their first year of operations accounted for about 13 of all companies in 1980, but only 8 in recent yearsa trend that has spread across multiple industries. 109 This is particularly concerning as new job growth is generated mostly from younger firms, not older ones. 110 Moreover, as the number of new business starts has crested, the average number of people they employ per firm is down by nearly half. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, an average new business hired 4.4 people in 2011, compared to 7.3 in the 1990s. 111 Source: U. S. Census Business Dynamic Statistics. If policymakers are to effectively address the second pillar of middle class prosperityincreasing private sector jobsthey need to fully embrace the reality that businesses no longer need to locate, expand, and hire in the U. S. Globalization and digitization have transformed where and how private sector jobs are created . Foreign markets are creating vast and unprecedented opportunities abroad. Other countries are racing to reform their tax policies to better attract business investment, location and hiring. And the emerging market governments are increasing their investments in innovation, physical infrastructure, and human capital as the U. S. pulls back on investments. The old success formula for America is no longer working. Below, we describe three major trends that are reshaping where and how jobs are created: the Upside-Down Economy, the Anywhere Economy, and the Malnourished Economy. We then show how government and our public policies need to be modernized in order to take these new 21st century realities into account. The Upside-Down Economy It might be time to retire the term emerging markets. In 1992, advanced economies produced 64 of the worlds GDP, essentially two dollars in output for every one dollar produced by the emerging economies. In 2013, for the first time in history, the emerging economies produced more than the sum of the advanced economies. 112 We use purchasing power parity adjusted data and use the IMFs definition of advanced economies, which includes the following 34 nations: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hong Kong, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Korea, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Singapore, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Source: International Monetary Fund. This surge in foreign markets is best exemplified in Asia. The market size of the 15 leading East Asian economies has grown by 261 since the turn of the century, from 1.5 trillion in 2000 to 5.4 trillion in 2014 (nominal dollars). 113 Their growth rate soared to over 10 in the pre-global financial crisis era, and since then has maintained strong growth at around 7.5 in 2014. This growth has been shared among nearly all of the 15 Asian economies, save Japanthe largest advanced economy in Asia. The 15 East Asian economies we analyzed include: Brunei, Cambodia, China, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Japan, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam. Over the same time period, the U. S. economy grew at an average annual rate of 1.9. That is the slowest rate of growth over the longest period of time for the U. S. economy for at least a century. Future growth is expected to improve to slightly above 2, and according to forecasters, it is estimated that the U. S. economy will grow from 17.4 trillion to 25.4 trillion over the coming 15 years, in real dollars. However, the rest of the world will expand by 53.4 trillion, from 65.6 trillion to 119 trillion, according to these same estimates. 114 Thus, nearly 90 of the worlds economic growth over the next 15 years will occur outside of the United States. By 2050, the emerging economies are projected to produce twice as much as the advanced economies produce, highlighting the explosive growth that is expected from emerging economies. 115 Source: 2014 data comes from the IMF World Economic Outlook database Projections come from PwC. It follows that the future success of America and its middle class will depend in large part on how much of what we produce here is sold and consumed outside of this country. However, our record is surprisingly poor when it comes to exports. While we export a large dollar amount because of our sheer size, relative to the weight of our economy the U. S. underperforms. Of the 40 largest economies in the world, the United States derives less of its GDP from exports than any country except Brazil. 116 One result of foreign markets exploding is the creation of a burgeoning overseas middle class. President Obama has spoken of a pivot to Asia. By 2020, half of the worlds middle class consumers will be there. By 2030, the Asian middle class will include 3.2 billion23 of the worlds total middle class and ten times the current population of the United States. 117 Our export performance in Asia has been trending in the wrong direction. In 2000, U. S. exports accounted for over 12.3 of the Asian import market, but 14 years later, U. S. exports account for just 6.6. That 46 American decline in market share is worse than any of the other major 24 competitors to the region, except Japan. And while the U. S. is losing ground, Chinas share of exports to Asia has increased by 125. In 2014, its exports comprised nearly 20 of the total Asian import market. 118 The Anywhere Economy Expanding global markets, combined with advances in technology, means capital is much more mobile. Gone are the days when businesses had no alternative but to locate and expand in the United States. In this new anywhere economy . businesses, their employees, and their customers can often be anywhere in the world. And if one business seizes global opportunities and another in the same sector does not, the slow business goes the way of Radio Shack, Jack Markell, Governor of Delaware wrote recently. 119 Inversionthe corporate practice of merging with a smaller foreign company in order to change its domicile and pay lower taxesmay be vilified, but with our current tax system, its nonetheless rational. The practice has justifiably drawn significant attention in Washington which has been unable to reach agreement on corporate tax reform and is left decrying the exodus of American businesses to friendlier tax havens. But there is as much evidence that no one else gives a whit. Case in point: Burger King. In 2014, they undertook the most public inversion of a known consumer product sensitive to the vagaries of public opinion with their marriage to Canadas Tim Hortons. The merger was the subject of withering criticism and intense press scrutiny. The burger giant was even subjected to a national boycott. 120 Yet in the first quarter of 2015, Burger King reported one of its best quarters ever, according to the company. 121 Burger King sales recorded a sharp increase of 9.6 over the previous year. Some store sales jumped 4.6, double what analysts had predicted. 122 If inversions didnt hurt Burger Kings sales, they probably wont hurt other companies sales. Other countries have recognized this trend and adopted reforms to attract corporate investment and business formation. Nineteen OECD countries have moved to a territorial tax system since the U. S. last reformed its code, so that 28 of the 33 non-U. S. OECD countries do not significantly tax active foreign earnings when this capital is moved back to headquarters. 123 Meanwhile, the United States has not had a significant overhaul of our tax structure in 30 years. The top U. S. statutory corporate tax rate (including state corporate income tax) is 39.1more than 14 percentage points higher than the 2014 average (24.8) for other OECD countries, and 10 percentage points higher than the average (29) for the other G7 countries. 124 In addition, the current U. S. system, which taxes foreign earnings on a deferred basis after they have been subject to tax overseas, all but begs companies to keep earnings abroad. Its no surprise that, according to Bloomberg, there is 2.1 trillion in overseas profits of American corporations stored abroad. 125 Ireland is now home to 700 American companies and a corporate tax rate roughly 13 of ours at 12.5. 126 As former Chairwoman of President Clintons Council of Economic Advisors Laura Tyson testified in 2015, Our corporate tax system was designed for an economy in which U. S. multinational companies earned most of their revenues at home, international competition was relatively unimportant, and most corporate profits were produced by tangible assets, such as machinery and buildings. This is not todays world. 127 Looking to the recent past, Economists Michael Spense and Sandile Hlatshwaya found that of the 27 million jobs the U. S. economy created between 1990 and 2007, all but a handful were jobs that could only be done in the United States because of proximityjobs like nursing, teaching, construction, and food service. America has been losing out on what they termed tradeable jobsjobs than can be completed anywhere, like manufacturing, software design, call centers, and back office functions. 128 Source: Michael Spence and Sandile Hlatshwayo, The Evolving Structure of the American Economy and the Employment Challenge, Council on Foreign Relations, 2011. The Malnourished Economy For decades, two progressive priorities have been elbowing each other at the dinner table: safety net spending and public investments. The safety net has gotten the extra helpings. In the early 1960s, the federal government spent 3 on what the Office of Management and Budget calls public investments for every 1 it spent on the major retirement and health care entitlement programs. 129 At the time, the safety net was threadbare and needed new strands to protect vulnerable populations. Many were enacted in the 1960s and they made America a better place. But these two impulsesone to protect people, the other to grow the economywere destined to compete for finite dollars. Thus, by the early 1970s, the ratio was one-to-one as Medicare and Medicaid expanded the safety net. But, by 2013, the ratio reversed to 1 in investments for every 3 spent on the three major entitlement programs. In ten years, the ratio is projected to be one-to-six. This collision course of progressive prioritiesdue mainly to the aging of the population and continual increase in per capita health care costshas put public investments that are crucial to helping spur private sector job creation on a starvation diet. Source: Authors calculations based on U. S. Office of Management and Budget and U. S. Congressional Budget Office. For more information, read our Collision Course report. Could we replenish investments while leaving entitlements be It seems unlikely. First, we havent been able to do that in the past. For example, prior to 1980 the U. S. devoted 3 of U. S. GDP annually to spending on public infrastructuremoving people, ideas, and products faster, cheaper, and safer. But since 1980, we have spent less than 2 of GDP on infrastructure annually, resulting in a huge shortfall of needed investment. One percent might not seem like a lot, but over the last 20 years this has accumulated into a 1.7 trillion deficit in infrastructure investment. 130 From 1953-1987, growth in federal research and development (RampD) investment was 5.3 on an average annual basis in real dollars, but from 1988-2012, growth was 1.1 per year. 131 As a share of GDP, U. S. RampD basically flat-lined, inching up just 3 from 1987 to 2008, while Chinas grew 110 and Koreas 91. Today, the United States accounts for 30 of the worlds total RampD efforts, down from 2001 where the U. S. performed 37 of total RampD. Asian RampD represents 34 of global RampD, up from 25 in 2001. 132 Source: Association for the Advancement of Science. Reason number two comes down to the tax burden voters are willing to accept. Federal spending currently makes up 20.5 of the entire economy. But, by 2040, it is projected to comprise 25.3 of the economyalmost entirely due to entitlements and health care spending. 133 State and local spending take up another 17 134 and, because of public pensions and health care, these are also expected to grow. The public appetite for the massive additional taxation needed to support growth-inducing public investments would likely be low at future levels of government spending. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is the largest source of funding for medical research in the world and supports research personnel at over 2,500 centers across the United States. 135 NIHs investment and extensive collaboration with the private sector in RampD has led to world-renown innovations (from creation of the MRI scan to new cancer treatments), brought life-saving products to market, and fueled extensive economic activity. For example, Wisconsin-based TomoTherapy emerged from NIH-funded cancer research and created machines that changed the way doctors treat cancer tumors. Based on that NIH research, the company grew to 1,100 people, has over 400 million in yearly revenue, and manufactures every device in Wisconsin. 136 But future NIH research is under attack. According to the American Association for the Advancement of Science, NIHs RampD budget has steadily declined since Fiscal Year 2004. 137 Private sector investments are also down. The corporate sector all too often grapples with what Hillary Clinton and others have termed short termismthe drive for immediate shareholder profits and the fear of activist investor takeovers. A survey of 1,000 corporate executives and board members by McKinsey and the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board found that 79 felt the pressure to demonstrate strong financial performance over two years or less, and 86 said longer time horizons would help corporate performance with stronger financial returns and increasing innovation. 138 According to Brookings scholars Elaine Kamarck and Bill Galston, A survey of CEOs and chief financial officers found that to avoid missing their own quarterly earnings estimates, 80 were willing to forgo RampD spending and 55 to delay promising long-term projects. 139 Simply put, an excessive focus on short-term results prevents investments from building competitiveness and creating long-term value. This shift has realigned business incentives away from, notably, RampD. Private industrys annual investment growth in RampD has averaged 1.6 since 2000, after averaging 6.2 annual investment growth through the two decades prior. 140 And in the credit markets, the oxygen supply for small businesses has also decreased. Banks that in 1995 dedicated 50 of their loans to small businesses only provided 30 to them in 2012. 141 Dated regulations and government bureaucracy can drastically impede innovation and entrepreneurship. Take applying for a patent. Innovators who seek patents on new products and inventions face a waiting period of more than a year and a half from the time they apply for a patent to its first review by an examiner at the U. S. Patent and Trademark Office. There is a backlog of 600,000 unexamined patent applications. The agency also has not been equipped to handle the threat posed by patent trolls that are holding innovators hostage and stripping them of critical capital. Patent trolls have surged in recent years, accounting for almost two-thirds of all patents cases in 2014. 142 So where does the Democratic Party go from here To make the three trends work for Americans and not against them, we need to modernize our government and re-imagine regulations, the tax code, RampD investment, small business promotion, and export policy to best enable private sector job creation. Here are a series of ideas on how to do that: 1. Establish a 400 billion Strategic Investment Initiative. We recommend a 400 billion infusion of new, and fully offset, money over ten years for federal investmentsfrom increased RampD, to modern roads, bridges, and ports, to manufacturing and the space programthat directly creates long-term growth and private sector jobs. This new money would be over existing investment levels and discretionary spending sequestration caps. We would finance this new investment through savings in mandatory spendingspecifically by reducing waste and inefficiencies in health care, none of which reduce, harm, or increase the cost of benefits (see next section for details). Within the 400 billion Strategic Investment Initiative . we recommend the following: A Rebuild America Fund that supercharges our infrastructure network from Saratoga to San Diego, linking states, leveraging private capital, and supporting 2.1 million jobs over the next 10 years (172 billion over 10 years). 143 Create a 21st century road and rail network through a National Infrastructure Bank (75 billion). Just as we committed to a national network of highways in the 1950s, we need a new commitment to a modern road and rail network to move people and products faster, cheaper, and safer. Sixty-five percent of Americas major roads need work, one in four bridges require significant repair, and 45 of Americans lack access to transit. 144 Upgrading our roads, bridges, and rail systems to a 21st century system would create vast amounts of short term, well-paying union jobs and long-term growth. A National Infrastructure Bank would be initially capitalized with 75 billion which, when leveraged, would provide over 1 trillion in competitive project financing. Transform our gateways to the skies (40 billion). Americas 30 largest airports handled 540 million passengers in 2014. 145 And, nationally, more than one-quarter of the nations 3.5 million flights were delayed or cancelled last year. 146 We provide 40 billion to upgrade outdated facilities, increase passenger capacity, and promote aircraft innovations. 147 An infusion of capital will modernize the nations most prominent international hubs, create new jobs, and revolutionize the way we transport people and American goods throughout the globe. Supersize our strategic seaports (30 billion). The expanded Panama Canal can now handle new cargo ships that are the length of an aircraft carrier, twice the height of the Lincoln Memorial, and that carry as many as 12,000 containersor about a million flat-screen TVs. 148 But U. S. ports often arent deep enough to accommodate these new ships. Funding to deepen our port channels and prepare the ports with larger cranes and other improvements will allow us to tap into global supply chains and ensure more Made in the USA goods get on foreign shelves. i-Connect all Americans (15 billion). Today, too many Americans are not connected to the Internet, cutting them off from educational opportunities, the online consumer marketplace, and 21st century careers. In some, mostly rural, areas, households lack access to a fixed broadband network. In other communities, often those most economically hard-pressed, many who have access to a broadband connection do not adopt the technology despite its many benefits. Our 15 billion i-Connect grant program would address both problems, serving as a separate but complementary effort to the Universal Service Fund to deploy a wide variety of broadband technologies to areas that are not currently being served, while also confronting barriers to adoption in order to connect individuals and drive local economic growth. Invest in a Grid of the Future (5 billion). New types of power generation, more customers, physical and cyber threats ranging from climate change to terrorism, and new technologiesfrom distributed generation to smart metersrequire a vastly modernized grid system. We call for 3.5 billion to help states and utilities develop technology to upgrade the grid and enhance security as well as 1.5 billion in competitive funding for states to coordinate around energy reliability, affordability, energy efficiency, lower carbon generation, and environmental protection. Modernize natural gas transmission and distribution pipelines (7 billion). We add 7 billion to assist utilities with pipeline replacement costs and technology deployment to enhance grid reliability, safety, and regulatory compliance. These modernization efforts not only generate environmental benefits by reducing fugitive emissions, they also help industry capture more product and create more jobs. Inspire Grants to return to Americas innovation glory days (84 billion over 10 years). Restore NSF funding to historic levels (10 billion). The National Science Foundation provides a fifth of all federal research spending 149 and is a key investment America makes towards the future. But over the past two years, sequestration has taken a devastating 500 million bite out of NSFs already modest budget. We call for 10 billion in new NSF funding to restore mindless sequestration cuts, bring funding to historical highs, account for inflation, and fund the breakthrough research that will lead to a cornucopia of yet imagined ideas. Strengthen entrepreneurship with the construction of Maker Spaces in 1,000 community colleges (2 billion). Maker Spaces are shared spaces equipped with D. I.Y. manufacturing equipmentsuch as 3-D printing presses and computer-aided design softwareand staffed by experts, where people can go to transform ideas into reality. Grants of 2 million would be made available for up to 1,000 community colleges to refurbish spaces, purchase equipment, and train staff in operating the equipment. The spaces would be open to students and entrepreneurs in the community, providing them an opportunity to learn advanced manufacturing skills and expand their innovation productivity. Inject new funds into NASA (20 billion). We are living off the past with one of Americas greatest jewels: NASA. We landed on the moon in 1969. We explored Pluto just months agobut the launch was decades past. NASA doesnt just enhance our knowledge of the universe, it inspires generations of future scientists and inventors and contributes to technologies that create entirely new markets. 150 When we landed on the moon, NASAs budget was 27.5 billion in todays dollars. Today, it stands at 18 billion. 151 We add 20 billion to bring NASA closer to its heyday and to inspire science and exploration. As in the past, NASA funding will create new economic growth that benefits everyone. Jumpstart affordable, reliable, emissions-free energy (12 billion). The world needs more affordable, reliable, and clean electricity to tackle the twin challenges of climate change and growing demand for energy. We add 12 billion for the government to work with the private sector to develop and deploy carbon capture and sequestration and advanced nuclear. These funds may save the planet and will certainly create jobs and new research that leads to new businesses. Lead on cures (40 billion). One of the drivers of Americas economy is medical, pharmacological, and bio-medical research. The National Institutes of Healths budget has steadily declined since 2004. 152 We restore funding to past historic levels and recommit to the eradication of life-threatening diseases and driving medical innovation. This funding would be on top of any additional resources provided to the NIH budget through the 21st Century Cures Act. A Make It in America Manufacturing Agenda (20 billion over 10 years). Race to the Shop grants (10 billion). Every new manufacturing job adds another 1.6 jobs to the local service economy for every dollar in manufacturing sales, another 1.34 is added to the economy. We call for the enactment and funding of a series of initiatives led by Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD) and Senators Chris Coons (D-DE) and Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) to usher in a manufacturing renaissance. These manufacturing initiatives include increased funds for training between community colleges and businesses, reforms in workforce education and skill training for advanced manufacturing, and new resources (such as low-interest loans) to build new facilities, upgrade equipment, and connect innovative small suppliers with larger companies. 153 Create 1 million new apprentices (5 billion). The German economy boasts as one of its most successful features an apprenticeship system that trains 1.5 million workers each year. 154 As the Center for American Progress and others have written, apprenticeship programs are vastly underutilized in the United States but have begun to show promise in select states that have prioritized their expansion, including Delaware and South Carolina. Robert Lerman of the Urban Institute proposes a marginal tax credit, which would give employers a tax creditwe propose 5,000for each new apprenticeship a business offers over the previous years level. 155 Boost patent resources (5 billion). The U. S. Patent Office has a backlog of over half a million new patent applications. 156 This backlog stems from overloaded patent examiners. From the time of application to the first action, patent holders are waiting a year and half to hear back on their applications. 157 Every 1,000 new examiners reduces the backlog by 23, so we call for 4,000 new examiners to ensure that ideas dont gather dust in a federal bureaucracy. 158 2. Increase U. S. annual exports by 1 trillion by 2025. We need to tap into the exploding growth of foreign markets to ensure they buy more Made in the USA goods and services. Heres how: Pass trade deals so we make it here and sell it there. There is no path to seizing exports without aggressive, high-standard trade agreements that level the playing field. Our last 17 trade deals (all post-NAFTA) cleared that bar and improved the U. S. balance of trade in the goods sector alone by more than 30 billion on an average annual basis. Exports of goods to those countries jumped 52, double the rate of goods imports. 159 And these figures do not include the lucrative service sector economy where the U. S. is already king. This success is because modern trade deals are better and of higher standards than the past. The U. S. Congress is about to consider the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal with 11 other economies in a region that represents nearly 40 of global GDP. We are also negotiating the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) which has the opportunity to strengthen our already strong trading relationship with the countries of the European Union. We need to conclude and pass these deals in order to ensure that more Made in the USA products can land on foreign shelves and that we are setting modern, high-standard rules for the globe to ensure that American companies can fairly compete. Add 200,000 new exporting businesses by 2025. According to the Census Bureau, 302,000 known businesses accounted for nearly all U. S. exports in 2011. 160 This is out of a total of more than 20 million American businesses. 161 200,000 new exporting businesses would add more than 300 billion in new exports for the U. S. each year, even if every one of the businesses was of small or medium size (fewer than 500 employees). 162 While there are some promising initiatives, such as the Small Business Administrations (SBA) State Trade and Export Promotion (STEP) Pilot Programwhich makes matching fund awards to states to assist small businesses with exportsmore needs to be done. We recommend establishing a full-scale dedicated small and medium exporter (SME) service within the Commerce Departments U. S. Commercial Service to help SMEs find new markets, understand and navigate foreign customs regulations and standards, and comply with foreign tax systems. This office would have the explicit goal of increasing the number of U. S. small and medium businesses that export. Smaller exporters say that a large challenge to reaching foreign markets is customs regulations and restrictions that are difficult and expensive to navigate. 163 A dedicated SME team can assist smaller businesses in understanding what expansion potential exists in growing international markets and provide further assistance through Gold Key Matching Services, 164 through which they can have access to personalized client services such as productservice launch assistance, regulatory and technical assistance, and reduction of market access barriers. These businesses accounted for 1.3 trillion in exports in 2011, representing 89.2 of total U. S. exports for that year. The businesses that encompass the remaining 10.8 of exports were not known to the Census Bureau at the time of the report. Clear-cut the bureaucratic export jungle. U. S. exporters face a confusing tangle of overlapping export support services among the Commerce Department, Small Business Administration, Export-Import Bank, the Department of Agriculture, and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation. In addition to preserving the Export-Import Bank, these services need to be brought under the oversight and management of a single agency that would serve as a one-stop shop for businesses looking for export support. The Obama Administration has included a proposal to reorganize and streamline federal services for exporters in their 2016 budget request. 165 Bringing the scattered services of the various agencies under a single umbrella will maximize the efficient deployment of resources and provide businesses with clear points of contact to help meet their export promotion goals. 3. Unleash the full potential of women in our economy. To reduce the wage gap and increase job opportunities and earnings for women (as discussed more in the next section), we recommend: Give new parents a 12-month phased leave work option. The Family and Medical Leave Act entitles many employees to take job-protected leave for the birth of a child. But after that time is up, some new parents may not want to jump right back into full-time work, even though they do want to continue earning and keep their career going. We suggest using the federal workforce to pilot a new phased leave option. Under this policy, new parents would be eligible for half-time work for 12 months after exhausting their FMLA leave and following their return to work from the birth or adoption of a child. Ease the financial burden of raising young children. In 2013, the average cost of full-time care for an infant at a child care center was about 10,000 per year. 166 Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) has introduced a comprehensive plan to make child care more available and more affordable, including doubling the Dependent and Child Care Tax Credit from 3,000 to 6,000, providing employers with a tax deduction worth 35 of the cost of creating on-site child care facilities (up from 25), allowing employers to deduct 20 of child care resources (up from 10), and bringing new trained professionals into the child care workforce with a new tax credit of 2,000 a year for any college graduate who specializes in child care and works at least 1,200 hours a year in a child care facility. 167 Provide women-owned businesses a lifeline to capital. Male entrepreneurs are more than three times as likely as female entrepreneurs to access equity financing through angel investors or venture capital firms (14.4 versus 3.6). 168 Men start firms with nearly twice the capital that women do. 169 We expand the Small Business Administrations Intermediary Lending Pilot Program with a mission to seek out new women business owners. This program complements traditional bank loans by partnering with local economic development agencies to provide supplemental low-cost loans up to 200,000. 170 Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA) has called for expanding and making the program permanent to help direct much-needed seed funding to women and others in her Womens Small Business Ownership Act of 2014. We also increase the budget for Small Business Administration loans under 10,000 and allow the organizations receiving these to increase spending on technical assistance, as recommended in the Microloan Modernization Act of 2015, introduced by Rep. Seth Moulton (D-MA) and Sen. Deb Fischer (R-NE). 4. Modernize the tax code for the Anywhere Economy. Comprehensive tax reform that lowers tax rates, broadens the base, eliminates loopholes, and makes the United States more attractive for businesses to locate and expand within our borders is desperately needed. For multinationals, the U. S. should adopt reforms that are more in line with the international tax system of other developed countries and reduce the considerable incentive that currently exists to keep earnings offshore. There are myriad proposals to bring the statutory rate down to a range of 25 to 28 in a revenue neutral fashion, but the goal of tax reform should be far more than just hitting a pre-determined ratewe need to ensure that our code makes us more competitive and allows us to have broad-based growth going forward. 5. Create a Mobility Fund to bring jobs to low-income areas. We leverage 80 billion in public money to attract over 700 billion in private capital to remake low-income areas with sustainable jobs, businesses, housing, and opportunities. To pay for this public investment, we trade capital gains for capital investment by increasing the top capital gains rate from 20 to 25 for those with higher incomes, which would cover the full cost of new federal investments in economically distressed communities. 171 There is substantial economic mobility within the middle three income quintiles but stickiness at the bottom those born poor have a 70 likelihood of being poor or near-poor as adults. 172 There are also regions of the country where economic progress is non-existent to backwards. In order to bring significant capital into these regions, we establish a Mobility Fund which would: Leverage 60 billion in a Race to the Job initiative. A Race to the Job initiative would link an ambitious public funding commitment to a competition among low-income areas across the United States. The Mobility Fund would commit to investing 6 billion a year over the next decade in areas of the country that developed the most ambitious and innovative partnerships to bring jobs and growth to their region. This would be a huge inducement for mayors, governors, unions, community organizations, and private industry to come together with bold strategies and plans to attract industry and jobs as well as prepare these cities for growth. Once the most ambitious and innovative plans are selected, funding would be delivered through Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFI) which are privately-run banks that leverage private sector capital to invest in the development of community facilities, commercial facilities, business loans, and affordable housing in low-income areas. CDFIs also provide banking servicessuch as checking accounts, mortgages, small business loans, microloans, financial literacy coaching, and entrepreneurial trainingto low-income people. CDFIs leverage money from the U. S. Treasury to attract private capital from pension funds, foundations, and individuals at a leverage ratio of better than ten-to-one. 173 Renew and expand the New Markets Tax Credit (20 billion). We also renew and triple the funding for the New Markets Tax Credit (NMTC)a bipartisan and successful anti-poverty initiative that began in 2000 and expired in 2014. Under the program, investors receive a credit valued at 39 of money they invest in projects in low-income communities. This money is then leveraged dollar-for-dollar by community development entities in order to make improvements in communities, ranging from a small business loan to start-up funding for a new charter school. Between 2003 and 2013, the New Markets Tax Credit was responsible for 70 billion in total investments. 174 According to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, demand for the credits outstripped supply by seven to one. 175 Over the next 10 years, we would allocate 100 billion for NMTC investments which, when leveraged dollar-for-dollar, will drive 200 billion in capital towards communities that need it the most. The budgetary cost of this would be 20 billion. 176 Senators Roy Blunt (R-MO), Charles Schumer (D-NY), Steve Daines (R-MT), and Ben Cardin (D-MD) along with Reps. Pat Tiberi (R-OH) and Richard Neal (D-MA) have introduced legislation that would permanently authorize the New Market Tax Credit. 177 6. Provide a springboard for new businesses. Entrepreneurship is a part of the American DNA. But, as noted above, the number of new businesses has been declining steadily for over three decades. More than one out of three small businesses in 2013 said that they could not get the financing they needed, 178 and while large business loans have returned to pre-recession levels, small business loans have yet to fully rebound and have been declining since 2008. 179 To help entrepreneurs start new businesses and make investments in employees, RampD, and products, we recommend: Toss out the bureaucratic maze. Just as U. S. exporters face overlapping export support services (as mentioned above), entrepreneurs face a similar maze when it comes to help starting a new business. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that federal efforts to support entrepreneurs are fragmented. There are 52 different programs spread across four different agencies totaling 2 billion. 180 Every single program has some overlap with another, and entrepreneurs struggle to navigate the thicket. These programs need to be brought under one roof, and the head of that agency should be given the authority to move money from low-performing entrepreneurship programs to those that are getting the job done well. Refresh RampD resources for new businesses. The RampD tax credit must be made permanent and reformed to allow new, pre-revenue businesses to take advantage of this incentive. The Innovators Job Creation Act offered by Senators Pat Roberts (R-KS), Chris Coons (D-DE), and Chuck Schumer (D-NY) allows the credit to be taken against payroll tax obligations for small businesses to spur more RampD from small innovators and pre-revenue firms. Another solution would be to make the research credit tradable to allow startups and pre-revenue firms to sell their tax credit to a company that is able to use the credit. Finally, we suggest a bonus RampD credit for firms that that both conduct research and manufacture in the U. S. Simplify tax compliance for small businesses. Small businesses are required to estimate their revenue every quarter and send a tax payment to the IRS. If estimates are significantly understated, the IRS can penalize the company upwards of 1,000. Breaking down tax payments into smaller, quarterly installments makes sense when revenue flows are predictable, which is usually the case for large or mature businesses. But small businesses have unpredictable cash flows. We support a proposal by Anne Kim, of Republic 3.0, to exempt businesses with less than 1 million in total revenue from having to pay quarterly taxes based off of estimates instead allow them to file their taxes once yearly. 181 7. Double SEC enforcement. The capital markets have grown exponentially in size and complexity, while enforcement resources have remained static. Similar to proposals put forth by Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) and former Governor Martin OMalley (D-MD), we double the enforcement personnel at the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), double the pay of investigators to attract top talent, 182 and move the SEC from Washington to New York City to improve the agencys ability to hire top professionals as well as be closer to the action. 183 8. Clean out the regulatory closet. We can dramatically streamline regulations while still protecting Americans. Congress should enable agencies to undertake wide-scale, transparent regulatory reviews with the input of private sector experts and with an initial focus on boosting innovative areas of our economy. The Information Technology amp Innovation Foundation (ITIF) has suggested a number of ways to do this, including inter-agency regulatory review councils that guide reform of particular traded sector industries. 184 The Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) has suggested a commission based on the effective military base closure process. Under this proposal, the commission would review outdated regulations submitted by the public and stakeholders, and then submit a package for consolidation or repeal to Congress for an up-or-down vote. 185 9. Bring the Copyright Office into the Digital Age. The core copyright industriesthose primarily engaged in creating, producing, distributing, and exhibiting copyrighted worksnow contribute more than 1 trillion to the countrys GDP. 186 But the Copyright Office, the government agency responsible for serving the cultural marketplace, resides within the Library of Congress and competes with many other important Library priorities, often to its detriment. The GAO has identified numerous technical and organizational challenges within the Library and the Copyright Office, from antiquated registration and record systems to the integrity of the files stored on government servers. 187 In response to these challenges, Reps. Tom Marino (R-PA) and Judy Chu (D-CA) have introduced a discussion draft, the Copyright Office for the Digital Economy Act . that would modernize the office by moving it out of the Library of Congress. 188 This would grant the Office the autonomy it needs to encourage creativity, innovation, investment, and jobs. Boost savings and wages in the unstable career era When Pepsi Co. started giving gold watches to retirees in the 1940s, it was to honor those who had dedicated their career to the company. 189 It was a two-way bargain. The company got a stable and loyal workforce the employee acquired the skills on the job to rise up within its ranks. Along with this long-term employment came the other half of the economic bargainnon-wage benefits that helped provide security throughout ones life. In the stable career era . many workers received not only health care coverage but a generous retirement benefit and regular raises from their employer. These non-wage benefits were so cheap that they were almost an afterthought in terms of the price of compensation. The cost of health insurance made up only 1 of typical worker compensation and 14 of total benefits in 1960 and 2 of total compensation and 22 of total benefits in 1970. 190 The workforce was much younger (with a virtuous ratio of new workers entering the prime age of working life as small numbers retired), so it took only a modest investment to fund a decent private pension that could supplement Social Security. And, of course, wages were on a solid trajectory as the U. S. economy averaged annual growth rates in excess of 3.5 from 1950 to 2000. If policymakers are to effectively address the third pillar of long-term shared prosperityincreasing savingsthey need to fully embrace the reality that we are no longer in a stable career era. In the past, an entry level job in the mailroom could lead to a gradual climb to management. Today, there is no mailroom. Instead, people hopscotch from job to job because the ladder up often means moving out of one job and into a new one. Instead of health care and retirement being managed by the employer, these two benefits (as well as worker training) are increasingly self-managed by the employee. And non-wage benefits are very expensive to the point that they eat directly into take-home pay. Below, we describe four major trends that are reshaping the workplace and compensation: the Hopscotch Workforce, the Nickel-and-Dimed Workforce, the Asset-Starved Workforce, and the D. I.Y Workforce. We then show how government and our public policies need to be modernized in order to take these new 21st century realities into account. The Hopscotch Workforce In 1973, one in three male private sector workers aged between 45 and 64 had spent at least 20 years with the same company. By 2006, it was just one in five. 191 Even with the recession enticing people to stay in their current job, the average worker now spends just 4.4 years with the same firm, and will work at 11 companies throughout the course of his or her career. 192 Short tenures cry out for fully portable benefits, minimal vesting requirements, and continuous and easy access to skills training. Rare is it to find someone who has a career with the same company for a lifetime, much less the same career for a lifetime. 47 year old female focus group participant, July 2015 193 Within this transience, more employees are also striking out on their own in order to cobble together a career. The self-employed workforce jumped by 1.3 million to 10.6 million between 2001 and 2012, according to Economic Modeling Specialists International. 194 Other estimates put the number of full-time self-employed people at 17.9 million in 2014, with an additional 12.1 million who take on independent side work to augment their income. 195 The GAO pegged the contingent workforce (which in its definition encompasses everything from on-call workers, day laborers, and temp workers to part-time and contract workers) at 42.6 million workers in 2006. 196 And by 2020 it is projected to reach 60 million workers, according to a study by the high tech company Intuit. 197 The independent workforce strives for basic worker protections, like unemployment insurance that covers dry spells, a retirement savings vehicle that accrues regularly and stays with the worker, and reliable and affordable health care coverage through different jobs and periods of non-work. The Nickel-and-Dimed Workforce The flattening of median wages is oft discussed, but from the employer perspective, the cost of employee compensation has risen appreciably. In 1986, the average total cost to employ a worker in the private sector averaged 28.81 per hour (in 2015 dollars). 198 Today, the average total cost is 31.39 per houran increase of 9. 199 Over the course of a year, this is an increase from 60,126 to 65,510, in constant dollars. This would seem to be good news and an example of rising wages and productivity. But very little of this increase has gone into take home pay. In 1986, benefits averaged 7.81hour 200 thats 16,258 per year, per employee in non-wage compensation. Today, benefits have jumped to 9.56hour per year, per employee, 201 which comes to 19,952 per yearor 3,652 more than in 1986. Of the 5,384 increase in the cost of employing a typical person between 1986 and today, 68 appears invisible to workers as it goes towards non-wage benefits that, from the employee perspective, are stingier than benefits in the past. Their pensions arent better today, and their health care now comes with higher premiums and deductibles. Health care costs are the main culprit of the rise in non-wage compensation, increasing from 5.9 of compensation to 8.4 in just the last 15 years alone. 202 The Affordable Care Act (ACA) appears to have made some modest reductions in health care costs, but not nearly enough. Estimates show that spending on health care grew 5.5 in 2014. 203 That is over twice the rate of national wage increases and over three times the rate of inflation in 2014, which stood at 1.6. And health spending growth is projected to average 5.8 over the next decadepeaking at 6.3 in 2020. 204 That is 24 faster than projected economic growth. Source: Kauffman Family Foundation, Bureau of Labor Statistics. As a teacher, I dont make a fantastic salary, but bringing home less due to health care is a real killer. 46 year old female focus group participant, July 2015 205 Low-income workers are disproportionately squeezed by these growing costs, which depress wages and exacerbate income inequality. The Kaiser Family Foundation found that since 1999, employer contributions to health insurance premiums have increased by 166 (nominal dollars). 206 And according to Mark Warshawsky and Andrew Biggs of the American Enterprise Institute, workers earning 30,000 today have given up a 26 pay increase since 1999 due to rising employer health care costs. 207 The squeezed workforce needs more compensation that they can see and feel. For each of the past 25 years, more young women have completed college or grad school than young men. 208 Today, for every four women who earn a BA or better, only three men do so. 209 Since education is the key to earnings, women should be dominating the economy. But they arent, and Dr. Michelle J. Budig of University of Massachusetts-Amherst found that the wage gap for women begins at birththe birth of a child for a working woman. According to Budigs analysis, young single women earn 96-cents compared to every dollar similarly situated young single men earn. 210 But, according to Budig, the gap widens to 83-cents for single moms and 78-cents for married moms. 211 Budig even found that the mere fact of having a child results in a fatherhood bonus from employers, while mothers often see a wage penalty. This penalty was particularly steep at lower wage jobs. 212 There is a valley of economic distress that womenthe most educated, and therefore most talented people in the workforcego through upon having a child and needs to be addressed in the new economy. The Asset-Starved Workforce Since 1975, the returns on capital have out-stripped the returns on labor, not just here in the U. S. but globally. 213 What is striking is how, in the aggregate, the makeup of Americans incomes have changed over the years. In 1991, 92 of national income was derived from wages and just 5 from capital gains. Fifteen years later, wages made up 77 of income with the share coming from capital gains tripling to 15. 214 By 2012, according to the Internal Revenue Service, wages equaled just 68 of total income. 215 This is what happens when gains in the global economy translates into rising asset prices that dwarf very modest increases in wages. This change is most advantageous for the wealthy. In 2012, capital gains and dividends made up 12 of national income. 216 But among those earning more than 1 million in 2012, 48 of their income was derived from capital gains and dividends and only 28 from salary. 217 Among those earning between 50,000 and 75,000 in 2012, just 2 of their income was derived from capital gains and dividends and 76 from salary and wages. 218 In a separate section of this paper we address capital gains rates, but the asset-starved middle-class workforce deserves to claim a piece of global economic growth, to share in the gains of capital, and to not have to rely solely on their labor for wealth. Source: U. S. Treasury Department. The D. I.Y. Workforce This is the era of the self-directed workforce. Employers are responding to increased globalization, competition, and the changing nature of the workforce by off-loading the management of non-wage benefits to employees. The ACA is certain to lead to more self-managing of health care among the employed. Even before its effects were fully felt, the number of individuals with employer-based health insurance fell from 69.3 in 2000 to 58.5 in 2012. 219 Beyond health care, the defined benefit pension plan is becoming extinct in the private sector. In the early 1990s, 35 of private sector workers still participated in a defined benefit plan. In 2011, it was 18. 220 The defined contribution plan can be very beneficial, but it is self-directed and self-selected. Proposals to change enrollment from opt-in to opt-out have helped increase participation, but they havent come close to bridging the savings gap and completely preparing workers for retirement. Last year, the Federal Reserve found that 31 of non-retired adults had no private retirement savings or pensions whatsoeverincluding 19 of those between ages 55 and 64. 221 A recent Georgetown study found that, even among those at the top third of the earnings distribution, only 61 had an employer-provided retirement plan, while less than half (46) of those in the middle third of earnings were offered retirement plans, and only a quarter of those in the bottom third of earnings. 222 It is difficult enough to make a living today, let alone think about a retirement savings. 57 year old female focus group participant, July 2015 223 Likewise, acquiring skills to earn a promotion or leave for a better job has become increasingly self-directed, as employers are investing less in training than in the past. Between the years 1996 and 2008, the percentage of workers receiving training paid for by their employer decreased from 19.4 to 11.2. 224 While there have been some notable exceptionsfrom UTCs Employer Scholar program which pays for tuition and books so employees can get degrees in any field, to the Starbucks College Achievement Plans scholarships to Arizona State Universitythe impacts of an overall drop in employer provided training has critical implications for future professional viability. As discussed earlier in this report, during the recession, Michigan launched No Worker Left Behind, an initiative to train 100,000 workers between 2007 and 2010Michiganders flocked to the program, but one in three working-age adults were deficient in basic skills, and a stunning 44 of all Michigan adults read below a sixth-grade level. 225 With workplace training on the wane and an adult workforce with atrophied academic skills, the middle-aged and older worker increasingly struggles in this economy. The D. I.Y. workforce seeks affordable health care coverage, a pension system that guarantees that a lifetime of work leads to a comfortable retirement, and an adult education sector that gives them the power and convenience to upgrade their skills while they are employed. So where does the Democratic Party go from here To make these trends work for Americans and not against them, we need to boost savings, giving job-hopping, sharing-economy Americans a better shot at financial security. Here are a series of ideas on how to do that: 1. A minimum pension that closes the wealth gap. We have a minimum wage we recommend a minimum pension employer contribution of 50 an hour on top of wages into an individually-owned, private-sector managed, fully portable, low-fee IRA. Employers who already provide sufficient defined benefit plans, IRAs, or 401Ks would be exempt. Contributions would automatically be placed in a life-cycle fund, though individuals could redirect their investments. Virtually all workers at all ages would benefit from the minimum pension plan. Using the power of the capital markets to decrease wealth disparity rather than increase it is especially critical for women who already face a 26 gap in retirement savings compared to men. 226 A minimum contribution of just 50 an hour over a lifetime would yield 160,000 in private individual wealth (2013 dollars) based on the returns of the last 45 years. 227 It would change the economic fortunes of every working and middle class family. It would supplement Social Security and guarantee that a lifetime of work would mean a comfortable and dignified retirement. And, it would allow families to build a nest egg to pass on to children. We need to make sure everyone who works is able to build an asset base. 2. Home Equity Vouchers for 12 million middle class families. Our Home Equity Vouchers would help middle class families to more quickly pay down their mortgages, build up equity, and relieve the burden of debt. The mortgage crisis was fueled, in part, because homeowners did not have enough equity in their homes to guard against a downturn in prices. In addition, our longtime subsidy of mortgage interest encouraged the formation of dangerous products like the interest-only loan. During the housing bubble, nearly half of all new homes were bought with 0 down. 228 Home Equity Vouchers would match up to 500 a yearor 5,000 per family over a decadedollar-for-dollar, on additional principal payments above a familys current monthly mortgage requirements. For 30-year fixed mortgages, grants would be limited to families making under 125,000 and for the first 10 years of a home loan. To pay for this, we scale back the mortgage interest deduction for high-end homes to provide 60 billion. The CBO estimates that reducing the maximum mortgage amount on which interest can be deducted from 1.1 million to 500,000 would yield 41.4 billion over seven years. 229 The roughly 60 billion in savings (over 10 years) covers the cost. We estimate up to 12 million middle class households would be eligible to participate. 3. Wealth Builder Contributions for 90 million middle class workers. All full-time workers with wages less than 200 of the average yearly wage of private sector, non-supervisory workers (73,662) 230 would receive a yearly contribution of 500or 5,000 per individual over a decadethat each person could direct to retirement, college savings, student loans, or a mortgage. And if an individual is eligible for the EITC, he or she could use the funds for any purpose. This yearly infusion of capital would help Americans generate wealth in ways that make the most sense to their circumstances. We pay for this by capping tax deductions at 50,000 (excluding charitable) for individuals earning more than 200,000 (couples earning 250,000) and dedicate that revenue to finance the 450 billion Wealth Builder Contributions . affecting close to 90 million workers. 231 Our estimate of 450 billion would be slightly reduced if policymakers also enact our Home Equity Vouchers proposal and pay for it by changing the mortgage interest tax deduction. 4. A middle class wage hike through trimming the cost of non-wage benefits. In 2000, health insurance was 5.9 of employee compensation 232 in 2015 it was 8.4. 233 If that increase in employer-provided health costs instead went to employees in the form of wages, the average worker would take home 1,675 in additional pay in 2015. 234 While analysts point to a host of factors for ever-rising costs, the prime cause is clearincentives that lead every actor in health care to consume and spend more dollars. Physicians, for example, earn more money when they do more procedures. And its easier for patients to get expensive care in the emergency room rather than lower-cost care from their home. We propose 15 policies that reverse the incentives in health care away from quantity and toward value. 235 Placing these mechanisms throughout the health care system is the only way to systemically reduce spending. Doing so will lead to patients being more likely to get the health care they wantand businesses having more room to increase take home pay. These ideas achieve 612 billion in federal government savings and 400 billion in savings for employers and employees. For example: An Electronic Health Record Bank: All Americans should have a complete electronic health record that can sync across all doctors and hospitals to ensure that patients get optimal care whenever they need it and vastly reduce duplicative services. Expanding telehealth: We need to break down barriers in order to make personalized telehealth sessions widely available to patients so they can seek more efficient care 24 hours a day from the comfort of their home. Integrated behavioral health care: Health care professionals should better integrate treatment for physical conditions as well as accompanying behavioral health conditions in order to better help the whole patient. Medical discussion guides: Patients should have access to medical discussion guides (also known as decision aids) to help them and their doctor make the best treatment decisions for common but complicated health problems. Preventing diabetes: Diabetes screenings and prevention programs should be made widely available to the patients who can benefit from them. Rethink Medicare enrollment: Automatic enrollment and comparison shopping for Medicare needs to be drastically simplified, which would lower costs for beneficiaries, give them quality care, and reduce unnecessary Medicare spending. 5. A minimum wage boost that works from Brooklyn to Boise. We end the fight and drama over periodic minimum wage increases by gradually raising it to between 10 and 12 by 2020 based on average hourly wages and regional cost variations, with automatic readjustments every 3 years. Specifically, we set a national average for the minimum wage which would equal 50 of the average hourly wage of private sector, non-supervisory workers. If this were in place today, the average would be 10.54. 236 We use the term national average for the minimum wage because we also allow for a federal floor for wages that differs state-by-state depending on costs. For low-cost states (e. g. North Dakota, Idaho, and Kentucky), the initial rate would be 1 less than the national average for high-cost states (e. g. New York, California, and Virginia), the initial rate would be 1 more than the national average. The remaining states would be set at the national average. By 2020, we estimate that the national average would be over 11, putting the minimum wage over the range of 10 to 12. Each three years thereafter, the minimum wage would be adjusted. Regional adjustments of the minimum wage have been proposed as a way to minimize job losses related to wage hikes in low-cost states, and companies like IKEA have employed cost of living calculators to regionally raise their minimum wage. 237 We believe raising the minimum wage is critical, but we also want to make clear that the minimum wage is a waystation at the beginning of a successful work career, not a permanent destination. We also call for renewed federal efforts to encourage higher uptake of the Earned Income Tax Credit. 6. A gig economy safety net that works for employers and contractors. Independent contractors dont necessarily have access to the same benefits that typical employees have. And while the minimum pension (described above) could help them with retirement and the ACA allows them access to health care coverage, they still lack workers compensation and disability insurance. We recommend establishing an accumulated benefits package. Under our proposal, contractors could receive a small contribution per hour worked or per dollar of revenue into a tax-free account that can be used towards purchasing these benefits (e. g. private workers compensation insurance). A similar proposal has been raised by Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA) suggesting contributions towards a third-party social insurance fund. 238 Conclusion In 2008, Barack Obama ran on two words: hope and change. It is evident everywhere one looks that change is the best word to describe our economy. Yet much of the Democratic Party establishment is resistant to that change and hopes that by railing against it, they can somehow stop it or slow it down. But this economic change is relentless. There is no stopping an iPhone or Snapchat from putting a slumbering Kodak and its 130,000 employees out to pasture. Americans know this intuitively and know that navigating these changes is the central economic challenge of their lives. The question is whether they will be forced to do this on their own or whether they will have help. If Democrats are to be successfulwinning elections and successfully building an economy that supports the overwhelming majority of Americans with secure, well-paying jobsour entire economic agenda must endeavor to create growth that benefits the middle class by making the global forces of change work for people, not against them. The party that does thisthat creates an agenda to fulfill the promise of the new economy, harnesses the forces of change, and speaks honestly of the changes Americans facewill be the party that rides majorities into the White House and Congress. And the way to do that is through more skills, more jobs, and more savings. This is how to get ready for the new economy. Budget Appendix In this appendix, we summarize the policies described in Section 2 and provide general estimates of their impacts on the federal budget. All budget figures are either cited in the report or reflect the authors calculations. De minimus revenue or outlays under 100 million were not included. All figures are in billions and over a 10-year budget window. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut som et minimum, det er en utfordring å utøve arbeidet med å utvide ut fra dette. Duis aute irure dolor in re cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis ure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ivelit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Exc Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis ure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Beyond Brexit: Brexit vote exposed fundamental problems with UK economy, says think-tank THE Brexit vote has exposed fundamental problems in the way Britains economy works, a leading think-tank claims today, as a poll suggested nine out of 10 people want the country to remain in the European single market. A report by the IPPR found that the UK economy was not working for most people, reflected in a poll, which showed 51 per cent of Britons thought it was unfair for the majority. The IPPR report highlighted a string of economic problems, including the continuing trade and budget deficits as well as growth benefiting the richest while the poorest saw their incomes stagnate and London and south east England having much higher incomes and productivity compared to other parts of the country. Loading article content It claimed the economic strength hailed by UK Government ministers masked an economy that is succeeding at the top but facing deep troubles below the surface. Brexit forces us to face up to the diagnosis: we have an economy that is not delivering what it should for the British people. The paradox of the Brexit vote - a mandate for change that may make change harder to achieve - requires a far-reaching response, argued the report. Tom Kibasi, the IPPR director, said the Brexit vote and election of Donald Trump demonstrated that an economy with justice at its heart was essential for a thriving democracy. He said: The problems we face arent temporary weaknesses in an otherwise sound model. The foundations of our economy need to be rethought and the rules of the economy need to be rewritten. The report comes as a major Brexit survey conducted by NatCen Social Research showed 90 per cent of respondents wanted Britain to continue to trade freely in goods and services with its European neighbours after leaving the EU while 70 per cent said the UK should be able to limit the number of EU citizens coming to live and work in the UK. Forced to choose between the two priorities, people opted by a two per cent margin, 51 to 49, for immigration controls. John Curtice, senior research fellow at NatCen, who is also Professor of Politics at Strathclyde University, said irrespective of how people voted, they did not feel Brexit should necessarily be a choice between a hard or a soft withdrawal. Consequently, the kind of deal that is most likely to prove electorally popular is one that maintains free trade but permits at least some limits on EU migration, he added. Its publication comes as: new figures showed the number of EU workers in the UK, coming from eight eastern European countries, increased by nearly 50,000 after the June EU referendum, pushing the total number from these states to more than one million, Revealed: pollution leaves 45 Scottish lochs a risk to human health Sadiq Khan racism row overshadows Scottish Labour conference Video: Fan fury at BBC over Glasgow ticket tout fiasco described as the real rock n roll swindle Former Scottish model turned actor takes on her biggest role fighting zombie apocalypse Brussels unveiled plans for a new visa system to enhance security, which could mean Britons will have to pay five euros and fill out an online form every time they travel to the continent a move described by pro-EU Open Britain as yet more evidence of the hidden cost of Brexit and an Ipsos Mori poll found 48 per cent of respondents said Theresa Mays team was handling Brexit badly compared to 37 per cent, who thought it was doing vi vil. Some 81 per cent said Westminster should be given a vote on triggering withdrawal negotiations. At Westminster, the Prime Minister and Jeremy Corbyn clashed on Brexit during a rowdy question-time when the Labour leader accused her of making a total shambles of Brexit, adding: Nobody understands what her strategy actually is Mrs May hit back, insisting her government was preparing carefully for the formal negotiations and that Whitehall did have a plan: to deliver the best possible deal on trade and for Britain to control its borders. At Holyrood, Nicola Sturgeon confirmed the Scottish Government was considering a Norway-style model for keeping Scotland in the single market. The First Minister told the Scottish Parliaments Convenors Group: I mean membership of the single market, not some vague access to the single market that other parties might talk about but there are different ways that that can perhaps be achieved. The SNP administrations options paper is due to be published before Christmas. The next plenary session of the Joint Ministerial Committee involving the UK Government and the devolved administrations is set to take place in January. Comments Moderation We moderate all comments on Herald Scotland on either a pre-moderated or post-moderated basis. If youre a relatively new user then your comments will be reviewed before publication and if we know you well and trust you then your comments will be subject to moderation only if other users or the moderators believe youve broken the rules Moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours. Please be patient if your posts are not approved instantly. Graham A Fordyce 5:23am Thu 17 Nov 16 Do you believe in Fate Were we destined to vote No in 2014 because we werent ready economically, politically and crucially emotionally Did we have to await Brexit and Trump before the penny (and pound) finally dropped that our destiny is in our hands and not someone elses And therein lies the paradox - why do we have to rely on external influences to give us the confidence we seem to lack or has that same external influence been holding us back Carpe Diem Before someone else does. Last edited: 12:43pm Thu 17 Nov 16 Do you believe in Fate Were we destined to vote No in 2014 because we werent ready economically, politically and crucially emotionally Did we have to await Brexit and Trump before the penny (and pound) finally dropped that our destiny is in our hands and not someone elses And therein lies the paradox - why do we have to rely on external influences to give us the confidence we seem to lack or has that same external influence been holding us back Carpe Diem Before someone else does. Graham A Fordyce Do you believe in Fate Were we destined to vote No in 2014 because we werent ready economically, politically and crucially emotionally Did we have to await Brexit and Trump before the penny (and pound) finally dropped that our destiny is in our hands and not someone elses And therein lies the paradox - why do we have to rely on external influences to give us the confidence we seem to lack or has that same external influence been holding us back Carpe Diem Before someone else does. If we continue listening to our unionist brethren we will get a constant chorus of there never ever will be a good time for independence. After all, they managed duplicity for 40 years while north sea oil revenues were pouring in to the London exchecker. If we continue listening to our unionist brethren we will get a constant chorus of there never ever will be a good time for independence. After all, they managed duplicity for 40 years while north sea oil revenues were pouring in to the London exchecker. Bob Cotton If we continue listening to our unionist brethren we will get a constant chorus of there never ever will be a good time for independence. After all, they managed duplicity for 40 years while north sea oil revenues were pouring in to the London exchecker. Many more billions have poured into the exchequer, from London, than has ever poured in from NS oil. Many more billions have poured into the exchequer, from London, than has ever poured in from NS oil. Alexander Connor Many more billions have poured into the exchequer, from London, than has ever poured in from NS oil. Give what back The idiots have squandered it Look at the figures. UK has the highest debt ratio per capita, in the western world. Better Together for the Far Right Conservative and Unionist Party. Still borrowing money they can never repay, as I type. For the rest of us it is a disgrace. Give what back The idiots have squandered it Look at the figures. UK has the highest debt ratio per capita, in the western world. Better Together for the Far Right Conservative and Unionist Party. Still borrowing money they can never repay, as I type. For the rest of us it is a disgrace. john macmillan Give what back The idiots have squandered it Look at the figures. UK has the highest debt ratio per capita, in the western world. Better Together for the Far Right Conservative and Unionist Party. Still borrowing money they can never repay, as I type. For the rest of us it is a disgrace. They used the money from the north sea to build up Londons economy in the first place. Selling off the family silver also had a hand in that. If you poured in trillions of investment into Birmingham or Manchester you would get the same result. They used the money from the north sea to build up Londons economy in the first place. Selling off the family silver also had a hand in that. If you poured in trillions of investment into Birmingham or Manchester you would get the same result. Alex Buchanan They used the money from the north sea to build up Londons economy in the first place. Selling off the family silver also had a hand in that. If you poured in trillions of investment into Birmingham or Manchester you would get the same result. Who saved them Clown and put us up to our neck in debt, and it aint going down every week its still climbing, are you a comedian on all subjects Who saved them Clown and put us up to our neck in debt, and it aint going down every week its still climbing, are you a comedian on all subjects Lawson Stewart Who saved them Clown and put us up to our neck in debt, and it aint going down every week its still climbing, are you a comedian on all subjects andrew macaulay 8:29am Thu 17 Nov 16 I agree with those crits of the British economy. But they happened while we were in Europe. Now we are leaving things can only get better. I agree with those crits of the British economy. But they happened while we were in Europe. Now we are leaving things can only get better. andrew macaulay I agree with those crits of the British economy. But they happened while we were in Europe. Now we are leaving things can only get better. Or, as every economist of any merit says, things will probably get worse. But BRExit types dont believe in listening to experts. Or, as every economist of any merit says, things will probably get worse. But BRExit types dont believe in listening to experts. Colin Moss Or, as every economist of any merit says, things will probably get worse. But BRExit types dont believe in listening to experts. Dr Paola Subacchi Research Director. Chatham House How will England an Wales fend for themselves, what will that look like economically A small enconomy, it will actually drop from being the 5th largest to one of the small countries, they can be prosperous, but yes, they will fall to a region, the size of many small countries in Europe. But then the shock is moving from the 5th largest economies to a small regional one. Professor Matthew Goodwin Visiting Senior Fellow SNP were dealt a pair of pocket aces, they are very much in a strong position I sat with Alex Salmond when the vote came in and it took him 20 seconds before indy2. We can all see the direction of travel. Much will depend on timing. Much will depend on economics. Sturgeon is no fool, she knows the reason they lost the first one. DR Robin Niblett David Cameron is claimed to have said Look dont worry I am going to win this one, I know your not happy I did it but dont worry I can win this. Dr Paola Subacchi Research Director. Chatham House How will England an Wales fend for themselves, what will that look like economically A small enconomy, it will actually drop from being the 5th largest to one of the small countries, they can be prosperous, but yes, they will fall to a region, the size of many small countries in Europe. But then the shock is moving from the 5th largest economies to a small regional one. Professor Matthew Goodwin Visiting Senior Fellow SNP were dealt a pair of pocket aces, they are very much in a strong position I sat with Alex Salmond when the vote came in and it took him 20 seconds before indy2. We can all see the direction of travel. Much will depend on timing. Much will depend on economics. Sturgeon is no fool, she knows the reason they lost the first one. DR Robin Niblett David Cameron is claimed to have said Look dont worry I am going to win this one, I know your not happy I did it but dont worry I can win this. Jackie Wilson Dr Paola Subacchi Research Director. Chatham House How will England an Wales fend for themselves, what will that look like economically A small enconomy, it will actually drop from being the 5th largest to one of the small countries, they can be prosperous, but yes, they will fall to a region, the size of many small countries in Europe. But then the shock is moving from the 5th largest economies to a small regional one. Professor Matthew Goodwin Visiting Senior Fellow SNP were dealt a pair of pocket aces, they are very much in a strong position I sat with Alex Salmond when the vote came in and it took him 20 seconds before indy2. We can all see the direction of travel. Much will depend on timing. Much will depend on economics. Sturgeon is no fool, she knows the reason they lost the first one. DR Robin Niblett David Cameron is claimed to have said Look dont worry I am going to win this one, I know your not happy I did it but dont worry I can win this. These faults are not the result of being in the EU: they started before the UK joined the EU, they continued while it was in the EU, and there are no plans whatsover coming from Westminster politicians to remedy them after the UK leaves. The common demoninator is Westminster: it takes a lot to screw up a rich country but the UK leadership elite is doing its best. A few facts that illustrate the fault lines of the UK economy: - The UK has a 40 year old and growing balance of payments deficit. Sterling has devalued by a factor of about 5 vs the various currencies of Germany since 1970 and Germany still exports twice as much to the UK as the other way round. - The UK has a greater proportion of the low skilled in its workforce than any other North European country. - The UK has a greater gap between the richest and the poorest than any other country in Northern Europe and lower social mobility, IE it is less meritocratic, makes worse use of its basic talent pool and is more dependent on educated immigrants. - The UK may (thanks to the city and being a hub for foreign firms with EU supply chains selling finished goods back into the EU) be still 5th or 6th economy - total GDP - of the world, but in terms of what it can afford to spend on its people (GDP per capita) its about 27th. In terms of capital re-invested it is 143rd. Being in the EU, like having North Sea oil, has been a boost to, and opportunity for, the UK economy that has been wasted. The UK opinion makers - politicians, journalists and newspaper owners alike - are unable to grasp that after 300 years of being lucky rich people in a country richer than others, their short term game playing, their selfish tax avoiding, their immoral drawing up of their skirts at the sight of the poor, in short their downright incompetence, is slowly bringing it to an end. Last edited: 12:42pm Thu 17 Nov 16 These faults are not the result of being in the EU: they started before the UK joined the EU, they continued while it was in the EU, and there are no plans whatsover coming from Westminster politicians to remedy them after the UK leaves. The common demoninator is Westminster: it takes a lot to screw up a rich country but the UK leadership elite is doing its best. A few facts that illustrate the fault lines of the UK economy: - The UK has a 40 year old and growing balance of payments deficit. Sterling has devalued by a factor of about 5 vs the various currencies of Germany since 1970 and Germany still exports twice as much to the UK as the other way round. - The UK has a greater proportion of the low skilled in its workforce than any other North European country. - The UK has a greater gap between the richest and the poorest than any other country in Northern Europe and lower social mobility, IE it is less meritocratic, makes worse use of its basic talent pool and is more dependent on educated immigrants. - The UK may (thanks to the city and being a hub for foreign firms with EU supply chains selling finished goods back into the EU) be still 5th or 6th economy - total GDP - of the world, but in terms of what it can afford to spend on its people (GDP per capita) its about 27th. In terms of capital re-invested it is 143rd. Being in the EU, like having North Sea oil, has been a boost to, and opportunity for, the UK economy that has been wasted. The UK opinion makers - politicians, journalists and newspaper owners alike - are unable to grasp that after 300 years of being lucky rich people in a country richer than others, their short term game playing, their selfish tax avoiding, their immoral drawing up of their skirts at the sight of the poor, in short their downright incompetence, is slowly bringing it to an end. Brian Harrison These faults are not the result of being in the EU: they started before the UK joined the EU, they continued while it was in the EU, and there are no plans whatsover coming from Westminster politicians to remedy them after the UK leaves. The common demoninator is Westminster: it takes a lot to screw up a rich country but the UK leadership elite is doing its best. A few facts that illustrate the fault lines of the UK economy: - The UK has a 40 year old and growing balance of payments deficit. Sterling has devalued by a factor of about 5 vs the various currencies of Germany since 1970 and Germany still exports twice as much to the UK as the other way round. - The UK has a greater proportion of the low skilled in its workforce than any other North European country. - The UK has a greater gap between the richest and the poorest than any other country in Northern Europe and lower social mobility, IE it is less meritocratic, makes worse use of its basic talent pool and is more dependent on educated immigrants. - The UK may (thanks to the city and being a hub for foreign firms with EU supply chains selling finished goods back into the EU) be still 5th or 6th economy - total GDP - of the world, but in terms of what it can afford to spend on its people (GDP per capita) its about 27th. In terms of capital re-invested it is 143rd. Being in the EU, like having North Sea oil, has been a boost to, and opportunity for, the UK economy that has been wasted. The UK opinion makers - politicians, journalists and newspaper owners alike - are unable to grasp that after 300 years of being lucky rich people in a country richer than others, their short term game playing, their selfish tax avoiding, their immoral drawing up of their skirts at the sight of the poor, in short their downright incompetence, is slowly bringing it to an end. Peter A Bell 11:04am Thu 17 Nov 16 That politicians, aided by a pathetically compliant media, can create a completely false narrative will hardly be news to anyone. What may be surprising, however, is the ease with which this can be done and the speed with which this false narrative can become lodged in the public consciousness. Certainly remarkable is the fact that this can happen even when the narrative is so transparently false as to more closely resemble the stuff of fairy tales than meaningful political analysis. Undoubtedly, part of the explanation for the way these false narratives so rapidly and completely gain currency is the willingness of experts to go along with them. Or, should we say, their reluctance to challenge the political fiction. Take Professor John Curtice, for example. Given his impressive array of relevant qualifications and titles, we might reasonably anticipate that he would be professionally inclined to scrutinise the notion of a choice between a hard or a soft withdrawal, in relation to the UKs departure from the EU. But no He appears to just accept this narrative without question commenting on it as if hard Brexit and soft Brexit were firmly established concepts within the realm of political science, rather than merely the coinages of party spin doctors subsequently absorbed into the cosy consensus of the British media. To be fair to the good Professor, it is entirely possible that he did express misgivings about the idea of a choice between soft and hard Brexit, but those comments didnt make it into the article. Not out of any intent to mislead, I hasten to stress. That would be a gross dereliction of journalistic standards such as might bring the profession into serious disrepute. Its simply a matter of limited space and time. Of course it is A desire to be fair to the priesthood of experts also bids us point out that questioning the cosy consensus of the mainstream media is a sure way to find oneself sitting in an unheated office watching the bank balance shrink while waiting for a call from newspaper editors and TVradio producers who have unfortunately lost your contact details. Youre not a respected expert unless the right people have you on speed-dial. But, taking the reports of Professor Curtices comments at face value, what do we find We find him going along with the idea that the UKs Brexit negotiation is like some kind of buffet of options spread out before Theresa May from which she can pick and choose the tastiest morsels whilst turning up her nose at the soggy vol-au-vents and curled sandwiches. Does that sound at all realistic Is that the way things work in the real world Or is it a false narrative created for dubious political purposes At the core of this false narrative is the assertion that the outcome of of the EU referendum represented a vote to leave the EU, but not a vote to quit the single single market. There has been a distinctly unsubtle post hoc redefining of the choices presented in the referendum. According to this revised history, the question was not Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union, but Should the United Kingdom keep those bits of European Union membership that it wants while dumping the rest. We are now being told that the single market is actually something totally separate from the EU itself. If you think you remember the single market being mentioned quite a lot during the EU referendum campaign, you are mistaken. If the UK now ends up outside the single market, its not because that is what people voted for when invited to do so by the UK Government, its because those nasty foreigners are being totally unreasonable. The reality, of course, is that privileged access to the single market is now and always has been reserved to EU member states. Non-members may acquire access. But only on terms determined by the EU. Terms which impose a significant cost andor limit access in significant ways. Privileged access to the single market is inextricably bound up with accepting the duties and responsibilities of membership. The UK has, over decades, demonstrated an intransigent unwillingness to accept those duties and responsibilities whilst arrogantly demanding all the privileges of membership as a right deriving, not from acceptance of the terms of membership, but from a staunch belief in British exceptionalism. Hence, another false narrative which portrayed the UK as exceptionally regulated by the EU while in fact the UK had more opt-outs than any other member state. The reality denied and concealed by this false narrative is that the UK was more pampered than put-upon. So powerful are the forces which peddle these false narratives that the mad Brexiteers were able to convince a sufficient number of people a golden future was there for the taking if only the UK could escape the clutches of the evil EU. When the stark reality of what they had induced people to vote for came home to them, the mad Brexiteers instantly set about pretending the vote meant something else altogether. And it appears they have succeeded. If, as a poll has suggested, nine out of 10 people want the country to remain in the European single market, it seems there has been a widespread if not general acceptance of the patently ludicrous notion that voting to quit the EU didnt mean voting to quit the single market. Its not difficult to see why Leave voters would be so eager to seize upon this false narrative. After all, voting to quit the biggest single market in the world would be a pretty stupid thing to do. If they are offered a plausible way to deny that this is what they did, of course theyre going to grab it. The question is, who will they turn on when reality dawns, as it surely must Who will they blame when the EU puts its terms on the table and says take it or leave it Looks like yet another false narrative will be required. That politicians, aided by a pathetically compliant media, can create a completely false narrative will hardly be news to anyone. What may be surprising, however, is the ease with which this can be done and the speed with which this false narrative can become lodged in the public consciousness. Certainly remarkable is the fact that this can happen even when the narrative is so transparently false as to more closely resemble the stuff of fairy tales than meaningful political analysis. Undoubtedly, part of the explanation for the way these false narratives so rapidly and completely gain currency is the willingness of experts to go along with them. Or, should we say, their reluctance to challenge the political fiction. Take Professor John Curtice, for example. Given his impressive array of relevant qualifications and titles, we might reasonably anticipate that he would be professionally inclined to scrutinise the notion of a choice between a hard or a soft withdrawal, in relation to the UKs departure from the EU. But no He appears to just accept this narrative without question commenting on it as if hard Brexit and soft Brexit were firmly established concepts within the realm of political science, rather than merely the coinages of party spin doctors subsequently absorbed into the cosy consensus of the British media. To be fair to the good Professor, it is entirely possible that he did express misgivings about the idea of a choice between soft and hard Brexit, but those comments didnt make it into the article. Not out of any intent to mislead, I hasten to stress. That would be a gross dereliction of journalistic standards such as might bring the profession into serious disrepute. Its simply a matter of limited space and time. Of course it is A desire to be fair to the priesthood of experts also bids us point out that questioning the cosy consensus of the mainstream media is a sure way to find oneself sitting in an unheated office watching the bank balance shrink while waiting for a call from newspaper editors and TVradio producers who have unfortunately lost your contact details. Youre not a respected expert unless the right people have you on speed-dial. But, taking the reports of Professor Curtices comments at face value, what do we find We find him going along with the idea that the UKs Brexit negotiation is like some kind of buffet of options spread out before Theresa May from which she can pick and choose the tastiest morsels whilst turning up her nose at the soggy vol-au-vents and curled sandwiches. Does that sound at all realistic Is that the way things work in the real world Or is it a false narrative created for dubious political purposes At the core of this false narrative is the assertion that the outcome of of the EU referendum represented a vote to leave the EU, but not a vote to quit the single single market. There has been a distinctly unsubtle post hoc redefining of the choices presented in the referendum. According to this revised history, the question was not Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union, but Should the United Kingdom keep those bits of European Union membership that it wants while dumping the rest. We are now being told that the single market is actually something totally separate from the EU itself. If you think you remember the single market being mentioned quite a lot during the EU referendum campaign, you are mistaken. If the UK now ends up outside the single market, its not because that is what people voted for when invited to do so by the UK Government, its because those nasty foreigners are being totally unreasonable. The reality, of course, is that privileged access to the single market is now and always has been reserved to EU member states. Non-members may acquire access. But only on terms determined by the EU. Terms which impose a significant cost andor limit access in significant ways. Privileged access to the single market is inextricably bound up with accepting the duties and responsibilities of membership. The UK has, over decades, demonstrated an intransigent unwillingness to accept those duties and responsibilities whilst arrogantly demanding all the privileges of membership as a right deriving, not from acceptance of the terms of membership, but from a staunch belief in British exceptionalism. Hence, another false narrative which portrayed the UK as exceptionally regulated by the EU while in fact the UK had more opt-outs than any other member state. The reality denied and concealed by this false narrative is that the UK was more pampered than put-upon. So powerful are the forces which peddle these false narratives that the mad Brexiteers were able to convince a sufficient number of people a golden future was there for the taking if only the UK could escape the clutches of the evil EU. When the stark reality of what they had induced people to vote for came home to them, the mad Brexiteers instantly set about pretending the vote meant something else altogether. And it appears they have succeeded. If, as a poll has suggested, nine out of 10 people want the country to remain in the European single market, it seems there has been a widespread if not general acceptance of the patently ludicrous notion that voting to quit the EU didnt mean voting to quit the single market. Its not difficult to see why Leave voters would be so eager to seize upon this false narrative. After all, voting to quit the biggest single market in the world would be a pretty stupid thing to do. If they are offered a plausible way to deny that this is what they did, of course theyre going to grab it. The question is, who will they turn on when reality dawns, as it surely must Who will they blame when the EU puts its terms on the table and says take it or leave it Looks like yet another false narrative will be required. Peter A Bell That politicians, aided by a pathetically compliant media, can create a completely false narrative will hardly be news to anyone. What may be surprising, however, is the ease with which this can be done and the speed with which this false narrative can become lodged in the public consciousness. Certainly remarkable is the fact that this can happen even when the narrative is so transparently false as to more closely resemble the stuff of fairy tales than meaningful political analysis. Undoubtedly, part of the explanation for the way these false narratives so rapidly and completely gain currency is the willingness of experts to go along with them. Or, should we say, their reluctance to challenge the political fiction. Take Professor John Curtice, for example. Given his impressive array of relevant qualifications and titles, we might reasonably anticipate that he would be professionally inclined to scrutinise the notion of a choice between a hard or a soft withdrawal, in relation to the UKs departure from the EU. But no He appears to just accept this narrative without question commenting on it as if hard Brexit and soft Brexit were firmly established concepts within the realm of political science, rather than merely the coinages of party spin doctors subsequently absorbed into the cosy consensus of the British media. To be fair to the good Professor, it is entirely possible that he did express misgivings about the idea of a choice between soft and hard Brexit, but those comments didnt make it into the article. Not out of any intent to mislead, I hasten to stress. That would be a gross dereliction of journalistic standards such as might bring the profession into serious disrepute. Its simply a matter of limited space and time. Of course it is A desire to be fair to the priesthood of experts also bids us point out that questioning the cosy consensus of the mainstream media is a sure way to find oneself sitting in an unheated office watching the bank balance shrink while waiting for a call from newspaper editors and TVradio producers who have unfortunately lost your contact details. Youre not a respected expert unless the right people have you on speed-dial. But, taking the reports of Professor Curtices comments at face value, what do we find We find him going along with the idea that the UKs Brexit negotiation is like some kind of buffet of options spread out before Theresa May from which she can pick and choose the tastiest morsels whilst turning up her nose at the soggy vol-au-vents and curled sandwiches. Does that sound at all realistic Is that the way things work in the real world Or is it a false narrative created for dubious political purposes At the core of this false narrative is the assertion that the outcome of of the EU referendum represented a vote to leave the EU, but not a vote to quit the single single market. There has been a distinctly unsubtle post hoc redefining of the choices presented in the referendum. According to this revised history, the question was not Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union, but Should the United Kingdom keep those bits of European Union membership that it wants while dumping the rest. We are now being told that the single market is actually something totally separate from the EU itself. If you think you remember the single market being mentioned quite a lot during the EU referendum campaign, you are mistaken. If the UK now ends up outside the single market, its not because that is what people voted for when invited to do so by the UK Government, its because those nasty foreigners are being totally unreasonable. The reality, of course, is that privileged access to the single market is now and always has been reserved to EU member states. Non-members may acquire access. But only on terms determined by the EU. Terms which impose a significant cost andor limit access in significant ways. Privileged access to the single market is inextricably bound up with accepting the duties and responsibilities of membership. The UK has, over decades, demonstrated an intransigent unwillingness to accept those duties and responsibilities whilst arrogantly demanding all the privileges of membership as a right deriving, not from acceptance of the terms of membership, but from a staunch belief in British exceptionalism. Hence, another false narrative which portrayed the UK as exceptionally regulated by the EU while in fact the UK had more opt-outs than any other member state. The reality denied and concealed by this false narrative is that the UK was more pampered than put-upon. So powerful are the forces which peddle these false narratives that the mad Brexiteers were able to convince a sufficient number of people a golden future was there for the taking if only the UK could escape the clutches of the evil EU. When the stark reality of what they had induced people to vote for came home to them, the mad Brexiteers instantly set about pretending the vote meant something else altogether. And it appears they have succeeded. If, as a poll has suggested, nine out of 10 people want the country to remain in the European single market, it seems there has been a widespread if not general acceptance of the patently ludicrous notion that voting to quit the EU didnt mean voting to quit the single market. Its not difficult to see why Leave voters would be so eager to seize upon this false narrative. After all, voting to quit the biggest single market in the world would be a pretty stupid thing to do. If they are offered a plausible way to deny that this is what they did, of course theyre going to grab it. The question is, who will they turn on when reality dawns, as it surely must Who will they blame when the EU puts its terms on the table and says take it or leave it Looks like yet another false narrative will be required. I enjoyed your well-argued post, although I dont accept your description of the thought process of brexiteers, of which I am one. I agree that leaving the EU must mean leaving the single market. I think that is a good thing for all of us. I also think the UK must avoid being ensnared in any customs union. I dont think its the leave side which is promulgating the conflation of single market membership and access to the EU market. I think this is a product of the psychological grief-handling bargaining stage in which many remainders find themselves. Unfortunately, the woeful lack of understanding about the EU and its aims and influences among the population and the media is contributing to widespread confusion. I am quite confident that leaving the EU will be a positive thing for us, and whats more it will probably be a good thing for the other members - If it leads to a change in direction for the project. Last edited: 2:51pm Thu 17 Nov 16 I enjoyed your well-argued post, although I dont accept your description of the thought process of brexiteers, of which I am one. I agree that leaving the EU must mean leaving the single market. I think that is a good thing for all of us. I also think the UK must avoid being ensnared in any customs union. I dont think its the leave side which is promulgating the conflation of single market membership and access to the EU market. I think this is a product of the psychological grief-handling bargaining stage in which many remainders find themselves. Unfortunately, the woeful lack of understanding about the EU and its aims and influences among the population and the media is contributing to widespread confusion. I am quite confident that leaving the EU will be a positive thing for us, and whats more it will probably be a good thing for the other members - If it leads to a change in direction for the project. jake mann I enjoyed your well-argued post, although I dont accept your description of the thought process of brexiteers, of which I am one. I agree that leaving the EU must mean leaving the single market. I think that is a good thing for all of us. I also think the UK must avoid being ensnared in any customs union. I dont think its the leave side which is promulgating the conflation of single market membership and access to the EU market. I think this is a product of the psychological grief-handling bargaining stage in which many remainders find themselves. Unfortunately, the woeful lack of understanding about the EU and its aims and influences among the population and the media is contributing to widespread confusion. I am quite confident that leaving the EU will be a positive thing for us, and whats more it will probably be a good thing for the other members - If it leads to a change in direction for the project. Strangely, I find myself agreeing with a lot of what youre saying. Personally, I think it an affront for any group to presume and lecture why another group vote a certain way. Strangely, I find myself agreeing with a lot of what youre saying. Personally, I think it an affront for any group to presume and lecture why another group vote a certain way. Steve Lannigan Strangely, I find myself agreeing with a lot of what youre saying. Personally, I think it an affront for any group to presume and lecture why another group vote a certain way. But you do that all the time, Steve. You lecture Scottish independistas on their stupidity and drivel every day. It seems that only NO voters and Brexiteers are right and everyone else is wrong. But you do that all the time, Steve. You lecture Scottish independistas on their stupidity and drivel every day. It seems that only NO voters and Brexiteers are right and everyone else is wrong. Lorna Campbell But you do that all the time, Steve. You lecture Scottish independistas on their stupidity and drivel every day. It seems that only NO voters and Brexiteers are right and everyone else is wrong. Actually just you Lorna. Actually just you Lorna. Steve Lannigan Actually just you Lorna. There is another question that needs to be answered, Peter and that is: just why is Scotland so important to rUK No Unionist on here or elsewhere has ever answered that question except to say something along the lines of: were all British. Even if that is the case, and it is not, just why is it imperative for Scotland to be part of the UK There is another question that needs to be answered, Peter and that is: just why is Scotland so important to rUK No Unionist on here or elsewhere has ever answered that question except to say something along the lines of: were all British. Even if that is the case, and it is not, just why is it imperative for Scotland to be part of the UK Lorna Campbell There is another question that needs to be answered, Peter and that is: just why is Scotland so important to rUK No Unionist on here or elsewhere has ever answered that question except to say something along the lines of: were all British. Even if that is the case, and it is not, just why is it imperative for Scotland to be part of the UK Francis Mcintosh 11:14am Thu 17 Nov 16 It is time that the real reasons for the Brexit outcome are examined. It is no surprise that Scotland wanted to remain. It was promised if the vote for independence was NO. Also, part of the independence strategy was to re-connect with Europe. The anti CameronOsborne factor was present. The article refers to the higher salaries etc. of London and the south east of England, leading to anti Government feelings to the north. However the fact that the Government made no attempt to consider that remain might be defeated tells a very worrying tale. It shows in my view deep divisions in the country, and that politicians in general have lost the respect of the electorate at large. Consider the support of Jeremy Corbyn, not from the Labour politicians in Westminster, but from labour party members. That would seem to be a clear message. The person seen to be unelectable as PM might just make it, if the Brexit fiasco continues and May does a Cameron exit by a general election. Consider the USA Scotland has a way forward, but rUK is in very deep trouble. It is time that the real reasons for the Brexit outcome are examined. It is no surprise that Scotland wanted to remain. It was promised if the vote for independence was NO. Also, part of the independence strategy was to re-connect with Europe. The anti CameronOsborne factor was present. The article refers to the higher salaries etc. of London and the south east of England, leading to anti Government feelings to the north. However the fact that the Government made no attempt to consider that remain might be defeated tells a very worrying tale. It shows in my view deep divisions in the country, and that politicians in general have lost the respect of the electorate at large. Consider the support of Jeremy Corbyn, not from the Labour politicians in Westminster, but from labour party members. That would seem to be a clear message. The person seen to be unelectable as PM might just make it, if the Brexit fiasco continues and May does a Cameron exit by a general election. Consider the USA Scotland has a way forward, but rUK is in very deep trouble. Francis Mcintosh It is time that the real reasons for the Brexit outcome are examined. It is no surprise that Scotland wanted to remain. It was promised if the vote for independence was NO. Also, part of the independence strategy was to re-connect with Europe. The anti CameronOsborne factor was present. The article refers to the higher salaries etc. of London and the south east of England, leading to anti Government feelings to the north. However the fact that the Government made no attempt to consider that remain might be defeated tells a very worrying tale. It shows in my view deep divisions in the country, and that politicians in general have lost the respect of the electorate at large. Consider the support of Jeremy Corbyn, not from the Labour politicians in Westminster, but from labour party members. That would seem to be a clear message. The person seen to be unelectable as PM might just make it, if the Brexit fiasco continues and May does a Cameron exit by a general election. Consider the USA Scotland has a way forward, but rUK is in very deep trouble. Neil Homer 5:04pm Thu 17 Nov 16 Biggest problem we have is the Westminster mindset. All Cameron cared about in 2014 was that he didnt want to be the PM who lost Scotland. So theres your problem, these westminster muppets think that they own Scotland that they have a right to Scotland. Truth is Scotland left a long time ago and they didnt bother to read the memo. All they care about is power. Doesnt matter if the country is a shambles. Ironically both England and Scotland would probably be doing a lot better if they were operating as independent states. Biggest problem we have is the Westminster mindset. All Cameron cared about in 2014 was that he didnt want to be the PM who lost Scotland. So theres your problem, these westminster muppets think that they own Scotland that they have a right to Scotland. Truth is Scotland left a long time ago and they didnt bother to read the memo. All they care about is power. Doesnt matter if the country is a shambles. Ironically both England and Scotland would probably be doing a lot better if they were operating as independent states. Neil Homer Biggest problem we have is the Westminster mindset. All Cameron cared about in 2014 was that he didnt want to be the PM who lost Scotland. So theres your problem, these westminster muppets think that they own Scotland that they have a right to Scotland. Truth is Scotland left a long time ago and they didnt bother to read the memo. All they care about is power. Doesnt matter if the country is a shambles. Ironically both England and Scotland would probably be doing a lot better if they were operating as independent states.
No comments:
Post a Comment