Further Reading

We can’t go back to the economy of the past—a high-consumption, low-wage economy based on asset bubbles and foreign borrowing. Our response to the current crisis must plant the seeds for the economy of the future. America needs an industrial policy to shape that future. From workforce development to component manufacture, we need a strategic collaboration between the private sector and the government to reach our shared national goals. This report makes the case for that policy and explains what should be the key elements.

The different health reform bills pending in Congress represent quite different understandings of what a health insurance exchange is, what it does, how it is organized and how it functions. These differences are likely to affect significantly the extent to which the exchanges accomplish their goals and avoid the problems that have afflicted earlier attempts at creating and operating exchanges. The exchanges should operate at the federal level, as the House health care reform bill provides.

Climate change is the most important environmental issue facing the United States and the world. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has concluded that the “scientific evidence for warming of the climate system is unequivocal” (NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory 2009). Rising emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases (GHGs) are responsible for rising global temperatures, shrinking global ice masses, rising sea levels, and increasing the intensity of tropical storms. Continued change, aside from the obvious cost in human lives, would also entail potentially enormous economic costs. It is essential for the United States to develop strong and effective GHG regulations and to negotiate an international treaty to bring about global reductions in GHG emissions.

A well-designed climate policy can support the economic recovery, and green investments can support millions of new jobs, starting with the creation of over 1 million new jobs in the next two years (Bivens, Irons, and Pollack 2009) and ensuring that U.S. manufacturing comes back stronger and cleaner than before.

Poorly designed climate change policies, however, could slow or halt the recovery of significant segments of U.S. manufacturing—as identified in this report— and could even lead to increased global production of GHGs. It is essential for the United States to enact climate change policies that ensure a strong, broad-based recovery of the economy and encourage the growth of domestic manufacturing. One of the keys to achieving these goals is to include a border adjustment mechanism—a fee on the carbon content of goods imported from countries that do not restrict GHG emissions—in U.S. climate change policies.

It is fitting that the G-20 summit meets in Pittsburgh in late September 2009. Pittsburgh has come back from enormous setbacks in its dominant industry, steel, through a combination of deliberate planning, public investment, and partnerships between government and private industry. But Pittsburgh’s comeback reveals the limitations of local efforts. In the absence of a national industrial strategy and a different approach to trade, the U.S. will be lucky to end up where Pittsburgh is now. This report examines the lessons national policy leaders should learn from Pittsburgh's experience.

The United States is having the wrong public debate about global warming. We are asking important questions about pollution caps and timetables, carbon markets and allocations, but we have lost sight of our principal objective: building a robust and prosperous clean energy economy. This is a fundamentally affirmative agenda, rather than a restrictive one. Moving beyond pollution from fossil fuels will involve exciting work, new opportunities, new products and innovation, and stronger communities. Our current national discussion about constraints, limits, and the costs of transition misses the real excitement in this proposition. It is as if, on the cusp of an Internet and telecommunications revolution, debate centered only on the cost of fiber optic cable. We are missing the big picture here.

Let’s be clear: Solving global warming means investment. Retooling the energy systems that fuel our economy will involve rebuilding our nation’s infrastructure. We will create millions of middle-class jobs along the way, revitalize our manufacturing sector, increase American competitiveness, reduce our dependence on oil, and boost technological innovation. These investments in the foundation of our economy can also provide an opportunity for more broadly shared prosperity through better training, stronger local economies, and new career ladders into the middle class. Reducing greenhouse gas pollution is critical to solving global warming, but it is only one part of the work ahead. Building a robust economy that grows more vibrant as we move beyond the Carbon Age is the greater and more inspiring challenge.

This Labor Day , nearly one in three young workers will be at work. This statistic is just one symptom of a far deeper economic reality for workers younger than 35.

This report, based on a nationwide survey of 1,156 people by Peter D. Hart Research Associates for the AFL-CIO and the AFL-CIO community affiliate Working America, examines young workers’ economic standing, attitudes
and hopes for the future. It also draws a comparison with findings from a similar 1999 AFL-CIO study, as well as with attitudes of workers older than 35. The findings reveal a lost decade for young workers in America. Not only
have young workers lost financial ground over the past 10 years; they have also lost some of their optimism.

But this drop in optimism isn’t keeping young workers from getting involved. With a comprehensive and progressive vision for revamping the economy, increasing numbers of young people are becoming politically active.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), commonly referred to as the Stimulus Act,
includes a “Buy America” requirement to help put Americans back to work by ensuring that iron, steel, and
other manufactured goods used in infrastructure projects are procured from domestic producers in a manner
consistent with U.S. trade obligations. Since the legislation was enacted, foreign embassies, foreign producers,
and the organizations that represent them have mounted an organized campaign of half-truths and myths in an
effort to diminish support for Buy America. Despite the fact that 84 percent of the American public strongly
supports Buy America, they are attempting to sway government and elected officials, arguing that this provision
is bad for the U.S. economy and job creation. The facts, however, tell a different story.

Skyrocketing premiums and out-of-pocket medical costs are battering family budgets, eroding U.S. competitiveness in the global economy and threatening the American standard of living. Health care reform that guarantees quality, affordable care for everyone in the United States—and offers the choice of a public health insurance plan—can do what our private health insurance system has failed to do: provide economic security for families and the nation.

This report documents the irrefutable conclusion that health care and health insurance are becoming increasingly unaffordable for a growing portion of the U.S. population. Half-measures, such as those being proposed by self-interested opponents of authentic health reform, will not provide Americans with health security or enable them to afford the care they need.

In the hybrid health reform proposals under consideration in Congress—as in California in recent years—employer responsibility generally takes the form of “play-or-pay.” Firms that do not directly provide health care to their employees (or “play”) are required to “pay” into a public pool. This policy brief examines the policy design, economic effects, and political ramifications of employer requirements.