Robert Scott for the Economic Policy Institute: The growth of the manufacturing trade deficit is starting to have an impact on manufacturing employment, which has lost 27,300 jobs since July. Growing exports support U.S. jobs, but increases in imports cost jobs, so even if overall exports are growing, trade deficits hurt U.S. employment — especially in manufacturing, because most traded goods are manufactured products …
What’s behind our growing trade deficits? Currency manipulation by Japan, China and other countries is a leading cause — both before and since the Great Recession. Recent years have also seen developments such as slow European growth lead to sharp increases in the dollar, even against currency that is freely tradeable. The real value of the U.S. dollar has increased nearly 20 percent againt major currencies since June 2014.
Meanwhile, China recently moved to devalue its currency again, triggering devaluations and falling currencies in Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal countries such as Vietnam, Malaysia and Australia. Currency devaluations could easily offset the benefits of tariff cuts obtained in the recently negotiated agreement.
If the Obama administration were serious about encouraging a sustainable manufacturing recovery, it would have made ending currency manipulation a top priority. Ending currency manipulation could create between 2.3-5.8 million U.S. jobs over the next three years, and 40 percent of those jobs would be in manufacturing.
It should have started by including enforceable standards prohibiting currency manipulation in the trade, as proposed by Rep. Sander Levin. However, the administration refused to take even this modest step. Instead, the U.S. Treasury says it is “working to strengthen … cooperation … on exchange rate issues, in appropriate fora.” In other words, Treasury won the turf fight and will continue to mismanage exchange rates as it has in the past.
Statewide pre-K has been a bust in Tennessee
Dale Farran and Mark Lipsey for the Brookings Institution: Despite widespread claims about proven benefits from pre-K, there is actually strikingly little credible research about the effectiveness of public pre-K programs implemented statewide.
Like many states that became interested in expanding a state-funded pre-K program in the early 2000s, Tennessee introduced voluntary pre-K (TNVPK) in 1996 as a way to provide academic enhancement to economically disadvantaged children. It expanded in 2005 to an $85 million-plus statewide investment serving 18,000 Tennessee low-income children in 935 classrooms across all 95 counties.
Launched in 2009, the TNVPK Effectiveness Study, a coordinated effort between Vanderbilt’s Peabody Research Institute and the Tennessee Department of Education, is the first randomized control trial of a scaled-up state funded pre-K program and the first well-controlled comparison group study of the effects of program participation as children progress through elementary school.
In a more detailed report, we present and defend findings from the full evaluation. We summarize the effects of TNVPK on pre kindergarten through third grade and behavioral outcomes for a sample of 1,076 children, of which 773 attended TNVPK classrooms and 303 did not. Both groups have been followed since the beginning of the pre K year.
Children in TNVPK classrooms made initial strong gains and were perceived by their teachers at kindergarten entry as being better prepared. However, the achievement of the control children caught up to that of the pre-K children by the end of kindergarten. In second and third grades, achievement trends crossed over, with academic achievement for the pre-K children becoming worse than for the control children …
Our results demonstrate the need for a stronger and more current evidentiary base on scaling up pre-K. The shift to caring for four-year-olds in public schools is a relatively recent one based largely on faith that this is beneficial for the participating children.
Felons need a new deal
Sarah Trumble and Lanae Erickson Hatalsky for the New America Foundation: When someone has been incarcerated for a felony in this country, the punishment continues after release. After felons serve out their sentences and pay their debts to society, a series of laws mostly enacted in the 1990s make re-entry into their communities and gaining lawful employment difficult. These laws came about as a result of rising crime rates beginning in the 1960s and peaking in the early 1990s …
These policies violate a basic tenet in our criminal justice system: When you pay your debt to society you should be able to get some semblance of a fresh start …
Earnings fall an average of 40 percent after a felon is released, partly because many former felons struggle to obtain employment at all. That’s because job applicants must often check a box disclosing whether they have ever been convicted of a felony — an admission that can scare off prospective employers … Beyond the workforce, people who have been convicted of a felony are denied basic government safety net protections available to everyone else …
This all adds up to a perfect storm, making it nearly impossible for those who have ever been convicted of a felony at any point in their lives to care for their families and break the mobility barrier — for themselves or their children …
Instead, those who have served their time and taken concrete steps to better their lives should be eligible to apply for a commendable release, which would restore access for them and their families to federal benefits including food stamps, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, public housing and Pell Grants …
One year from the date of release, a person who has repaid his debt to society also should be eligible to have the remaining collateral consequences of a felony conviction removed through a second step of expanded commendable release.
Compiled by Joseph Lawler from reports published by the various think tanks.
