Welcome lawmakers to Atlanta for the opening of the 2023 session

Welcome lawmakers to Atlanta for the opening of the 2023 session

In The News

Welcome lawmakers to Atlanta for the opening of the 2023 session

The Georgia Center for Opportunity issued the following media statement welcoming lawmakers to Atlanta for the opening of the 2023 session of the Legislature on Jan. 9.”We’re excited to see what the new session holds for our state, and we stand ready to assist lawmakers in passing an agenda that serves all Georgians,” said Buzz Brockway, executive vice president of public policy for GCO. “GCO has served our state for nearly 25 years, and has dedicated itself to expanding opportunity by helping increase access to quality education, fulfilling work, and healthy family life. We know that by addressing these critical barriers we can help pull communities out of poverty and expand opportunity to every community in our state.”As an organization, GCO stands ready to provide resources and education to lawmakers on the impact policies have on underserved communities and the opportunities available (and not available) to all Georgians. Here are three key area:
Eliminating benefits cliffs
    • Some workers find themselves torn between taking steps toward a more secure future, but ultimately forced into making decisions that traps them into long-term dependence on government benefits. These are known as benefits cliffs. We’ll be working to educate lawmakers on this reality and propose reforms to ensure all workers have the opportunity to climb the economic ladder. Learn more

Expanding educational freedom

    • We are still uncovering the extent of learning loss experienced by kids during the pandemic. We know that expansion of educational opportunityis a key solution to this problem. Passing Education Scholarship Accounts, or ESAs, will be a big step forward in helping all Georgia students achieve their full potential.

Promoting an anti-poverty agenda

    • GCO is part of the Alliance for Opportunity, a three state network of policy organizations built around furthering an anti-poverty agenda. We will be working with lawmakers to promote solutions to poverty that lift Georgians up into the middle class.
Key Policy Takeaways from 30 years of Child Poverty Decline

Key Policy Takeaways from 30 years of Child Poverty Decline

child poverty

Key Policy Takeaways from 30 years of Child Poverty Decline

Key Points

  • Childhood poverty leads to worse educational attainment, worse future labor market outcomes, worse mental and physical health and development, and increased risk of engaging in delinquent behavior.
  •  A reduction in child poverty is tied to government programs which incentivize work. 
  • The key takeaway from the Census data which shows child poverty rates are falling and the Child Trends report which studied the causes of the decline is that, despite massive social safety net expansions, work and self-sustainability still played a larger role in lifting children out of poverty than government spending did.

by Alexander Adams

 

In a world marred by clickbait media headlines portending disaster, it’s always a relief when some rosy news can sneak its way into a major publication: “Poverty, Plunging” was the title of a recent New York Times newsletter. Fortunately, there happens to be strong backing for such a direct headline: According to a recent report by the firm Child Trends, a nonpartisan research center, in 1991 27.9% of children lived at or below the Census’ Supplemental Poverty Measure. Today, that number has fallen to 11.4%. 

This is undoubtedly fantastic news. The research is unequivocally clear: children living in poverty face worse lifetime outcomes on a whole host of measures. Childhood poverty leads to worse educational attainment, worse future labor market outcomes, worse mental and physical health and development, and increased risk of engaging in delinquent behavior. The reduction in child poverty makes the lives of millions of children better off and has positive externalities for everyone in the country.  

The Child Trends report asked a few fundamental questions regarding this amazing decline in child poverty, the key one being: what exactly caused this massive decline in child poverty?

According to the media’s portrayal of the report, the reduction was due to expanded social safety net and increased social safety net spending. Another New York Times article on the Child Trends report was headlined: “Expanded Safety Net Drives Sharp Drop in Child Poverty.” Opinion writers at the Washington Post took it a step further, arguing that the decline in child poverty since the 1990s debunks “arguments that…government help must be accompanied with work requirements.”  

But does it really?     

According to the Child Trends report itself, many of the programs proven to be successful in reducing poverty—the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), the Child Tax Credit, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (food stamps)—have work requirements. The EITC is actually an earnings supplement which has been shown to incentivize work. The expansion of work requirements for welfare programs in the 1990s increased labor force participation, according to research, which translated into more income and less poverty. 

In 1991 27.9% of children lived at or below the Census’ Supplemental Poverty Measure. Today, that number has fallen to 11.4%. 

In 1991 27.9% of children lived at or below the Census’ Supplemental Poverty Measure. Today, that number has fallen to 11.4%. 

The increased post-tax income due to work incentives and requirements has not only reduced poverty and increased income, but has had nonfinancial impacts as well such as improved educational outcomes for children. The Georgia Center for Opportunity has previously published work on the deleterious nonfinancial impacts of nonwork. Figure 1.1 of the Child Trends report also shows that child poverty was stagnant from the beginning of the War on Poverty to the mid-1990s. The decline in child poverty occurred after we replaced our no strings attached welfare system with a system replete with pro-work incentives and requirements (though, work remains to be done). 

Given all of this, it should be argued, based on the results of the report, that it was pro-work reforms and expansions to earnings supplement programs which directly promote work and self-sustainability that reduce child poverty — not unrestricted government spending.

Not only that, but according to the Child Trends report itself, the vast majority of the decline in child poverty is attributable to increases in earned income and not expanded social safety net programs. According to the report, child poverty fell 16.5 percentage points — from 27.9% to 11.4% — between 1993 and 2019. In 2019, they argue the child poverty rate would be 44% higher in the absence of social safety net expansions. This means, of that 16.5% drop, approximately 6% can be attributed to social safety net spending and over 10% is due to non-governmental factors.[1] 

These other factors represent the effect of earned post-tax income not provided by aid. While the social safety net played a role in material child poverty reduction, we can see that private income played an even larger role in that decline. 

At GCO, we promote self-sustainability and work precisely because we understand that work plays a larger role in lifting oneself up from poverty than government aid — and the Child Trends report supports that argument.

The key takeaway from the Census data which shows child poverty rates are falling and the Child Trends report which studied the causes of the decline is that, despite massive social safety net expansions, work and self-sustainability still played a larger role in lifting children out of poverty than government spending did. Further, among the programs which did measurably help the poor, it was policies oriented towards promoting work, not programs without work requirements, which usually had the largest impact.

[1] As the child poverty rate in 2019 was 11.4% in 2019, and it would be 44% higher without social safety net expansions, this means, without social safety net expansions, child poverty would be approximately 16.4% (11.4*1.44 = 16.4). 16.4 (no welfare) minus 11.4 (reality) = 6%. This means approximately 10.5 percentage points of the 16.5% decline in child poverty was due to increases in earned income, and only 6 percentage points due to social safety nets (16.5 – 10.5 = 6). 

 

Issues impacting voters ahead of the midterm elections

Labor Participation Rate Remains Abysmal, but Former Inmates Provide Solutions

In The News

Labor Participation Rate Remains Abysmal, but Former Inmates Provide Solutions

Official government unemployment numbers remain low, but the abysmal labor participation rate is a story too often ignored. Amazingly, The Washington Post notes that the prime male work rate is below 1940 numbers, the tail end of the Great Depression when unemployment was almost 15%. Only 62% of the eligible labor force is currently in the workforce.

Issues impacting voters ahead of the midterm elections

Georgia policy group says inflation is not conquered, is becoming ingrained in economy

In The News

Georgia policy group says inflation is not conquered, is becoming ingrained in economy

The country has not conquered inflation, and it has become ingrained in our economy, the research director of a leading Georgia policy group said.

On Thursday, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics announced that the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers rose 0.4% in September. The year-over-year inflation rate stands at 8.2%.

“The Biden administration prematurely declared victory in August after passage of the Inflation Reduction Act,” Erik Randolph, director of research for the Georgia Center for Opportunity, said in a statement. “But as we’ve seen in the weeks since, inflation has a strong foothold and isn’t going away anytime soon.

Inflation is still raging. Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan will only make it worse

Inflation is still raging. Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan will only make it worse

Inflation is still raging. Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan will only make it worse

Key Points

 

  • Year-over-year inflation rate remains high at 8.3%. While the latest monthly number, and the CPI reading from July, show that inflation has stalled, we’re not out of the woods yet.
  • Reducing fiscal revenue by suspending the loan repayments adds to federal fiscal deficits.
  • Labor market moral hazards will worsen the situation of students achieving meaningful education and solving the problem of their skills not matching what is needed in the labor market.

In September, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics announced that the Consumer Price Index (CPI) rose 0.1% in August. However, the year-over-year inflation rate remains high at 8.3%. While the latest monthly number, and the CPI reading from July, show that inflation has stalled, we’re not out of the woods yet.

There are warning signals, including worldwide drought and continued energy disruptions, that inflation is not yet tamed. Moreover, Federal Reserve policy is refusing to allow the price level to come back down, meaning that most households will continue to contend with higher prices and lagging income growth. 

Meanwhile, the administration in Washington is taking steps that will only worsen the inflationary environment by its fiscal policy that relies on overspending absent adequate revenue. An unexpected part of this is President Biden’s new plan to forgive up to $20,000 in student loans for households making up to $250,000 a year. 

We’ve already written about how this policy will end up hurting the poor and working class. But from a strictly economic perspective, the blanket student loan forgiveness action by the president raises two additional fundamental concerns. 

  1. Deficit spending

Reducing fiscal revenue by suspending the loan repayments adds to federal fiscal deficits. Currently, the federal government is not running surpluses with a manageable national debt as if the federal government is in a financial position to be generous. The government itself is in a financial straitjacket where it must continue to borrow to pay for its expenses, and the interest payments on the national debt continues to grow not just from the additional borrowing but also from rising interest rates. Like a family with a large and growing minimum payment on credit card debt, it is crowding out other budget priorities. 

Although no economist knows how much more debt the U.S. economy can withstand, there is widespread agreement among them across the political spectrum that worsening deficit spending only aggravates inflationary pressures. We may say that taxpayers will eventually pay for the loan forgiveness, but the reality may be that we will pay for it sooner with higher inflation. 

Paying through inflation rather than taxes is regressive, impacting lower income Americans the most. Consider the Tax Policy Center estimate that 57% of households paid no federal income taxes in 2021 with many receiving a net gain instead. The Tax Policy Center expects that the percent of non-paying households will drop to about 40% over the next few years, consistent with pre-pandemic levels. Why is this important? Because it shows how an inflationary policy, instead of a fiscally sound policy, impacts low-income Americans worse.

  1. Labor market moral hazards

Second, it presents moral hazards that will worsen the situation of students achieving meaningful education and solving the problem of their skills not matching what is needed in the labor market.

The moral hazards will come about because given the history of entitlements in this country, once we begin on the path of creating a new entitlement, it opens the door for expanding that entitlement. Are not other students just as deserving of having their debt paid for now and in the future? And what about the past? Why not raise the thresholds so even more debt can be forgiven? What we’re creating here is an entitlement that has moral hazards.  Even the expectation of future loan forgiveness will cause behavioral changes with the same moral hazards.

  • The first hazard is with the students themselves. Choosing a career and what to study is a major life decision where one must weigh the benefits and costs. Already we have a problem with many students making bad decisions and studying things that will not help them develop the skills they need in finding good paying jobs. Installing a system where the cost of education is now paid for with other people’s money will give them yet another reason to rationalize their poor education decisions. While the debt of that education may be forgiven, the opportunity costs will be unforgiving because you can’t turn back the clock and erase the consequences of those bad decisions. 
  • The second hazard is with the post-secondary educational establishments themselves. Government involvement with guaranteed student loans already exacerbates the outrageous tuition price hikes we’ve witnessed over the past 50 years. Having the government now forgiving student debt will only reduce the financial incentives for higher education to rein in its exorbitant costs. 
  • Finally, where are the incentives for institutions of higher learning to adjust their content to match the needs of society and the economy? As the incentives are eroding for students to carefully choose what to study and for the educational institutions to rein in their costs, the arrangement provides yet another reason for academia to justify the assortment of degrees they offer and the courses they teach. Already we are witnessing a disconnect between the content of what students have studied with what they will need to be successful in their careers.These students typically learn this hard lesson once they graduate and are faced with the realities of life. This flaw in the education system is a contributing cause of the great mismatch between what skills and education people have and the skills needed by employers that fuels the economy. Our economy is currently suffering from this problem, which now will only grow worse.