Event Information

Cutting-edge technology has led to medical breakthroughs, the information age, and space exploration, among many other innovations. The growing ubiquity of advanced technology, however, means that almost anyone can harness its power to threaten national, international, and individual security. In their new book, The Future of Violence: Robots and Germs, Hackers and Drones—Confronting a New Age of Threat (Basic Books, 2015), Benjamin Wittes and Gabriella Blum explore the potential dangers of modern technology when acquired by hostile groups or individuals.

On March 11, Governance Studies at Brookings hosted a book event to discuss the new threats to national security and the developing framework for confronting the technology-enabled threats of the 21^st century. In order to manage the challenges and risks associated with advanced technology, governments, organizations, and citizens must reconsider the intersection of security, privacy, and liberty. What does this mean for domestic and international surveillance? How will the government protect its citizens in an age of technology proliferation?

After the program, panelists will take audience questions.

Audio

• Confronting national security threats in the technology age

Transcript

• Uncorrected Transcript (.pdf)

Event Materials

• 20150311_national_security_technology_transcript

“If the Americans and their regional allies want to pass through the Strait of Hormuz and threaten us, we will not allow any entry,” said deputy commander of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, Hossein Salami, last Wednesday. Iran has a long history of making threats against this critical waterway, through which some 17 million barrels of oil exports pass daily, though it has not carried them out. But multiple regional security threats highlight threats to energy transit from and through the Middle East and North Africa (MENA)—and demand new thinking about solutions.

Weak spots

Hormuz attracts attention because of its evident vulnerability. But recent years have seen severe disruptions to energy flows across the region: port blockades in Libya; pipeline sabotage in Egypt’s Sinai, Yemen, Baluchistan in Pakistan, and Turkey’s southeast; attacks on oil and gas installations across Syria and Iraq; piracy off Somalia. Energy security is threatened at all scales, from local community disturbances and strikes, up to major regional military confrontations.

Of course, it would be best to mitigate these energy security vulnerabilities by tackling the root causes of conflict across the region. But while disruption and violence persist, energy exporters and consumers alike should guard against complacency.

A glut of oil and gas supplies globally—with low prices, growing U.S. self-sufficiency, and the conclusion of the Iranian nuclear deal—may seem to have reduced the urgency: markets have hardly responded to recent flare-ups. But major economies – even the United States – still remain dependent, directly or indirectly, on energy supplies from the MENA region. Spare oil production capacity is at unusually low levels, leaving the balance vulnerable to even a moderate interruption.

Most concern has focused on oil exports, given their importance to the world economy. But the security of liquefied natural gas (LNG) shipments is an under-appreciated risk, particularly for countries such as Japan and South Korea which are heavily dependent on LNG. A disruption would also have severe consequences for countries in the Middle East and North Africa, depriving them not only of revenues but potentially of critical imports.

Doing better 

There are three broad groups of approaches to mitigating the risk of energy transit disruptions: infrastructure, institutions, and market. 

1. Infrastructure includes the construction of bypass pipelines avoiding key choke-points and strategic storage.
   
   Existing bypass pipelines include SUMED (which avoids the Suez Canal); the Habshan-Fujairah pipeline in the UAE (bypassing Hormuz); and the Saudi Petroline, which runs to the Red Sea, hence offering an alternative to the Gulf and Hormuz. Proposed projects include a link from other Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries to Oman’s planned oil terminal at Duqm on the Indian Ocean; new or rehabilitated pipelines from Iraq across Jordan and Turkey; an expansion of Petroline; and a new terminal in southern Iran at Jask.
   
   Strategic storage can be held by oil exporters, by importers, or a combination (in which exporters hold oil close to their customers’ territory, as with arrangements between Saudi Arabia and Japan, and between Abu Dhabi and Japan and India).


2. Institutional approaches include mechanisms to deal with disruptions, such as cooperative sharing arrangements.
   
   More analysis has focused on infrastructure than on institutional and market mitigation. Yet these approaches have to work together. Physical infrastructure is not enough: it has to be embedded in a suitable framework of regulation, legislation, and diplomacy. Cross-border or multilateral pipelines require agreements on international cooperation; strategic storage is most effective when rules for its use are clear, and when holders of storage agree not to hoard scarce supplies. 
   
   The effective combination of infrastructure and institutions has a strategic benefit even if it is never used. By making oil exporters and consumers less vulnerable to threats, it makes it less likely that such threats will be carried out.
   
   Alliances can be useful for mutual security and coordination. However, they raise the difficult question of whom they are directed against. Mutually-hostile alliances would be a threat to regional energy security rather than a guarantor. Organizations such as the International Energy Agency (IEA), the International Energy Forum (IEF), Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), Gulf Cooperation Council, and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) could all have roles, but none is ideally placed. Rather than creating another organization, reaching an understanding between existing bodies may be more effective.


3. In general, markets cope well with the task of allocating scarce supplies. Better and timelier data, such as that gathered by the IEF, can greatly improve the functioning of markets. Governments do have a role in protecting the most vulnerable consumers and ensuring sufficient energy for critical services, but price controls, rationing, and export bans have usually been counterproductive, and many of the worst consequences of so-called energy crises have come from well-meaning government interference with the normal market process of adjustment.
   
   However, it is generally difficult or impossible for a single company or country to capture all the benefits of building strategic infrastructure—which, as with a bypass pipeline, may only be required for a few months over a period of decades. International financing, perhaps backed by a major energy importer—mostly likely China—can help support such projects, particularly at a time of fiscal austerity in the Middle East.

Energy exporters within the MENA region may often find their interests divergent. But the field of energy security is one area for more fruitful cooperation—at least between groups of states, and some external players, particularly their increasingly important Asian customers. If regional tensions and conflicts cannot be easily solved, such action at least alleviates one of the serious risks of the region’s turmoil.

For more on this topic, read Robin Mills’ new analysis paper “Risky routes: Energy transit in the Middle East.”

With new technologies for extracting oil and natural gas producing an energy boom throughout North America, Senior Fellow Charles Ebinger sees the potential in hydraulic fracturing or “fracking” to free the continent from dependence on Middle East oil, and even make some progress on curbing sources of air pollution.
 

##1##

Video

• Fracking and Prospects for Energy Security in North America

Drought, low agriculture productivity and a cascade of bad policy choices have put millions in the Horn of Africa and the Sahel at risk for starvation. Senior Fellow Mwangi Kimenyi, director of the Africa Growth Initiative, says the consequences will haunt the continent for decades to come.

Video

• Mwangi S. Kimenyi: Food Insecurity in Africa Can Be Solved

Americans who use defined contribution retirement savings plans (for example, 401(k) or 403(b) plans) or Individual Retirement Accounts will see their retirement security enhanced by two recently announced regulatory initiatives. The first is a series of Treasury Department/IRS proposed regulations that such individuals to use annuity-like guaranteed lifetime income products. The second is a final Department of Labor rule requiring complete fee disclosure to employers sponsoring retirement saving plans. Together, the two initiatives will give current retirement savers and future retirees more flexibility in structuring their retirement incomes, while making it possible to avoid excessive or hidden fees.

Four Treasury/IRS proposals, which were developed under the leadership of our former RSP colleague Mark Iwry, deal with several of the most pressing issues faced by employers and savers that currently reduce the use of annuities. The first proposal would reduce barriers to giving retiring savers the option of annuitizing part of their account balances. Currently, people need to annuitize either the entire balance or none at all. People are naturally wary of annuitizing the entire amount because it leaves them with little in the way of a cash cushion for emergencies. By choosing to annuitize part of the balance, people can retain a lump sum for emergency or other purposes.

A second proposal would remove a technical impediment to using longevity annuities, an annuity that is typically purchased close to retirement but does not begin to pay benefit until the retiree reaches age 85 or a similar age. Longevity annuities enable retirees to manage their money for a set period of time, secure in the knowledge that the longevity annuity will provide income after that, should they live longer than expected.

The third proposal would allow an individual to begin to partially annuitize their savings well before retirement. Starting to annuitize early by buying small pieces of an annuity over twenty or so years allows the saver to avoid having to make a “once and for all” decision and allows the savers to spread out the interest rate risk over time. This option had been subject to a requirement that the saver get a notarized statement from his or her spouse (if any) concerning whether the annuity covers just the saver or both the saver and his or her spouse. The proposal allows this to be handled by the issuing insurer when payments would begin rather than when purchases begin.

The fourth proposal would apply to relatively rare case where the employer has both a retirement savings plan and a traditional defined benefit pension, and would allow an employee to buy a low-cost annuity through the employer’s DB pension.

These four regulatory changes are positive developments. The changes announced today eliminate unintentional barriers to the use of lifetime income products without dictating how individuals should use them. Some may choose to partially annuitize at retirement, some to use longevity annuities to protect them in later years, and some to begin to buy annuities well before retirement. Whatever the choice, the proposals open up new options to future retirees, and should encourage even more market innovations.

At about the same time, the Department of Labor released final regulations requiring providers to disclose all direct and indirect fees to the employer sponsoring a 401(k) plan. The regulations will add needed transparency on fees that will enable increased competition to produce better results for employers and employees.

Despite removing a required template of charges, the new regulations nevertheless give employers a complete and accurate picture of all charges they have to pay, including indirect fees paid by the provider to others. Currently, many indirect fees are not disclosed even though they may reduce the earnings of participants. Endorsed by industry and consumer groups, the disclosures will enable employers who use this information properly to meet their fiduciary responsibility to choose a responsible fee level. What is even more important, the full disclosure will enable employers to structure their 401(k) plan so that individual savers can get the best returns possible, and not be subject to unreasonable fees.

While much more remains to be done to improve retirement savings plan, the steps taken by the proposed Treasury/IRS regulations and the Department of Labor’s final regulations will help savers to improve retirement security.

Event Information

Longevity annuities—a financial innovation that provides protection against outliving your money late in life—have the potential to reshape the retirement security landscape. Typically bought at retirement, a longevity annuity offers a guaranteed stream of income beginning in ten or 20 years at a markedly lower cost than a conventional annuity that begins paying out immediately. Sales have grown rapidly and it will be even easier to purchase the annuities in the future given new Treasury regulations. While economists have touted the attractiveness of longevity annuities as a way to ensure the ability to maintain one’s living standards late in life, significant barriers to a robust market remain—including lack of consumer awareness, questions about product value, and employer concerns with taking on fiduciary responsibility by offering these products to their employees.

Can longevity annuities overcome these barriers to find widespread popularity among Americans retirees? On November 6, the Retirement Security Project hosted a panel of experts to discuss the potential for these products to contribute to the economic security of older Americans, in addition to policy reforms that could lead to greater take-up by retirement plan sponsors and consumers alike. Following a presentation by Katharine Abraham that laid out the issues, two panels of prominent experts added their insights on the promise and challenges of this burgeoning market.

Video

• Better Financial Security in Old-Age? The Promise of Longevity Annuities
• Understanding Longevity Annuities
• Eliminating Barriers to Market Development
• Longevity Annuities Are Not Necessarily Niche Products
• The Adverse Selection Issue

Audio

• Better Financial Security in Old-Age? The Promise of Longevity Annuities

Transcript

• Uncorrected Transcript (.pdf)

Event Materials

• 06_retirement_longevity_annuities_abraham_harris
• longevity_annuities_presentation_abraham
• 20141106_longevity_annuities_transcript

In the 2015 State of the Union Address, President Obama made retirement security a priority for his Administration by promoting the Automatic IRA, a retirement savings plan that originated at the Retirement Security Project. The proposals would increase the ability of part-time workers to join their employer’s plan and improve tax incentives for businesses that either start an Automatic IRA or other type of retirement plan or add automatic enrollment to an existing plan.  

Only about half of all American workers have access to a payroll deduction retirement savings plan at work. For part-time workers, fewer than four in ten have the opportunity to save at work. And while these individuals could in theory save on their own in an IRA, the best estimate is that only about one in twenty eligible to contribute to an IRA actually do so on a regular basis.

Last year, the President announced the creation of My Retirement Account, or “MyRA.” Similar to the R-Bond discussed in a recent AARP Public Policy Institute paper written by William Gale, David John and Spencer Smith, MyRA would allow individuals to save up to $15,000 in a government bond account similar to the one offered as an option to federal employees through the Thrift Savings Plan.

Now, the White House proposes to build on the MyRA.  Because the Automatic IRA would require employers with more than 10 employees to offer retirement accounts, about 30 million more workers would have the opportunity to save for retirement via payroll deduction. Using automatic enrollment, a mechanism that both works and that employees strongly support, the Automatic IRA would serve as a permanent retirement savings plan, rather than a starter account like MyRA.

To further increase the number of retirement savers, the Obama Administration also proposes to allow part-time employees who have worked for the employer for at least 500 hours a year for the past three years to make voluntary contributions to the employer’s plan.  Currently, employers are allowed to exclude any employee who works less than 1,000 hours per year. 

And to encourage employers to offer retirement plans, the existing tax credits for small employers who start a new retirement plan or pension would be greatly expanded.  Small employers who create an Automatic IRA would be eligible for a $3,000 tax credit, while those who open another type of retirement plan would be eligible for a $4,500 tax credit.  And just adding automatic enrollment to an existing plan would earn a small employer a tax credit of $1,500.

While these proposals would all need the approval of congress, they may well be able to rise above the usual political maneuvering.  For instance, both left and right have made positive comments about the Automatic IRA, and businesses should support the call for expanded tax credits to cover their costs in implementing the plans.

Most important, the president continues to make retirement security a priority with practical solutions that would allow many more Americans to build retirement security through their own efforts.  His proposals promote the kind of values and self-reliance that both sides of the political spectrum find attractive.

Increasingly, many Marylanders are unprepared for retirement.

The US has the broadest range of retirement savings options in the world. There are thousands of retirement products offered. But most Marylanders don’t use them.

The need is growing. The Baby Boomers are the largest generation in history. They will live longer in retirement than any generation in history.

But – financially – many are not prepared. Many have virtually no retirement savings: more than a third those within ten years of retirement age have saved less than $10,000. $10,000 invested and spent over the average person’s retirement works out to about $1,000 of income per year. Even with Social Security, that’s not much to live on.

Fears about retirement are the #1 economic concern. Many Marylanders know they’re unprepared – and they’re worried about it. Concerns about retirement security are now more broadly based than the cost of health care, fear of job loss or other economic concerns – and have been for over a decade.3 Those concerns have grown since the financial crisis, even though the stock market has recovered. Many know they’ll have to defer retirement—and many fear they will never be able to afford to retire at all.

The key to retirement saving is having a retirement plan and contributing to it every paycheck. But many businesses, including most smaller businesses, don’t offer retirement plans. As a result 1,000,000 Marylanders working in private businesses across the State don’t have a retirement plan. There are, of course, individual retirement accounts (IRAs) -- but almost no one uses them who didn’t get access through an employer-based plan via payroll deduction.

Having a plan is essential, but not a panacea. Even when plans are available, many employees don’t join. Many who do contribute and save less than they need to meet their own goals. Even with plans, many will need to save more.

The challenge continues at retirement, because most of these plans are paid out in a single lump sum payment—few plans offer reliable retirement income for life that traditional pensions do. Since most retirees do not consult financial advisors and are not financial experts themselves, some who live longer than average or are unlucky in their investments will find that they haven’t saved enough and will exhaust their savings.

They will, of course, have Social Security. That’s why it’s so important that Social Security be both preserved and strengthened. But the average monthly benefit in Maryland is about $1,300 and for most people Social Security covers only a fraction of their basic needs in retirement. Most Marylanders will need additional income from retirement savings – and the State of Maryland can help them get it.

Other states and other governments are making it easier for people to save and for private employers to help them do it. Maryland should, too. Acting now will save Maryland taxpayers millions in the future.

California, Massachusetts, and Illinois have already enacted legislation. Illinois created a new program that requires employers who have no retirement plan to automatically enroll their employees in a state-created program. Massachusetts authorized a program for uncovered employees of non-profits. California created a board to plan and propose program similar to that in Illinois. Similar legislation is being or has been introduced in some fifteen other states – states all across the country with varying political orientations, populations, and economic bases.

Although there are many variations under consideration, these programs generally provide for an automatic payroll deduction of a set amount unless the employee opts out. Funds are to be invested professionally and may be pooled to achieve higher returns and lower costs. Those who cannot or do not want to make complex financial decisions are not required to do so – their contributions are placed automatically into a reliable fund or set of funds.

In order to ensure that employers – many of whom are small businesses – can participate in a program, it must be designed to help them avoid significant disruption, expense or administrative burden. This can be accomplished by enabling employers to use current payroll processes to help their employees to build retirement security, without requiring employers to make contributions themselves.

If Maryland doesn’t act now, Maryland taxpayers will face higher costs for decades to come.

These plans are designed to be self-sustaining: their operating costs are paid for by plan contributions and the State would not assume any obligations. In practice, however, these plans will end up saving taxpayer funds: If Maryland doesn’t act now, Maryland taxpayers will face higher costs for decades to come, as retirees are forced to turn to State assistance instead of living on their own savings.

There are many ways to improve retirement security. The key is for businesses to help their employees save, without becoming overburdened themselves.

Task Force is not recommending any one approach, but strongly recommends that Maryland join other states, by developing and implementing a plan that helps Marylanders have more secure retirements.We recommend development of a specific state-based program that meets Maryland’s needs from the options discussed in our report.

Downloads

• Download the full report

Since it was created in 1935, Social Security has grown from covering about half of the work force to covering nearly all workers.  The largest remaining exempted group is a subset of state and local government workers (SLGWs).  As of 2008, Social Security did not cover about 27 percent of the 23.8 million SLGWs (Congressional Research Service 2011).  Non-coverage of SLGWs is concentrated in certain states scattered around the country and includes workers in a diverse set of jobs, ranging from administrators to custodial staff.  Some police and fire department employees are not covered.  About 40 percent of public school teachers are not covered by Social Security (Kan and Alderman 2014).    

Under current law, state and local governments that do not offer their own retirement plan must enroll their employees in Social Security.  But if it does offer a retirement plan, the state or local government can choose whether to enroll its workers in Social Security.  

This paper reviews and extends discussion on whether state and local government workers should face mandatory coverage in Social Security.^[1]  Relative to earlier work, we focus on links between this issue and recent developments in state and local pensions.  Although some of the issues apply equally to both existing and newly hired SLGWs, it is most natural to focus on whether newly hired employees should be brought into Social Security.^[2]  

The first thing to note about this topic is that it is purely a transitional issue.  If all SLGWs were already currently enrolled in Social Security, there would not be a serious discussion about whether they should be removed.  For example, there is no discussion of whether the existing three quarters of all SLGWs that are enrolled in Social Security should be removed from coverage.

Bringing state and local government workers into the system would allow Social Security to reach the goal of providing retirement security for all workers.  The effects on Social Security finances are mixed.  Bringing SLGWs into the system would also help shore up Social Security finances over the next few decades and, under common scoring methods, push the date of trust fund insolvency back by one year, but after that, the cost of increased benefit payments would offset those improvements. 

Mandatory coverage would also be fairer.  Other workers pay, via payroll taxes, the “legacy” costs associated with the creation of Social Security as a pay-as-you-go system.   Early generations of Social Security beneficiaries received far more in payouts than they contributed to the system and those net costs are now being paid by current and future generations.  There appears to be no convincing reason why certain state and local workers should be exempt from this societal obligation.  As a result of this fact and the short-term benefit to the program’s finances, most major proposals and commissions to reform Social Security and all commissions to shore up the long-term federal budget have included the idea of mandatory coverage of newly hired SLGWs.

While these issues are long-standing, recent developments concerning state and local pensions have raised the issue of mandatory coverage in a new light. Linking the funding status of state and local pension plans and the potential risk faced by those employees with the mandatory coverage question is a principal goal of this paper.  One factor is that many state and local government pension plans are facing significant underfunding of promised pension benefits.  In a few municipal bankruptcy cases, the reduction of promised benefits for both current employees and those who have already retired has been discussed.  The potential vulnerability of these benefits emphasizes the importance of Social Security coverage, and naturally invites a rethinking of whether newly hired SLGWs should be required to join the program.  On the other hand, the same pension funding problems imply that any policy that adds newly-hired workers to Social Security, and thus requires the state to pay its share of those contributions, would create added overall costs for state and local governments at a time when pension promises are already hard to meet.  The change might also divert a portion of existing employee or employer contributions to Social Security and away from the state pension program. 

We provide two key results linking state government pension funding status and SLGW coverage. First, we show that states with governmental pension plans that have greater levels of underfunding tend also to have a smaller proportion of SLGW workers that are covered by Social Security.  This tends to raise the retirement security risks faced by those workers and provides further fuel for mandatory coverage.  While one can debate whether future public pension commitments or future Social Security promises are more risky, a solution resulting in less of both is the worst possible outcome for the workers in question.  Second, we show that state pension benefit levels for career workers are somewhat compensatory, in that states with lower rates of Social Security coverage for SLGWs tend to have somewhat higher pension benefit levels.  The extent to which promised but underfunded benefits actually compensate for the higher risk to individual workers of non-Social Security coverage is an open question, though.  

Mandatory coverage of newly hired SLGWs could improve the security of their retirement benefits (by diversifying the sources of their retirement income), raise average benefit levels in many cases (even assuming significant changes in state and local government pensions in response to mandatory coverage), and would improve the quality of benefits received, including provisions for full inflation indexation, and dependent, survivor and disability benefits in Social Security that are superior to those in most state pension plans.  The ability to accrue and receive Social Security benefits would be particularly valuable for the many SLGWs who leave public service either without ever having been vested in a government pension or having been vested but not reaching the steep part of the benefit accrual path.  

Just as there is strong support for mandatory coverage in the Social Security community and literature, there is strong opposition to such a change in elements of the state and local government pension world.  The two groups that are most consistently and strongly opposed to mandatory coverage of newly hired SLGWs are the two parties most directly affected – state and local governments that do not already provide such coverage and their uncovered employees.  Opponents cite the higher cost to both employees and the state and local government for providing that coverage and the potential for losing currently promised pension benefits. They note that public pensions – unlike Social Security – can invest in risky assets and thus can provide better benefits at lower cost.  This, of course, is a best-case alternative as losses among those risky assets could also increase pressure on pension finances.

There is nothing inconsistent about the two sides of these arguments; one set tends to focus on benefits, the other on costs.  They can be, and probably are, all true simultaneously.  There is also a constitutional issue that used to hang over the whole debate – whether the federal government has the right to tax the states and local government units in their roles as employers – but that seems resolved at this point.

Section II of this paper discusses the history and current status of Social Security coverage for SLGWs.   Section III discusses mandatory coverage in the context of Social Security funding and the federal budget.  Section IV discusses the issues in the context of state and local budgets, existing pension plans, and the risks and benefits to employees of those governments.  Section V concludes.

Downloads

• Download the paper

Introduction

Many American workers do not have access to employer-sponsored payroll deduction plans for retirement saving. Groups with low rates of access include younger workers, members of minority groups, and those with low-to-moderate incomes. 1 Small business employees are especially at risk. Only about 14 percent of businesses with 100 or fewer employees offer their employees a retirement plan, leaving between 51 and 71 percent of the roughly 42 million people who work for a small business without access to an employer-administered plan (Government Accountability Office 2013).

Lack of access makes it difficult to build retirement wealth. A study by the Employee Benefit Research Institute (2014) shows that 62 percent of employees with access to an employer-sponsored plan held more than $25,000 in saving balances and 22 percent had $100,000 or more. In contrast, among those without access to a plan, 94 percent held less than $25,000 and only three percent hold $100,000 or more. Although workers without an employer-based plan can contribute to Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs), very few do.2 But employees at all income levels tend to participate at high rates in plans that are structured to provide guidance about the decisions they should make (Wu and Rutledge 2014).

With these considerations in mind, many experts and policy makers have advocated for increased retirement plan coverage. While a national approach would be desirable, there has been little legislative progress to date. States, however, are acting. Three states have already created state-sponsored retirement saving plans for small business employees, and 25 are in some stage of considering such a move (Pension Rights Center 2015). John and Koenig (2014) estimate that 55 million U.S. wage and salary workers between the ages of 18 and 64 lack the ability to save for retirement through an employer-sponsored payroll deduction plan. Among such workers with wages between $30,000 and $50,000 only about one out of 20 contributes regularly to an IRA (Employee Benefit Research Institute 2006).

This paper highlights a variety of issues that policymakers will need to address in creating and implementing an effective state-sponsored retirement saving plan. Section II discusses policy design choices. Section III discusses management issues faced by states administering such a plan, employers and employees. Section IV is a short conclusion.

Note: this paper was presented at a October 7, 2015 Brookings Institution event focused on state retirement policies.

Downloads

• Download the paper

Event Information

On Wednesday, June 2, the Center for Universal Education at Brookings hosted a discussion on the need to refocus the international education dialogue from school enrollment to learning achieved in developing countries. Participants, who included education experts from academia, international organizations and government, assessed the current state of systematic efforts at the global level to measure learning outcomes.

Center for Universal Education Co-Director and Senior Fellow Jacques van der Gaag opened the event by charting the landscape of learning, including education outside the primary school classroom, during early childhood development and the importance of acquiring both cognitive and non-cognitive skills for ensuring learning outcomes.

View the event summary »

Event Materials

• 20100602_education_learning_presentation_clarke
• 20100602_education_learning_presentation_gove
• 20100602_education_learning_presentation_naidoo
• 20100602_education_learning_presentation_savelyev
• 20100602_education_learning_presentation_woessman

INTRODUCTION—

Achieving universal education is a twofold challenge: to get children and youth into school and then to teach them something meaningful while they are there. While important progress has been made on the first challenge, there is a crisis unfolding in relation to learning. Around the world, there have been major gains in primary school enrollment partly due to the United Nations’ Millennium Development Goals and the abolition of school fees by many national governments. However in many countries, students are spending years in school without learning core competencies, such as reading and writing. To address this learning crisis, the global community and national governments need to place a much greater focus on the ultimate objective of education—to acquire knowledge and develop skills.

This shift in focus away from just enrollment to enrollment plus quality learning requires measuring learning outcomes. However, the global education community is not yet systematically using effective instruments for measuring primary school learning in low- and middle-income countries. This policy brief reviews the global efforts among the primary donors to support the measurement of learning outcomes. It then suggests steps needed to transition global education policy into a new paradigm of enrollment plus quality learning, which includes: scaling up the implementation of national education accounts and national assessment systems; increasing attention to monitoring early learning during child development to improve readiness for school; and expanding the systematic use of simple assessments of basic cognitive functions in the early grades to help teachers improve their practice.

Downloads

• Read the full paper

Event Information

A decade into the 21st century, the role of manufacturing in global and metropolitan economies continues to evolve. After 20 years of rapid globalization in which manufacturing production shifted to emerging markets, demand for consumption is growing there, too. Emerging market demand, in fact, has unprecedented momentum as 1.8 billion people enter the global consuming class. At the same time, a robust pipeline of product innovation and manufacturing processes has opened new ways for U.S. manufacturing companies to compete.

On November 19, the Metropolitan Policy Program at Brookings hosted a forum to release a report from the McKinsey Global Institute that examines the role of manufacturing in advanced and developing economies and the choices that manufacturers grapple with in this new era of global competition. Following presentations by the authors, an expert panel discussed the key trends shaping manufacturing competitiveness, global strategies, the next era of manufacturing innovation, and what these changes imply for growth and employment in manufacturing across the globe.

Video

• Bruce Katz: A Region Has to Know What It Can Do Well
• Martin Baily: Manufacturing Creates Jobs
• Katy George: Manufacturing Is an Entity That Is Constantly Shifting
• James Manyika: Manufacturing Matters a Great Deal
• Gardner Carrick: Education Is Key
• James W. Griffith: Closing Remarks

Audio

• Global Manufacturing: Entering a New Era

Transcript

• Uncorrected Transcript (.pdf)

Event Materials

• 20121119_global_manufacturing

Once upon a time, ambitious young people with a knack for math and science went to work in manufacturing. They designed planes, computers, and furniture, figured out how to lay out an assembly line, helped to make new cars faster and refrigerators more efficient, pushed the limits of computer chips, and invented new medicines. But, as the role of manufacturing diminished in advanced economies, the brightest talents tended to gravitate to finance and other service fields that were growing rapidly – and paying well.

But here’s some news: global manufacturing has the potential to stage a renaissance and once again become a career of choice for the most talented.

Of course, any manufacturing rebound in the advanced economies will not generate mass employment; but it will create many high-quality jobs. There will be more demand for software programmers, engineers, designers, robotics experts, data analytics specialists, and myriad other professional and service-type positions. In some manufacturing sectors, more such people may be hired than will be added on the factory floor.

Exploding demand in developing economies and a wave of innovation in materials, manufacturing processes, and information technology are driving today’s new possibilities for manufacturing. Even as the share of manufacturing in global GDP has fallen – from about 20% in 1990 to 16% in 2010 – manufacturing companies have made outsize contributions to innovation, funding as much as 70% of private-sector R&D in some countries. From nanotechnologies that make possible new types of microelectronics and medical treatments to additive manufacturing systems (better known as 3D printing), emerging new materials and methods are set to revolutionize how products are designed and made.

But, to become a genuine driver of growth, the new wave of manufacturing technology needs a broad skills base. For example, it will take many highly-trained and creative workers to move 3D printing from an astounding possibility to a practical production tool.

Consider, too, the challenges of the auto industry, which is shifting from conventional, steel-bodied cars with traditional drive trains to lighter, more fuel-efficient vehicles in which electronics are as important as mechanical parts. The Chevrolet Volt has more lines of software code than the Boeing 787. So the car industry needs people fluent in mechanical engineering, battery chemistry, and electronics.

Manufacturing is already an intensive user of “big data” – the use of massive data sets to discover new patterns, perform simulations, and manage complex systems in real-time. Manufacturing stores more data than any other sector – an estimated two exabytes (two quintillion bytes) in 2010. By enabling more sophisticated simulations that discover glitches at an early stage, big data has helped Toyota, Fiat and Nissan cut the time needed to develop new models by 30-50%.

Manufacturers in many other branches are using big data to monitor the performance of machinery and equipment, fine-tune maintenance routines, and ferret out consumer insights from social-media chatter. But there aren’t enough people with big-data skills. In the United States alone, there is a potential shortfall of 1.5 million data-savvy managers and analysts needed to drive the emerging data revolution in manufacturing.

The shift of manufacturing demand to developing economies also requires new skills. A recent McKinsey survey of multinationals based in the U.S. and Europe found that, on average, these companies derive only 18% of sales from developing economies. But these economies are projected to account for 70% of global sales of manufactured goods (both consumer and industrial products) by 2025. To develop these markets, companies will need talented people, from ethnographers (to understand consumers’ customs and preferences) to engineers (to design products that fit a new definition of value).

Perhaps most important, manufacturing is becoming more “democratic,” and thus more appealing to bright young people with an entrepreneurial bent. Not only has design technology become more accessible, but an extensive virtual infrastructure exists that enables small and medium-size companies to outsource design, manufacturing, and logistics. Large and small companies alike are crowd-sourcing ideas online for new products and actual designs. “Maker spaces” – shared production facilities built around a spirit of open innovation – are proliferating.

And yet, across the board, manufacturing is vulnerable to a potential shortage of high-skill workers. Research by the McKinsey Global Institute finds that the number of college graduates in 2020 will fall 40 million short of what employers around the world need, largely owing to rapidly aging workforces, particularly in Europe, Japan, and China. In some manufacturing sectors, the gaps could be dauntingly large. In the U.S., workers over the age of 55 make up 40% of the workforce in agricultural chemicals manufacturing and more than one-third of the workforce in ceramics. Some 8% of the members of the National Association of Manufacturers report having trouble filling positions vacated by retirees.

Indeed, when the NAM conducted a survey of high-school students in Indianapolis, Indiana (which is already experiencing a manufacturing revival), the results were alarming: only 3% of students said that they were interested in careers in manufacturing. In response, the NAM launched a program to change students’ attitudes. But not only young people need persuading: surveys of engineers who leave manufacturing for other fields indicate that a lack of career paths and slow advancement cause some to abandon the sector.

Manufacturing superstars such as Germany and South Korea have always attracted the brightest and the best to the sector. But now manufacturers in economies that do not have these countries’ superior track record must figure out how to be talent magnets. Manufacturing’s rising coolness quotient should prove useful, but turning it into a highly sought-after career requires that companies in the sector back up the shiny new image with the right opportunities – and the right rewards.

Editor’s note: The following remarks were prepared and delivered by Gary Burtless at a roundtable sponsored by the American Tax Policy Institute on January 7, 2016. Video of Burtless’ remarks are also available on the Institute’s website. Download the related slides at the right. 

To eliminate suspense from the start: Nothing I am about to say undermines the popular narrative about recent inequality trends.  For the past 35 years, U.S. inequality has increased.  Inequality has increased noticeably, no matter what income definition you care to use.  A couple of things you read in the newspaper are untrue under some income definitions. For example, under a comprehensive income definition it is false to claim that all the income gains of the past 2 or 3 decades have gone to the top 1 percent, or the top 5 percent, or the top 10 percent of income recipients.  Middle- and low-income Americans have managed to achieve income gains, too, as we shall see.

Tax policy certainly affects overall inequality, but I shall leave it for Scott, David, and Tracy to take that up. Let me turn to my main job, which is to distinguish between different reasonable income measures.

The crucial thing to know is that contradictory statements can be made about some income trends because of differences in the definition of income.  In general, the most pessimistic statements about trends rely on an income definition that is restrictive in some way.  The definition may exclude important income items, items, for example, that tend to equalize or boost family incomes.  The definition may leave out adjustments to income … adjustments that tend to boost the rate of income gain for low- or middle-income recipients, but not for top-income recipients.

The narrowest income definition commonly used to evaluate income trends is Definition #1 in my slide, “pretax private, cash income.”  Columnists and news reporters are unknowingly using this income definition when they make pronouncements about the income share of the “top 1 percent.”  The data about income under this definition are almost always based on IRS income tax returns, supplemented with a bit of information from the Commerce Department’s National Income and Product Account (NIPA) data file.

The single most common income definition used to assess income trends and inequality is the Census Bureau’s “money income” definition, Definition #2 on the slide.  It is just the same as the first definition I mentioned, except this income concept also includes government cash transfer payments – Social Security, unemployment insurance, cash public assistance, Veterans’ benefits, etc.

A slightly more expansive definition (#3) also adds food stamp (or SNAP) benefits plus other government benefits that are straightforward to evaluate. Items of this kind include the implicit rent subsidy low-income families receive in publicly-subsidized housing, school lunch subsides, and means-tested home heating subsidies.

Now we come to subtractions from income. These typically reflect families’ tax obligations.  The Census Bureau makes estimates of state and federal income tax liabilities as well as payroll taxes owed by workers (though not by their employers).  Since income and payroll taxes subtract from the income available to pay for other stuff families want to buy, it seems logical to also subtract them from countable income. This is done under income Definition #4.  Some tax obligations – notably the Earned Income Credit (EIC) – are in fact subtractions from taxes owed, which would not be a problem in the case of families that still owe positive taxes to the government.  However, the EIC is refundable to taxpayers, meaning that some families have negative tax liabilities:  The government owes them money.  In this case, if you do not take taxes into account you understate low-income families’ incomes, even as you’re overstating the net incomes available to middle- and high-income families.

Now let’s get a bit more complicated.  Forget what I said about taxes, because our next income definition (#5) also ignores them.  It is an even-more-comprehensive definition of gross or pretax income.  In addition to all those cash and near-cash items I mentioned in Definition #3, Definition #5 includes imputed income items, such as: 

• The value of your employer’s premium contribution to your employee health plan;
• The value of the government’s subsidy to your public health plan – Medicare, Medicaid, state CHIP plans, etc.
• Realized taxable gains from the sale of assets; and
• Corporate income that is earned by companies in which you own a share even though it is not income that is paid directly to you.

This is the most comprehensive income definition of which I am aware that refers to gross or pre-tax income.

Finally we have Definition #6, which subtracts your direct and indirect tax payments.  The only agency that uses this income definition is principally interested in the Federal budget, so the subtractions are limited to Federal income and payroll taxes, Federal corporate income taxes, and excise taxes.

Before we go into why you should care about any of these definitions, let me mention a somewhat less important issue, namely, how we define the income-sharing group over which we estimate inequality.  The most common assessment unit for income included under Definition #1 (“Pre-tax private cash income”) is the Federal income tax filing unit.  Sometimes this unit has one person; sometimes 2 (a married couple); and sometimes more than 2, including dependents.

The Census Bureau (and, consequently, most users of Census-published statistics) mainly uses “households” as reference units, without any adjustment for variations in the size of different households.  The Bureau’s median income estimate, for example, is estimated using the annual “money income” of households, some of which contain 1 person, some contain 2, some contain 3, and so on.

Many economists and sociologists find this unsatisfactory because they think a $20,000 annual income goes a lot farther if it is supporting just one person rather than 12.  Therefore, a number of organizations—notably, the Luxembourg Income Study (LIS), the Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO)—assume household income is equally shared within each household, but that household “needs” increase with the square root of the number of people in the household.  That is, a household containing 9 members is assumed to require 1½ times as much income to enjoy the same standard of living as a family containing 4 members.  After an adjustment is made to account for the impact of household size, these organizations then calculate inequality among persons rather than among households.

How are these alternative income definitions estimated?  Who uses them?  What do the estimates show?  I’ll only consider a two or three basic cases.

First, pretax, private, cash income. By far the most famous users of this definition are Professors Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez.  Their most celebrated product is an annual estimate of the share of total U.S. income (under this restricted definition) that is received by the top 1 percent of tax filing units.

Here is their most famous chart, showing the income share of the top 1 percent going back to 1913. (I use the Piketty-Saez estimates that exclude realized capital gains in the calculation of taxpayers’ incomes.) The notable feature of the chart is the huge rise in the top income share between 1970—when it was 8 percent of all pretax private cash income—and last year—when the comparable share was 18 percent.  

I have circled one part of the line—between 1986 and 1988—to show you how sensitive their income definition is to changes in the income tax code.  In 1986 Congress passed the Tax Reform Act of 1986 (TRA86). By 1988 the reform was fully implemented.  Wealthy taxpayers noticed that TRA86 sharply reduced the payoff to holding corporate earnings inside a separately taxed corporate entity. Rich business owners or shareholders could increase their after-tax income by arranging things so their business income was taxed only once, at the individual level.  The result was that a lot of income, once earned by and held within corporations, was now passed through to the tax returns of rich individual taxpayers. These taxpayers appeared to enjoy a sudden surge in their taxable incomes between 1986 and 1988.  No one seriously believes rich people failed to get the benefits of this income before 1987.  Before 1987 the same income simply showed up on corporate rather than on individual income tax returns.

A final point:  The chart displayed in SLIDE #6 is the source of the widely believed claim that U.S. inequality is nowadays about the same as it was at the end of the Roaring 1920s, before the Great Depression.  That is close to being true – under this income definition.

Census “money income”: This income definition is very similar to the one just discussed, except that it includes cash government transfer payments.  The producer of the series is the Census Bureau, and its most famous uses are to measure trends in real median household income and the official U.S. poverty rate. Furthermore, the Census Bureau uses the income definition to compile estimates of the Gini coefficient of household income inequality and the income shares received by each one-fifth of households, ranked from lowest to highest income, and received by the top 5 percent of households.

Here is a famous graph based on the Bureau’s “median household income” series.  I have normalized the historical series using the 1999 real median income level (1999 and 2000 were the peak income years according to Census data).  Since 1999 and 2000, median income has fallen about 10 percent.  If we accept this estimate without qualification, it certainly represents bad news for living standards of the nation’s middle class. The conclusion is contradicted by other government income statistics that use a broader, more inclusive income definition, however.

And here is the Bureau’s most widely cited distributional statistic (after its “official poverty rate” estimate).  Since 1979, the Gini coefficient has increased 17 percent under this income definition. (It is worth noting, however, that the portion of the increase that occurred between 1992 and 1993 is mainly the result of methodological changes in the way the Census Bureau ascertained incomes in its 1994 income survey.)

When you hear U.S. inequality compared with that in other rich countries, the numbers are most likely based on calculations of the LIS or OECD.  Their income definition is basically “Cash and Near-cash Public and Private income minus Income and Payroll taxes owed by households.”  Under this income definition, the U.S. looks relatively very unequal and America appears to have an exceptionally high poverty rate.  U.S. inequality has been rising under this income definition, as indeed has also been the case in most other rich countries. The increase in the United States has been above average, however, helping us to retain our leadership position, both in income inequality and in relative poverty.

We turn last to the most expansive income definition:  CBO’s measure of net after-tax income.  I will use CBO’s tabulations using this income definition to shed light on some of the inequality and living standard trends implied by the narrower income definitions discussed above.

Let’s consider some potential limitations of a couple of those definitions.  The limitations do not necessarily make them flawed or uninteresting.  They do mean the narrower income measures cannot tell us some of the things that users claim they tell us.

An obvious shortcoming of the “cash pretax private income” definition is that it excludes virtually everything the government does to equalize Americans’ incomes.  Believe it or not, the Federal tax system is mildly progressive.  It claims a bigger percentage of the (declared) incomes of the rich than it does of middle-income families’ and especially the poor.  Any pretax income measure will miss that redistribution.

More seriously, it excludes all government transfer payments.  You may think the rich get a bigger percentage of their income from government handouts compared with middle class and poorer households.  That is simply wrong.  The rich get a lot less.  And the percentage of total personal income that Americans derive from government transfer payments has gone way up over the years.  In the Roaring 1920s, Americans received almost nothing in the form of government transfers. Less than 1 percent of Americans’ incomes were received as transfer payments.  By 1970—near the low point of inequality according to the Piketty-Saez measure—8.3 percent of Americans’ personal income was derived from government transfers.  Last year, the share was 17 percent. None of the increase in government transfers is reflected in Piketty and Saez’s estimates of the trend in inequality.  Inequality is nowadays lower than it was in the late 1920s, mainly because the government does more redistribution through taxes and transfers.

Both the Piketty-Saez and the Census “money income” statistics are affected by the exclusion of government- and employer-provided health benefits from the income definition. This slide contains numbers, starting in 1960, that show the share of total U.S. personal consumption consisting of personal health care consumption.  I have divided the total into two parts. The first is the share that is paid for out of our own cash incomes (the blue part at the bottom).  This includes our out-of-pocket spending for doctors’ charges, hospital fees, pharmaceutical purchases, and other provider charges as well as our out-of-pocket spending on health insurance premiums. The second is the share of our personal health consumption that is paid out of government subsidies to Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, etc., or out of employer subsidies to employee health plans (the red part). 

As everyone knows, the share of total consumption that consists of health consumption has gone way up.  What few people recognize is that the share that is directly paid by consumers—through payments to doctors, hospitals, and household health insurance premium payments—has remained unchanged.  All of the increase in the health consumption share since 1960 has been financed through government and employer subsidies to health insurance plans. None of those government or employer contributions is counted as “income” under the Piketty-Saez and Census “money income” definitions.  You would have to be quite a cynic to claim the subsidies have brought households no living standard improvements since 1960, yet that is how they are counted under the Piketty-Saez and Census “money income” definitions.

Final slide: How much has inequality gone up under income definitions that count all income sources and subtract the Federal income, payroll, corporation, and excise taxes we pay?  CBO gives us the numbers, though unfortunately its numbers end in 2011.

Here are CBO’s estimates of real income gains between 1979 and 2011.  These numbers show that real net incomes increased in every income category, from the very bottom to the very top.  They also show that real incomes per person have increased much faster at the top—over on the right—than in the middle or at the bottom—over on the left.  Still, contrary to a common complaint that all the income gains in recent years have been received by folks at the top, the CBO numbers suggest net income gains have been nontrivial among the poor and middle class as well as among top income recipients.

Suppose we look at trends in the more recent past, say, between 2000 and 2011.  That lower panel in this slide presents a very different picture from the one implied by the Census Bureau’s “money income” statistics.  Unlike the “money income numbers” [SLIDE #9], these show that inequality has declined since 2000.  Unlike the “money income numbers” [SLIDE #8], these show that incomes of middle-income families have improved since 2000.  There are a variety of explanations for the marked contrast between the Census Bureau and CBO numbers.  But a big one is the differing income definitions the two conclusions are based on.  The more inclusive measure of income shows faster real income gains among middle-income and poorer households, and it suggests a somewhat different trend in inequality.

Ahead of Tuesday’s primary elections in Ohio, Florida and other states, the 2016 presidential candidates have been talking about the future of Social Security and its funding shortfalls.

Over the next two decades, the money flowing into Social Security will be too little to pay for all promised benefits. The reserve fund will be exhausted soon after 2030, and the only money available to pay for benefits will be from taxes earmarked for the program. Unless Congress and the President change the law before the reserve is depleted, monthly benefits will have to be cut about 21%.

Needless to say, office holders, who must face voters, are unlikely to allow such a cut. Before the Trust Fund is depleted, lawmakers will agree to some combination of revenue increase and future benefit reduction, eliminating the need for a sudden 21% pension cut. The question is: what combination of revenue increases and benefit cuts does each candidate favor?

The candidate offering the most straightforward but least credible answer is Donald Trump. During the GOP presidential debate last week, he pledged to do everything within his power to leave Social Security “the way it is.” He says he can do this by making the nation rich again, by eliminating budget deficits, and by ridding government programs of waste, fraud, and abuse. In other words, he proposed to do nothing specifically to improve Social Security’s finances. Should Trump’s deal-making fail to make us rich again, he offered no back-up plan for funding benefits after 2034.

The other three GOP candidates proposed to repair Social Security by cutting future pensions. No one in the debate, except U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio from Florida, mentioned a specific way to accomplish this. Rubio’s plan is to raise the age for full retirement benefits. For many years, the full retirement age was 65. In a reform passed in 1983, the retirement age was gradually raised to 66 for people nearing retirement today and to 67 for people born after 1960. Rubio proposes to raise the retirement age to 68 for people who are now in their mid-40s and to 70 for workers who are his children’s age (all currently under 18 years old).

In his campaign literature, Rubio also proposes slowing the future rate of increase in monthly pensions for high-income seniors. However, by increasing the full retirement age, Rubio’s plan will cut monthly pensions for any worker who claims benefits at 62 years old. This is the earliest age at which workers can claim a reduced pension. Also, it is by far the most common age at which low-income seniors claim benefits. Recent research suggests that low-income workers have not shared the gains in life expectancy enjoyed by middle- and especially high-income workers, so Rubio’s proposed cut could seriously harm many low-income workers.

Though he didn’t advertise it in the debate, Sen. Ted Cruz favors raising the normal retirement age and trimming the annual cost-of-living adjustment in Social Security. In the long run, the latter reform will disproportionately cut the monthly pensions of the longest-living seniors. Many people, including me, think this is a questionable plan, because the oldest retirees are also the most likely to have used up their non-Social-Security savings. Finally, Cruz favors allowing workers to fund personal-account pensions with part of their Social Security contributions. Although the details of his plan are murky, if it is designed like earlier GOP privatization plans, it will have the effect of depriving Social Security of needed future revenues, making the funding gap even bigger than it is today.

The most revolutionary part of Cruz’s plan is his proposal to eliminate the payroll tax. For many decades, this has been the main source of Social Security revenue. Presumably, Cruz plans to fund pensions out of revenue from his proposed 10% flat tax and 16% value-added tax (VAT). This would represent a revolutionary change because up to now, Social Security has been largely financed out of its own dedicated revenue stream. By eliminating the independent funding stream, Cruz will sever the perceived link between workers’ contributions and the benefits they ultimately receive. Most observers agree with Franklin Roosevelt that the strong link between contributions and benefits is a vital source of the enduring popularity of the program. Social Security is an earned benefit for retirees rather than a welfare check.

Gov. John Kasich does not propose to boost the retirement age, but he does suggest slowing the growth in future pensions by linking workers’ initial pensions to price changes instead of wage changes. He hints he will impose a means test in calculating pensions, reducing the monthly pensions payable to retirees who have high current incomes. Many students of Social Security think this a bad idea, because it can discourage workers from saving for retirement.

All of the Republican candidates, except Trump, think Social Security’s salvation lies in lower benefit payouts. Nobody mentions higher contributions as part of the solution. In contrast, both Democratic candidates propose raising payroll or other taxes on workers who have incomes above the maximum earnings now subject to Social Security contributions. This reform enjoys broad support among voters, most of whom do not expect to pay higher taxes if the income limit on contributions is lifted. Sen. Bernie Sanders would immediately spend some of the extra revenue on benefit increases for current beneficiaries, but his proposed tax hike on high-income contributors would raise enough money to postpone the year of Trust Fund depletion by about 40 years. Hillary Clinton is less specific about the tax increases and benefit improvements she favors. Like Sanders, however, she would vigorously oppose benefit cuts.

None of the candidates has given us a detailed plan to eliminate Social Security’s funding imbalance. At this stage, it’s not obvious such a plan would be helpful, since the legislative debate to overhaul Social Security won’t begin anytime soon. Sanders has provided the most details about his policy intentions, but his actual plan is unlikely to receive much Congressional support without a massive political realignment. Cruz’s proposal, which calls for eliminating the Social Security payroll tax, also seems far outside the range of the politically feasible.

What we have learned from the GOP presidential debates so far is that Republican candidates, with the exception of Trump, favor balancing Social Security through future benefit cuts, possibly targeted on higher income workers, while Democratic candidates want to protect current benefit promises and will do so with tax hikes on high-income workers. There is no overlap in the two parties’ proposals, and this accounts for Washington’s failure to close Social Security’s funding gap.

Editor’s note: This piece originally appeared in Fortune.

Can this sector be saved? We often hear sentiments like: "Does America still produce anything?" and "The good jobs in manufacturing have all gone." There is nostalgia for the good old days when there were plentiful well-paid jobs in manufacturing. And there is anger that successive U.S. administrations of both parties have negotiated trade deals, notably NAFTA and the admission of China into the World Trade Organization, that have undercut America's manufacturing base.

Those on the right suggest that if burdensome regulations were lifted, this would fire up a new era of manufacturing prowess. On the left, it is claimed that trade agreements are to blame and, at the very least, we should not sign any more of them. Expanding union power and recruiting are another favorite solution. Despite his position on the right, Donald Trump has joined those on the left blaming China for manufacturing’s problems.

What is the real story and what needs to be done to save this sector? The biggest factor transforming manufacturing has been technology; and technology will largely determine its future.

Disappearing jobs

Employment in the manufacturing sector declined slowly through the 1980s and 1990s, but since 2000, the decline has been much faster falling by over 6 million workers between 2000 and 2010. There were hopes that manufacturing jobs would regain much of their lost ground once the recession ended, but the number of jobs has climbed by less than a million in the recovery so far and employment has been essentially flat since the first quarter of 2015. Manufacturing used to be a road to the middle class for millions of workers with just a high school education, but that road is much narrower today—more like a footpath. In manufacturing’s prime, although not all jobs were good jobs, many were well paid and offered excellent fringe benefits. Now there are many fewer of these.

Sustained but slow output growth

The real output of the manufacturing sector from 2000 to the present gives a somewhat more optimistic view of the sector, with output showing a positive trend growth, with sharp cyclical downturns. There was a peak of manufacturing production in 2000 with the boom in technology goods, most of which were still being produced in the U.S. But despite the technology bust and the shift of much of high-tech manufacturing overseas, real output in the sector in 2007 was still nearly 11 percent higher than its peak in 2000.

Production fell in the Great Recession at a breathtaking pace, dropping by 24 percent starting in Q3 2008. Manufacturing companies were hit by a bomb that wiped out a quarter of their output. Consumers were scared and postponed the purchase of anything they did not need right away. The production of durable goods, like cars and appliances, fell even more than the total. Unlike employment in the sector, output has reclaimed it previous peak and, by the third quarter of 2015, was 3 percent above that peak. The auto industry has recovered particularly strongly. While manufacturing output growth is not breaking any speed records, it is positive.

Understanding the pattern

The explanation for the jobs picture is not simple, but the Cliff Notes version is as follows: manufacturing employment has been declining as a share of total economy-wide employment for 50 years or more—a pattern that holds for all advanced economies, even Germany, a country known for its manufacturing strength. The most important reason for U.S. manufacturing job loss is that the overall economy is not creating jobs the way it once did, especially in the business sector. This conclusion probably comes as a surprise to most Americans who believe that international trade, and trade with China in particular, is the key reason for the loss of jobs. In reality, trade is a factor in manufacturing weakness, but not the most important one.

The most important reason for U.S. manufacturing job loss is that the overall economy is not creating jobs the way it once did, especially in the business sector.

The existence of our large manufacturing trade deficit with Asia means output and employment in the sector are smaller than they would be with balanced trade. Germany, as noted, has seen manufacturing employment declines also, but the size of their manufacturing sector is larger than ours, running huge trade surplus. In addition, right now that there is global economic weakness that has caused a shift of financial capital into the U. S. looking for safety, raising the value of the dollar and thus hurting our exports. In the next few years, it is unlikely that the U.S. trade deficit will improve—and it may well worsen.

Even though it will not spark a jobs revival, manufacturing is still crucial for the future of the U.S. economy, remaining a center for innovation and productivity growth and if the U.S. trade deficit is to be substantially reduced, then manufacturing must become more competitive. The services sector runs a small trade surplus and new technologies are eliminating our energy trade deficit. Nevertheless a substantial expansion of manufactured exports is needed if there is to be overall trade balance.

Disruptive innovation in manufacturing

The manufacturing sector is still very much alive and reports of its demise are not just premature but wrong. If we want to encourage the development of a robust competitive manufacturing sector, industry leaders and policymakers must embrace new technologies. The sector will be revived not by blocking new technologies with restrictive labor practices or over-regulation but by installing them—even if that means putting robots in place instead of workers. To speed the technology revolution, however, help must be provided to those whose jobs are displaced. If they end up as long-term unemployed, or in dead-end or low-wage jobs, then not only do these workers lose out but also the benefits to society of the technology investment and the productivity increase are lost.

The manufacturing sector performs 69 percent of all the business R&D in the U.S. which is powering a revolution that will drive growth not only in manufacturing but also in the broader economy as well. The manufacturing revolution can be described by three key developments:

1. In the internet of things, sensors are embedded in machines, transmitting information that allows them to work together and report impending maintenance problems before there is a breakdown.
2. Advanced manufacturing includes 3-D printing, new materials and the “digital thread” which connects suppliers to the factory and the factory to customers; it breaks down economies of scale allowing new competitors to enter; and it enhances speed and flexibility.
3. Distributed innovation allows crowdsourcing is used to find radical solutions to technical challenges much more quickly and cheaply than with traditional R&D.

In a June 2015 Fortune 500 survey, 72 percent of CEOs reported their biggest challenge is that technology is changing fast, naming it as their number one challenge. That new technology churn is especially acute in manufacturing. The revolution is placing heavy demands on managers who must adapt their businesses to become software companies, big data companies, and even media companies (as they develop a web presence). Value and profit in manufacturing is shifting to digital assets. The gap between current practice and what it takes to be good at these skills is wide for many manufacturers, particularly in their ability to find the talent they need to transform their organizations.

Recent OECD analysis highlighted the large gap between best-practice companies and average companies. Although the gap is smaller in manufacturing than in services because of the heightened level of global competition in manufacturing, it is a sign that manufacturers must learn how to take advantage of new technologies quickly or be driven out of business.

Closing the trade deficit

A glaring weakness of U.S. manufacturing is its international trade performance. Chronic trade deficits have contributed to the sector’s job losses and have required large-scale foreign borrowing that has made us a net debtor to the rest of the world -- to the tune of nearly $7 trillion by the end of 2014. Running up endless foreign debts is a disservice to our children and was one source of the instability that led to the financial crisis. America should try to regain its balance as a global competitor and that means, at the least, reducing the manufacturing trade deficit. Achieving a significant reduction in the trade deficit will be a major task, including new investment and an adjustment of today’s overvalued dollar.

The technology revolution provides an opportunity, making it profitable to manufacture in the U.S. using highly automated methods. Production can be brought home, but it won’t bring back a lot of the lost jobs. Although the revolution in manufacturing is underway and its fate is largely in the hands of the private sector, the policy environment can help speed it up and make sure the broad economy benefits.

First, policymakers must accept that trying to bring back the old days and old jobs is a mistake. Continuing to chase yesterday’s goals isn’t productive, and at this point it only puts off the inevitable. Prioritizing competitiveness, innovativeness, and the U.S. trade position over jobs could be politically difficult, however, so policymakers should look for ways to help workers who lose jobs and communities that are hard hit. Government training programs have a weak track record, but if companies do the training or partner with community colleges, then the outcomes are better. Training vouchers and wage insurance for displaced workers can help them start new careers that will mostly be in the service sector where workers with the right skills can find good jobs, not just dead-end ones.

Second, a vital part of the new manufacturing is the ecosystem around large companies. There were 50,000 fewer manufacturing firms in 2010 than in 2000, with most of the decline among smaller firms. Some of that was inevitable as the sector downsized, but it creates a problem because as large firms transition to the new manufacturing, they rely on small local firms to provide the skills and even the technologies they do not have in-house. The private sector has the biggest stake in developing the ecosystems it needs, but government can and has helped, particularly at the state and local level. Sometimes infrastructure investment is needed, land can be set aside, mentoring programs can be established for young firms, help can be given in finding funding, and simplified and expedited permitting processes instituted.

It is hard to let go of old ways of thinking. Policymakers have been trying for years to restore the number of manufacturing jobs, but that is not an achievable goal. Yes manufacturing matters; it is a powerhouse of innovation for our economy and a vital source of competitiveness. There will still be good jobs in manufacturing but it is no longer a conveyor belt to the middle class. Policymakers need to focus on speeding up the manufacturing revolution, funding basic science and engineering, and ensuring that tech talent and best-practice companies want to locate in the United States.